Trump
heeft vorig jaar meermaals aangedrongen op een militaire invasie van
Venezuela. Veel ophef over dit bericht dat naar buiten werd gebracht
door een hoge ambtenaar. Associated Press (AP) bracht een rapport uit over deze zaak. Onbegrijpelijk dat men hier nog van opkijkt als
je het aantal illegale invasies van de VS ziet sinds 1945…..*
Aan
de andere kant is het goed voor de mensen die de VS nog steeds als de
grote broer zien, de grote broer die ‘optreedt tegen onrecht’ en ‘zich inzet voor de verspreiding van democratie’, immers
zo worden de grootschalige terreuracties van de VS voorgesteld…. Terwijl tijdens het ingrijpen van de VS sinds 1945 tot nu al ruim meer dan
22 miljoen mensen werden vermoord, waar de aangevallen landen voor het overgrote deel in grote chaos achterbleven……..
Wat
betreft Venezuela is het extra wrang, immers de VS voert al jaren een
economische oorlog tegen dat land, waardoor het leven steeds
moeilijker wordt…… ‘Lullig’ voor de VS, maar de
mensen die het hardst worden getroffen door de economische oorlog van de VS, de
grote onderlaag, stemden ook bij de laatste verkiezingen dit jaar massaal
op Maduro!
Wat betreft de sancties: het economische oorlog voeren tegen een land dat niet
blindelings de orders van de VS volgt, moet tot een opstand leiden, een opstand die moet uitmonden in een staatsgreep, dit is een
lang beproefd wapen van de VS, echter niet altijd met het beoogde
succes >> een coup…… Zo mislukte dit in Syrië, vandaar ook dat de VS
bases inricht in Syrië, daar dit land van groot strategisch belang is
voor de VS oliemaffia en terreurstaat Israël…….
De uiterst agressieve NAVO terreurorganisatie heeft intussen een militaire basis in Colombia, in de buurt van de Venezolaanse grens en dat mede op kosten van de belastingbetaler, ook die in Nederland……. Dan durft het geteisem van het kabinet Rutte 3 en een groot deel van de Kamer, keer op keer te zeuren over de te lage inspanningen van Nederland op het gebied van Defensie uh Oorlogsvoering……… (waar men godbetert de peperdure militaire missies in landen waar Nederland niets te zoeken heeft, voor een groot deel betaalt uit andere dan het oorlogsbudget of zoals men dat eufemistisch noemt: het ‘defensiebudget’)
Nu
is de VS naast Venezuela ook bezig met een economische oorlog tegen
Iran…… Vergeet niet dat door de VS sancties tegen Irak, ‘maar liefst’ 500.000 kinderen om het leven zijn gekomen, ofwel vermoord door de VS…… Over deze massamoord door de VS durfde Madelein Albright, destijds VS minister van BuZa en oorlogsmisdadiger, te zeggen dat het offer, dus de dood van een half miljoen kinderen, het doel waard was……. Dat Albright t.z.t. een uiterst langdurige en pijnlijke doodstrijd mag ondergaan (en dan terugdenkt aan de dood van al die kinderen), wat een fascistisch, psychopathisch tyfuswijf!
De hoogste tijd dat een
economische oorlog wordt gezien als een ontoelaatbare inmenging in de
binnenlandse aangelegenheden van een soeverein land en als een volwaardige oorlogsmisdaad!!
Trump
Pushed for US Military Invasion of Venezuela: Report
(CD) — Surrounded
by his top military aides in a White House meeting less than a year
ago, the Associated
Press on
Wednesday reports that
President Donald Trump wanted to know why the U.S. military couldn’t
“just simply invade” the country of Venezuela.
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro speaks to the media following a meeting with UN chief Ban Ki-moon at the United Nations (UN) headquarters in New York on July 28, 2015 in New York City. Maduro is in New York to speak with the UN about his country’s escalating border dispute with Guyana. (Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
Based
on the account of “a senior administration official familiar with
what was said,” AP reports
that the president’s comments “stunned” those at the meeting,
including U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and national security
adviser H.R. McMaster, both of whom have now left the administration.
From AP:
In
an exchange that lasted around five minutes, McMaster and others took
turns explaining to Trump how military action could backfire and risk
losing hard-won support among Latin American governments to punish
President Nicolas Maduro for taking Venezuela down the path of
dictatorship, according to the official. The official spoke on the
condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the
discussions.
But
Trump pushed back. Although he gave no indication he was about to
order up military plans, he pointed to what he considered past cases
of successful gunboat diplomacy in the region, according to the
official, like the invasions of Panama and Grenada in the 1980s.
While
some of those around him continued attempts to ignore or dissuade the
president, reportedly Trump could not let the idea go and AP cites
“two high-ranking Colombian officials” who confirmed that he
brought the idea of a military overthrow up with Colombian President
Juan Manuel Santos during a closed-door meeting in August of 2017.
While
some of those around him continued attempts to ignore or dissuade the
president, reportedly Trump could not let the idea go and AP cites
“two high-ranking Colombian officials” who confirmed that he
brought the idea of a military overthrow up with Colombian President
Juan Manuel Santos during a closed-door meeting in August of 2017.
A
month later, during a dinner with other Latin American leaders on the
sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly meeting in New York, the
reporting says that Trump—despite warnings not to do so—once more
brought up the subject.
“The
U.S. official said Trump was specifically briefed not to raise the
issue and told it wouldn’t play well,” AP reports, “but the
first thing the president said at the dinner was, ‘My staff told me
not to say this.’ Trump then went around asking each leader if they
were sure they didn’t want a military solution, according to the
official, who added that each leader told Trump in clear terms they
were sure. Eventually, McMaster would pull aside the president
and walk him through the dangers of an invasion, the official said.”
Caitlin
Johnstone heeft op Steemit een artikel gepubliceerd over de anti-Iran
hysterie in de VS, met speciale aandacht voor het feit dat MEK, een
Iraanse terreurgroep, die bejubeld wordt door de Trump-administratie, van de terreurlijst werd gehaald door niemand minder dan Hillary
‘killary’ Clinton!
Johnstone
wordt nogal aangevallen door Trump aanhang over haar Iran publicaties
en kritiek op de Trump administratie, vandaar deze publicatie waarin
ze stelt dat het Trump-‘beleid’ t.a.v. Iran levensgevaarlijk is…..
Johnstone noemt o.a. de sancties van de VS tegen Iran n.a.v. de op geen
legitieme basis gebaseerde terugtrekking van de VS uit de Iran-deal*,
waar deze sancties het volk zullen uithongeren en hen zo tot een opstand
‘dwingen…..’ Waar de CIA ook nog eens met geheime acties bezig is
in Iran…… (eenzelfde scenario voltrekt zich in Venezuela, waar de NAVO intussen een Colombiaanse basis heeft in de buurt van het grensgebied met Venezuela…..)
Caitlin
Johnstone stelt dat het onverantwoord is te denken dat de VS tegelijk
opzettelijk chaos kan veroorzaken in Iran en daarbij zoveel controle
kan uitoefenen dat zaken niet uit de hand lopen, waar het aanneemt dat het Iraanse volk
de controle zal houden over de situatie (in Iran)…….
Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) of Iraanse Volksmoedjahedien: werd in 2012 door Clinton van de lijst met terreurgroepen
gehaald, terwijl deze bloeddorstige organisatie naast een aantal VS
burgers, duizenden Koerden en Iraniërs heeft vermoord……… Deze
MEK wordt zoals gezegd nu bejubeld door de Trump-administratie en
Trump aanhangers……
Voorts
schrijft Johnstone over het ‘fenomeen’ QAnon, een psychologische
operatie waarmee men de populistische achterban van Trump in het kamp
van ‘regime change’ voor Iran wil leiden…… Kritiek wordt
afgedaan als Qanon zou juist mensen stimuleren uit te zoeken hoe de Deep State werkt en dus tegenovergesteld zijn aan belangen van de
Trump administratie….. Echter de praktijk laat zien wat Jonhnstone
heeft geconstateerd…..
Zie
hoe een volgend smerig en gewelddadig spel van de VS tot een opstand in Iran moet leiden, een opstand die moet resulteren in een staatsgreep, ongeacht de kosten in menselijke levens….. Vergeet niet dat
eerdere sancties van de VS tegen Irak hebben geleid tot de dood van
500.000 kinderen in dat land……
De
zo door de ‘onafhankelijke’ westerse reguliere pers en politici
gelauwerde oorlogsmisdadiger Madeleine Albright, verantwoordelijk voor die sancties
tegen Irak, die de dood van zoveel kinderen veroorzaakte, durfde een
paar jaar geleden keihard te zeggen dat de tol onder Iraakse kinderen
het doel waard zijn geweest….. Waar de illegale oorlog van de VS
tegen Irak in 2003 intussen al tot de moord op meer dan 1,5 miljoen
Irakezen heeft geleid….. Kortom de VS zal nog jarenlang de
twijfelachtige eer behouden, de grootste terreurentiteit op onze
kleine aarde te zijn……
That
Time Hillary Clinton Removed John Bolton’s Favorite Terror Cult
From The Terrorist List
I
point this out because I’ve been butting heads with the pro-Trump
faction of my readership quite a bit lately about this
administration’s dangerous escalations against Iran, including
starvation sanctions explicitly
geared toward provoking unrest following
America’s withdrawal from the Iran deal, as well as escalated
CIA covert ops.
There is no legitimate reason to believe that this administration can
simultaneously (A) deliberately stir up chaos in Iran while also (B)
maintaining so much control of the situation that it can keep things
from getting out of hand, while also (C) making sure control of the
situation remains in the hands of the Iranian people, as many
faithful Trump supporters have confidently assured me. These are
nonsensical, intrinsically contradictory beliefs, and I figure my
best shot at getting people’s skepticism up to a sane level is to
throw a monkey wrench in their partisan loyalties by pointing out
that Hillary Clinton helped advance the same agendas.
So
here it is. In 2012, despite its having actually killed
Americans in
acts of terrorism along with thousands of Kurds and Iranians, the
bloodthirsty Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK) were removed from the list of
terrorist groups by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton following
the recommendation of
stalwart deep state lackeys like ex-CIA directors James Woolsey and
Porter J Goss, former FBI director Louis J Freeh, former Democratic
presidential candidate Howard Dean, Obama National Security Advisor
James L Jones, and George W Bush’s homeland security secretary Tom
Ridge, as well as current Trump administration employees John Bolton
and Rudolph Giuliani.
Whenever
I say that the pro-Trump, pro-regime
change 8chan phenomenon known
as QAnon is an establishment psyop designed to herd the populist
right into supporting neoconservative establishment agendas, Q
enthusiasts always come at me telling me it’s a purely beneficial and
healthy thing.
“How
can Q be bad, Caitlin?” they ask. “All he does is ask
questions and encourage us to
do
our own research to expose the deep state for ourselves!”
Well,
normally doing your own research and asking questions is a good
thing, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with digging up
information about the corrupt financial ties of Democrats and
Never-Trumpers. But that’s all the anonymous 8chan user ever directs
followers to look into: Trump’s political enemies and targets. If
they were legitimately interested in exposing the mechanics of the
unelected power alliance known as the deep state, it would be an
entirely bipartisan ordeal since the deep state controls both
parties. And the Trump administration’s ties to the MEK are just the
sort of rabbit hole Q enthusiasts would be exploring.
But
they don’t. The only rabbit holes they ever explore are ones which
strengthen their conviction that all of Trump’s warmongering and his
coziness with deep state swamp monsters like John Bolton are actually
brilliant strategic maneuvering against the deep state. I’ve been
sincerely informed many times by Trusting Q enthusiasts that Julian
Assange is no longer at the Ecuadorian embassy, that Trump’s illegal
Syria strikes actually took out a secret Iranian nuclear facility,
that the deep state controls Iran currently, and that it used to
control North Korea and Saudi Arabia as well until Trump liberated
them.
Meanwhile,
in the real world, Trump is advancing longstanding deep state agendas
using longstanding deep state tactics. If I still have any readers
left who are QAnon enthusiasts, I challenge you to put the MEK in
your research crosshairs for a while and see what you find.
One
year ago, the actual,
literal psychopath who
would soon be named Trump’s National Security Advisor appeared
at an MEK rally and
declared that the cult was a “a viable opposition to the rule of
the ayatollahs.”
“I
had said for over 10 years since coming to these events, that the
declared policy of the United States of America should be the
overthrow of the mullahs’ regime in Tehran,” Bolton
proclaimed.
“The behavior and the objectives of the regime are not going to
change, and therefore the only solution is to change the regime
itself. And that’s why, before 2019, we here will celebrate in
Tehran!”
“The
mullahs must go, the ayatollah must go, and they must be replaced by
a democratic government which Madam Rajavi represents,” Giuliani
said in reference to MEK cult leader Maryam
Rajavi,
adding, “Freedom is right around the corner … Next year I want
to have this convention in Tehran!”
On
the latest protests in Iran, his comments got even creepier:
“Those
protests are not happening spontaneously,” Giuliani said. “They
are happening because of many of our people in Albania and many of
our people here and throughout out the world.”
Again,
the lawyer for the President of the United States was addressing the
MEK terror cult when he said this, and that terror cult has
a training compound in Albania.
If it had come out in a WikiLeaks document that this sort of thing
had been said by an Obama lawyer to an audience of Al Nusra fighters
in Syria, Trump supporters would have shaken the earth about it. But
it was said out in the open by the lawyer for the current sitting
president, and is going mostly ignored for purely partisan reasons.
In
a 12-minute presentation titled “Meet the MEK: Washington’s
Favorite Terror Cult”, the phenomenally lucid conspiracy analyst
James Corbett said
the following:
“Since
the US occupation of Iraq in 2003, the strategic value of an Iranian
group willing and capable of performing attacks and destabilization
efforts has been seen as strategically important to the West, which
has been desperate to curb Iran’s quest for Middle Eastern
predominance in the post-Saddam power vacuum.”
That
about sums it up right there.
As
I’ve been saying
all year,
Plan A for the US-centralized empire is not to do to Iran what was
done to Iraq; Plan A is to do to Iran what was done to Libya and
Syria. It’s important to be clear on this so we know what to watch
for. The modern approach to destroying a noncompliant government is
to use sanctions, propaganda, covert ops and alliances with extremist
factions to plunge the disobedient nation into chaos, all of which
this administration is currently doing. This is far more efficient
and media-friendly than a full-scale ground invasion and the regular
deliveries of flag-draped coffins which necessarily come with it. The
antiwar movement needs to adapt skillfully to opposing a form of
warfare which relies more on drones and CIA ops than the traditional
forms of conventional warfare, because they are just as deadly and
devastating, as a swift glance at Libya and Syria makes evident.
You’d
think for all their perfectly justified hatred of Obama’s
warmongering, the populist right would do a better job of spotting
those exact same patterns re-emerging in the current administration,
especially when some of those patterns involve a group Hillary
Clinton herself took off the US terrorist list.
What’s
up with that, my MAGA** brothers and sisters? You guys love Hillary all
of a sudden? Is she “based” now?
Let’s
get real. The two-headed one-party system has found yet another way
to undermine humanity, and Trump is just as much a part of it as his
predecessors. Look at the whole truth, so you can fight the whole
machine. Half-truths are the same as lies.
Internet
censorship is getting pretty bad, so best way to keep seeing the
stuff I publish is to get on the mailing list for my website,
so you’ll get an email notification for everything I publish. My
articles and podcasts are entirely reader and listener-funded, so if
you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me
on Facebook,
following my antics on Twitter,
checking out mypodcast,
throwing some money into my hat onPatreonorPaypal, or
buying my book Woke:
A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.
Mijn excuus voor de verminkte Twittterberichten, krijg het niet op orde, zie het origineel.
* Waar westerse bedrijven uit de EU niet anders kunnen dan gehoorzamen
aan de VS dictaten, daar zij anders vervolgd zullen worden door de VS
en het zakendoen in een flink aantal landen buiten de VS wel kunnen
vergeten….. De EU keft nog aan de zijlijn, echter aan de macht van
de VS kan en wil het niets doen……..
Caitlin Johnstone vertelt in het hieronder opgenomen artikel over de beschuldigingen van de democraten aan haar adres vanwege haar berichtgeving over Rusland en Syrië, waar ze wordt beschuldigd propaganda te maken voor Putin en Assad, om enige tijd later door pro-Trump aanhangers te worden beschuldigd voor het maken van propaganda voor het bewind in Iran, daar ze commentaar heeft op de regime veranderingsretoriek gebezigd door de Trump administratie…….
Terwijl Johnstone juist de Iraanse e Russische anti-propaganda, die wordt gebezigd door democraten en pro-Trump aanhangers, feilloos weet door te prikken met feiten…… Johnstone stelt dan ook dat ze altijd propaganda zal maken voor het land waarop de VS oorlogsmachine haar vizier heeft gericht. Een oorlogsmachine die keer op keer het publiek weet te bespelen met rechtvaardiging voor VS ingrijpen, terwijl de geheime diensten (‘inlichtingendiensten’), die de massamedia en politiek bespelen, keer op keer liegen over de reden voor ingrijpen, zie de illegale oorlogen van de VS tegen Afghanistan, Irak, Libië en Syrië*
De huidige protesten in Iran worden door het westen geduid als ontevredenheid van Iraniërs over de Iraanse bemoeienis met de oorlog in Syrië, Jemen en met de raketleveringen aan Hezbollah en Hamas in respectievelijk Libanon en de Gazastrook……. In Jemen wordt NB een genocide uitgevoerd op het sjiitische deel van het volk, dit met hulp en onder regie van de VS!! De enige assistentie van Iran ‘voor de Houthi rebellen’ (lees: voor het Jemenitische volk) bestaat uit humanitaire hulp, voor de beschuldigingen van wapenleveringen of training van troepen door Iran is geen schijn van bewijs……
Wat betreft de raketten van Hamas: dit zijn veredelde vuurpijlen die op goed geluk worden afgeschoten, terwijl Iran raketten in de ruimte kan brengen en daar ook satellieten heeft draaien, ofwel met echte raketten uit Iran, zou de schade in Israël aanzienlijk zijn…..
Wat je niet wordt verteld is het feit dat de CIA al langere tijd bezig is om de ‘boel op te schudden’ in Iran, iets wat de VS ook deed in Libië, Syrië en Oekraïne…… Terwijl het weer ingang zetten van de VS sancties tegen Iran niet anders gezien kan worden dan (illegale) economische oorlogsvoering, waardoor de Iraanse munt devalueerde en het leven behoorlijk duurder is geworden >> middels deze vorm van oorlogsvoering bespeelt de VS de bevolking van landen als Venezuela en Iran…..**
Daarnaast heeft de Trump administratie toegegeven dat het bezig is met het bespelen van de oppositie in Iran, ofwel er werden en worden kapitalen aan VS belastinggeld geïnvesteerd in het organiseren van opstanden in Iran, zowel in het verleden (neem de demonstraties in Iran van afgelopen januari) als het heden……………
Lees het artikel van Caitlin en geeft het door, de leugens over Iran zijn ook hier niet van de lucht. En dat heeft niets te maken met hoe je denkt over het Iraanse bewind, het zegt echter alles over het handelen van de VS dat bepaald niet is gericht op het brengen van democratie en vrede, maar over het veiligstellen van VS belangen (en die van de fascistische apartheidsstaat Israël), of het nu om olie, gas of andere grondstoffen gaat, dan wel om de strategische ligging van een land…..
Dit ‘veiligstellen’ van VS belangen gaat altijd gepaard met het grotendeels vernietigen van een land, waarna de opbouw voor een fiks deel wordt toebedeeld aan bedrijven uit de VS, zie Afghanistan, Irak, Libië en Syrië….. Nee Azijnpisser in Libië is amper of geen sprake van wederopbouw, daar de VS en NAVO in samenwerking met terreurgroepen dit land voor een groot deel naar god hebben geholpen…… Libië, een land waar nu het recht van de sterkste terreurgroep tot wet is verheven…….. (na ingrijpen van de VS en de NAVO is Libië in chaos gedompeld en is het land verworden van het rijkste in Afrika tot bijna het armste op dat continent…)
Why You Should Be Skeptical of Everything You Hear About the Iran Protests
(CJ Opinion) — Every few weeks I switch from being accused by pro-establishment Democrats of writing propaganda for Putin and Assad to being accused by pro-Trump Republicans of writing propaganda for the Iranian government, all because I am opposed to US-led regime change intervention in both Syria or Iran. Whichever country the US war machine is roaring loudest at on a given day, that’s the country I’m writing propaganda for, because somehow the social engineers have succeeded in turning regime change interventionism in Iran vs. regime change interventionism in Syria into a partisan wedge issue.
Couldn’t possibly just be that I know the US intelligence community lies constantly about such things.
To reporters everywhere: Please pay attention to what is happening in Iran now. I know foreign bureaus are almost non-existent these days, but keep a close eye on this story – and report it.
Today there are reports being triumphantly bandied about by neoconservative pundits everywhere (often hilariously using pictures of the MEK terror cult) that some Iranian protesters have been recorded chanting “Death to Palestine” and “Death to the dictator” and carrying signs which admonish the Iranian government to pull its troops out of Syria. All of which just so happen to play nicely into the pro-regime change narratives of America’s defense and intelligence agencies.
“To reporters everywhere: Please pay attention to what is happening in Iran now,” said the Bush administration’s Press Secretary Ari Fleischer in a viral tweet about the new reports. “I know foreign bureaus are almost non-existent these days, but keep a close eye on this story — and report it.”
So naturally I am being accused by Trump supporters on social media of being a paid propagandist for the leaders of the Iranian government. This is primarily because I’ve been using my platform to circulate an article I wrote way back in January, which begins as follows:
Back in June the Wall Street Journal published a report saying that America’s Central Intelligence Agency had set up a new organization whose sole task would be to focus on Iran under the direction of “Ayatollah Mike” D’andrea, an aggressive Iran hawk.
“The Iran Mission Center will bring together analysts, operations personnel and specialists from across the CIA to bring to bear the range of the agency’s capabilities, including covert action,” says the report.
This alone is reason enough to be intensely skeptical of every single thing you hear about Iran. The CIA has been a consistent utilizer and developer of the science of psyops — psychological operations in which large groups of people are deceived and manipulated into thinking and feeling a certain way to advance a preferred agenda during war and during peacetime. Relatedly, the CIA also has an extensive and well-documented history of staging regime change coups to topple rival governments all around the world, including Iran. These are not conspiracy theories. These are conspiracy facts.
It has now been a year since that Wall Street Journal report. Since that time, the Iran deal has been cancelled, sanctions have been implemented, and an effective regime change policy has been put into place. And now, lo and behold, there are Iranians being recorded chanting slogans that according to a New York Post headline “prove Trump is getting it right”.
There is no doubt that approval of the Iranian government is far from unanimous among Iranians. There is no doubt that there is an authentic element of legitimate discontent to the current protests. There is also no doubt that the exact same thing could have been said about Libya and Syria, two countries which have been devastated by uprisings artificially provoked by psyops and manipulations from the US intelligence community.
Is it technically possible that these protests in Iran are completely, one hundred percent organic and not in any way the product of manipulations by America’s Central Intelligence Agency or any of its allied agencies? Sure. It’s technically possible the whole thing is exactly what neoconservative pundits like George W Bush’s press secretary want us to believe it is, and since ramping up covert operations in Iran the CIA has just been sitting there twiddling its thumbs the entire time wondering what all the fuss is about. But it’s not bloody likely, is it?
Of all the groups in the world who deserve the benefit of the doubt, the depraved, lying, torturing, propagandizing, drug trafficking, coup-staging, warmongering CIA ranks dead last, especially when it comes to issues of regime change. There is no reason whatsoever for any thinking person to assume the best of that malignant agency, nor that what we’re being told to believe about Iran is true.
Democrats: Regime change intervention in Syria, now!
Republicans: No! Regime change intervention in Iran!
Chomsky: The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.
It’s so goddamn stupid that regime change interventionism in Iran has become a partisan issue. The fact that establishment liberals are arguing for interventionism in Syria and blind faith Trump loyalists are arguing for interventionism in Iran is the most perfect illustration you could ask for of what Noam Chomsky was talking about when he said that “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”
It’s so degrading. Like the oligarchs who run the whole bipartisan scam were sitting around one day and decided to have the riff raff fight each other over which country the war machine will steamroll next.
We’re better than this. I don’t care who you are, you’re better than this. When pundits and politicians on either side of the aisle begin explaining to you why it’s good and desirable for the government of a rival nation to be overthrown, they are lying. Always. This isn’t the one time they’re telling you the truth after all those other times. Lucy’s never gonna let you kick that damn football, Charlie Brown.
It is the US intelligence community’s job to lie to you. I will say it again: it is the US intelligence community’s job to lie to you. The Trump supporters I’ve been arguing with about this on social media are swept up in the propaganda, apparently believing that every single person in Iran wants to overthrow their government, which is the only way a people’s uprising could possibly be peaceful. They don’t seem to think the government has any loyalists. They don’t seem to understand what happens in a country when one part of the population wants to force the overthrow their government and the rest of the population wants the government to stay, especially after the CIA gets involved. They don’t seem to understand the CIA’s extensive history of funneling arms to groups of mutual interest, who then go on to tear apart countries like Libya and Syria. It’s just “Yay CIA! Yay neocons! Free Iran!”
This should not be a partisan issue. We are all being lied to to advance a policy which will inflict an immense amount of death, destruction, destabilization, displacement, terror, rape and slavery upon a massive region, just like always happens with these interventions. This is not different. They are lying. Turn around. Go back. Wrong way.
* Waar ook Oekraïne genoemd zou moeten worden, daar de VS ook daar een opstand organiseerde, die uitmondde in een staatsgreep, waarna de VS een pro-westerse [neonazi-] junta installeerde, een junta die daarop een oorlog begon tegen Oekraïners in het Oosten van het land, een oorlog waarvoor de VS o.a. wapens levert en ‘militair advies’ geeft…..
** Ontevredenheid creëren om zo protesten in Iran te stimuleren, protesten die moeten uitmonden in een opstand en uiteindelijk in de omverwerping van het Iraanse regime…. Waar men geen rekening mee houdt is dat hierdoor de conservatieve krachten de macht zullen overnemen van de veranderingsgezinde regering, een regering die juist zou moeten worden gesteund door het westen……… Waar ik nog moet opmerken, dat men in het Pentagon en bij de CIA dondersgoed begrijpt dat dit de reactie zal zijn, maar ja, men heeft zoals gezegd geen belang bij vrede >> dat is niet goed voor de enorme winsten van het militair-industrieel complex……..
Eric
Zuesse, de schrijver van het hieronder opgenomen artikel dat verscheen op de Strategic Culture Foundation, begint ermee
de beschuldiging van Trump aan te halen, waarin deze duivel de Duitse politieke leiders en die van andere EU
landen, de schuld voor de vluchtelingencrisis in ‘Europa’ in de
schoenen schuift…..
In
werkelijkheid is het, zoals op deze plek al zo vaak gesteld, juist de
schuld van de VS (met de NAVO aan de hand) dat illegale oorlogen
begint in landen die voor haar ofwel strategisch liggen dan wel
landen zijn die over grote voorraden olie en gas of andere belangrijke grondstoffen beschikken…….
Zuesse
toont ten overvloede in zijn redelijk uitgebreide artikel aan dat
inderdaad de VS verantwoordelijk is voor de ‘vluchtelingencrisis’ in de EU landen…. (eigenlijk nog veel erger: voor de enorme
ellende en het gigantisch aantal doden in landen die het slachtoffer
zijn van de grootscheepse VS terreur >> alleen deze eeuw al ruim meer dan 2 miljoen moorden…)
Daarnaast
spreekt men in de EU van een vluchtelingencrisis, terwijl de landen
waar de VS haar illegale oorlogen voert en de landen daaromheen echt
te maken hebben met een vluchtelingencrisis, daar 90% van de
vluchtelingen in eigen land dan wel in de regio hun toevlucht
zoeken!!
Zuesse
stelt dat Obama m.n. verantwoordelijk is voor de vluchtelingencrisis,
echter in de EU hadden we al een grote toeloop van vluchtelingen
nadat de VS Afghanistan en Irak aanviel, beide in feite illegale
oorlogen, maar voor die oorlogen was toch echt de Bush administratie
verantwoordelijk…
Ach
zal komen doordat Zuesse nu eenmaal in de VS woont en er in de VS na
het begin van de illegale oorlogen tegen Afghanistan en Irak weinig
of geen aandacht was voor de vluchtelingstromen die deze oorlogen
opgang brachten. Al moet gezegd dat vergeleken met de huidige
hysterie over vluchtelingen, er na aanvang van de
vluchtelingenstromen uit Afghanistan en Irak er amper sprake was van
veel ophef. Alleen fascistische griezels als Wilders hadden destijds
een grote bek over ‘het enorme aantal vluchtelingen’, waar deze
figuren zo min mogelijk over de oorzaak van het vluchten wilden
weten en daar al helemaal niet over naar buiten zijn getreden
(tijdens het haatzaaien tegen en angstzaaien voor vluchtelingen,
gedurende de voorlichting aan uh oplichting van
volgelingen)…… Waar de destijds politieke tegenstanders van Wilders intussen veel van de haat- en angstzaaierij die Wilders bracht, intussen hebben overgenomen, neem het CDA en de VVD….
Zuesse stelt voorts dat Obama in 2011 besloot dat er regeringswisselingen moesten plaatsvinden in Oekraïne, Libië en Syrië, echter om een voorbeeld te nemen: al in 2006 werden de eerste plannen gemaakt om in de Syrische politiek in te grijpen, middels een opstand die moest resulteren in een staatsgreep…. Zoals we nu weten is die operatie gelukt, waar deze in Syrië mislukte. Hetzelfde scenario werd in Libië ‘met succes’ uitgevoerd, zodat dit land: -in puin ligt en -van het rijkste Afrikaanse land is verworden tot bijna het armste van dat continent, een land dat volkomen in chaos is gestort en waar zelfs openlijke slavenmarkten worden gehouden……
How
the US, Under Obama, Created Europe’s Refugee Crisis
The
current US President, Donald Trump, claimed
on June 18th,
that Germany’s leadership, and the leadership in other EU nations,
caused the refugee-crisis that Europe is facing:
“The
people of Germany are turning against their leadership as migration
is rocking the already tenuous Berlin coalition. Crime in Germany is
way up. Big mistake made all over Europe in allowing millions of
people in who have so strongly and violently changed their culture!”
The
US Government is clearly lying about this. The US Government itself
caused this crisis that Europeans are struggling to deal with. Would
the crisis even exist, at all, if the US had not invaded and tried to
overthrow (and in some instances actually overthrown) the governments
in Libya, Syria, and elsewhere — the places from which these
refugees are escaping? The US Government, and a few of its allies in
Europe (the ones who actually therefore really do share in
some of the authentic blame for this crisis) caused this war and
government-overthrow, etc., but Germany’s Government wasn’t among
them, nor were many of the others in Europe. If the US Government had
not led these invasions, probably not even France would have
participated in any of them. The US Government, alone, is responsible
for having caused these refugees. The US Government itself created
this enormous burden to Europe, and yet refuses to accept these
refugees that it itself had produced, by its having invaded and
bombed to overthrow (among others) Libya’s Government, and then
Syria’s Government, and by its
aiding Al Qaeda in organizing and leading and arming, jihadists from
all over the world to come to Syria to overthrow Syria’s Government
and to replace it with one that would be selected by the US regime’s
key Middle Eastern ally, the Saud family, who own Saudi Arabia,
including its Government, and who are determined to take over Syria.
Trump blames Angela Merkel for — in essence — having been an ally
of the US regime, a regime of aggression which goes back decades, and
which Trump himself now is leading, instead
of his ending, and of his restoring democracy to the United States,
and, finally, thus, his restoring freedom (from America), and peace,
to other nations, in Europe, and elsewhere (such as in Syria, Yemen,
etc.). He blames Merkel, not himself and his predecessor — not the
people who actually caused these refugees.
Hypocrisy
purer than that which Trump there expressed, cannot be imagined, and
this hypocrisy comes from Trump now, no
longer from
Obama, who, in fact, caused the problem.
“EU
has the most inhabited immigrant population; it has up to a
population of 56 million foreign-born people. And due to the
perennial war and chaos in the Middle East, the amount of relocated
population in the region, especially the number of refugees, ranks
the No.1 all over the world. … There are a large number of refugees
and asylum seekers heading to EU countries; it can be divided into
four stages. Since the Arab Spring, especially after the outbreak of
the civil war in Syria in 2011, and the rise of the “Islamic State”
in 2013, the whole EU area have experienced the biggest wave of
refugees since World War II.”
All
of these invasions have been, and are, invasions of countries where
the US regime demands regime-change.
Back
at the start of the promised post-Cold-War period, in 1990, the US
regime, under its then-President, George Herbert Walker
Bush, privately
and repeatedly agreed with
the USSR regime, under its then-President Mikhail Gorbachev, to end
the Cold War — agreed
that NATO would not expand “one inch to the east” —
that there would be no expansion of the US military alliance against
the USSR (soon to become against Russia alone). The US regime’s
promise was that NATO would not take in and add to NATO’s
membership, any of the countries that then were either in the USS.R’s
military alliance the Warsaw
Pact (Albania,
Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and Romania) or
in USSRitself other
than Russia (Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Byelorussia, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia,
Latvia, Lithuania, Moldavia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and
Uzbekistan), except for the eastern part of Germany. The US regime
simply lied. But the Russian Government followed through on all of
its commitments. Russia was now trapped, by Gorbachev’s having
trusted liars, whose actual goal turned out to be world-conquest
— not peace.
Currently,
the membership
of NATO includes
all of the former Warsaw Pact nations, and now the US regime aims to
bring in also to “NATO
membership: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia¹ and Ukraine.” Georgia
and Ukraine are the first parts of the former USSR republics — not
merely parts of the Warsaw Pact but parts now of the USSR itself —
to join the anti-Russian military alliance, if either of them gets
allowed in. The very possibility of this happening, goes beyond
anything that the naive, trusting, Mikhail Gorbachev, would ever have
imagined. He hadn’t the slightest idea of how evil was (and still
is) America’s Deep State (that which controls
America).
But now we all know. History is clear and unambiguous on the matter.
Ukraine
has the longest of all European borders with Russia and so has been
America’s top target to seize. But before seizing it, the US had
tried in 2008 to turn Georgia against Russia, and the Georgian
Mikheil Saakashvili was a key US agent in that effort. Saakashvili
subsequently became involved in the violent coup that overthrew
Ukraine’s Government in February 2014. Saakashvili organized the
Georgian contingent of the snipers that were sent to Ukraine to shoot
into the crowds on the Maidan Square and kill both police and
demonstrators there, in such a way so that the bullets would seem to
have come from the police (Berkut) and/or other forces of Ukraine’s
democratically elected Government. (Click on this
link to
see two of the Georgian snipers casually describing their
participation in the coup, and referring tangentially to former
Georgian President Saakashvili’s role in it. Here
is a more comprehensive video compilation describing
and showing the coup itself. As I
have pointed out,
the testimony of these two Georgian snipers is entirely consistent
with what the investigation by the EU’s Foreign Ministry had found
out on 26 February 2014 about the snipers, that “they
were the same snipers, killing people from both sides” and that
these snipers were “from the new coalition government” instead
of from the government that was being overthrown — that it was a
coup, no ‘revolution’ such as Obama’s people claimed, and
Trump’s people now assert.) The US regime has agents in all regions
of the former Russia-affiliated bloc — not only in
Western Europe.
Europe
has refugees from the Ukrainian operation too, not only (though
mainly) from the Middle Eastern ones.
Europe’s
enemy isn’t Russia’s aristocracy, but America’s aristocracy.
It’s the billionaires who control America’s international
corporations — not the billionaires who control Russia’s
international corporations — it is specifically America’s
billionaires; it is the
people who control the US Government;
these, and no Russians at all, are the actual decision-makers, who
are behind bringing down Europe. In order for Europe to win,
Europeans must know whom their real enemies are. The root of the
problem is in the US, Europe’s now fake ‘ally’.
Today’s America isn’t the America of the Marshall Plan. The US
Government has since been taken over by gangsters. And they want to
take over the world. Europe’s refugee-crisis is simply one of the
consequences.
In
fact, Obama
had started, by no later than 2011, to plan these regime-change
operations, in Libya, Syria, and Ukraine.
But, in any case, none of the regime-change operations that caused
the current unprecedented flood of refugees into Europe started
because of what Europe’s leaders did (other than their cooperating
with the US regime). Today’s American Government is Europe’s
enemy, no friend at all, to the peoples of Europe. Trump’s blaming
this crisis on Europe’s leaders isn’t just a lie; it is a
slanderous one.
And
this fact is separate from Trump’s similar slanderous lie against
the refugees themselves. On May 8th, Germany’s Die
Welt newspaper
had headlined “Number
of crimes falls to lowest level since 1992” and
reported that Germany’s Interior Minister, Horst Seehofer,
announced the 2017 national crime statistics, and he said, “Germany
has become safer,” the safest in the last 30 years. Seehofer
happens to be a member of Chancellor Merkel’s Administration who is
angling to replace her as Chancellor by appealing to the strong
anti-immigrant portion of their own conservative party, but even he
had to admit, essentially, that the anti-immigrant slur that Trump
subsequently made on June 18th is a bald lie; it’s even the
exact opposite of the truth. Trump’s tweeted comment then was a
lying slander not only against Merkel and other European leaders, but
also against the refugees that the US regime itself had produced. How
depraved is that? How depraved is Trump?
The
refugee crisis isn’t due to the refugees themselves; and it’s not
due to Europe’s leaders; it is due to the almost constantly lying
US regime — the people who actually control America’s Government
and America’s international corporations.
On
June 21st, Manlio Dinucci at Global Research headlined “The
Circuit of Death in the ‘Enlarged Mediterranean’” and
he opened by saying, “The politico-media projectors, focussed as
they are on the migratory flow from South to North across the
Mediterranean, are leaving other Mediterranean flows in the dark –
those moving from North to South, comprised of military forces and
weapons.” But the world’s biggest international seller of weapons
is the
US, not the EU;
so, his placing the main focus on European billionaires was wrong.
The main culprits are on Trump’s own side of the Atlantic, and this
is what is being ignored, on both sides of the Atlantic. The real
problem isn’t across the Mediterranean; it is across the Atlantic.
That’s where Europe’s enemy is.
“In
Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and other countries at the periphery or edges
of Europe, US President Barack Obama has been pursuing a policy of
destabilization, and even of bombings and other military assistance,
that drives millions of refugees out of those peripheral areas and
into Europe, thereby adding fuel to the far-rightwing fires of
anti-immigrant rejectionism, and of resultant political
destabilization, throughout Europe, not only on its peripheries, but
even as far away as in northern Europe.”
PS: ik moet nog wel opmerken dat een aantal EU landen, waaronder Nederland, wel medeverantwoordelijk zijn voor de vluchtelingenstromen, daar ze blindelings achter de VS aanliepen en lopen en mee hebben gedaan/meedoen aan de grootschalige terreur die de VS in het Midden-Oosten uitoefende en uitoefent…… Overigens zijn die landen ook mede verantwoordelijk voor de terreur op de straten in de EU, daar dit een direct gevolg is van onder VS leiding uitgeoefende westerse terreur in landen waar het niets, maar dan ook helemaal niets te zoeken had en heeft….
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 Vierde Rijk timmert onder Trump nog harder aan de fascistische weg dan onder Obama en Bush….. E.e.a. blijkt bijvoorbeeld uit de barbaarse omgang met vluchtelingen, waar men zelfs kinderen van hun ouders afnam en deze samen met jongeren die op eigen gelegenheid dan wel onder begeleiding van een volwassene (veelal familie) opsloot in ‘jongerencentra’, ofwel gevangenissen die het best te vergelijken zijn met concentratiekampen (een uitvinding van de Britten)……
Bij concentratiekampen denkt men meteen aan de doodskampen van nazi-Duitsland, echter concentratiekampen werden al veel eerder gebruikt door westerse regeringen en zijn zoals gezegd een Britse uitvinding uit de 19de eeuw……. Door WOII spreekt men liever niet meer over concentratiekampen, maar dat wil niet zeggen dat ze niet meer bestaan, zo bewijst o.a. de VS weer……
Concentratiekampen in de VS zijn niets nieuws, zo sloot men tijdens WOII VS burgers van Japanse en Duitse afkomst op in concentratiekampen, iets waar Trump over zei dat hij zich wat betreft de Japanners wel voor kon stellen iets dergelijks te hebben gedaan, ‘oorlogen zijn nu eenmaal hard….’ (waar hem, zo te zien in het hieronder opgenomen artikel, niet de VS burgers van Duitse komaf werden voorgelegd als voorbeeld, deze komen in het artikel niet eens ter sprake)
Echter met de vinger naar Trump wijzen doet ons vergeten dat bijvoorbeeld Obama 3 miljoen immigranten
deporteerde… (hiervoor kreeg hij de naam: ‘deporter in chief’) Al onder Clinton werden de eerste aanzetten gedaan tot het beleid zoals we dat de laatste jaren hebben gezien…
Kinderen zullen niet meer worden afgenomen van ouders, zo sprak het beest Trump, maar verder verandert er weinig, de concentratiekampen blijven bestaan voor kinderen van wie de ouders niet in de VS zijn……. Zoals het zich laat aanzien krijgen deze kinderen geen rechtsbijstand en blijven ze opgesloten in wat concentratiekampen zijn…… De families die de VS binnenkomen en die worden gepakt, worden in het geheel opgesloten, inclusief peuters en baby’s…… Niet dat ze misdaden hebben begaan, maar omdat ze ‘illegaal’ het land zijn binnengekomen….. (hoe kan je als mens in godsnaam illegaal zijn op onze kleine aarde???)
In het volgende artikel van Elliot Gabriel wijst deze op de VS invloed in Mexico tijdens de 80er
en 90er jaren >> via de Wereldhandelsorganisatie (WTO) heeft de VS in feite de arbeidersbevolking aan de
bedelstaf gebracht……… Ook verdragen als NAFTA bracht het arme deel van bevolkingen in Midden- (en Zuid-) Amerika vooral veel financiële ellende, ellende waardoor velen uiteindelijk zelfs hun land ontvluchtten richting VS….
Het meest smerige is wel dat Trump, plus een groot deel van de republikeinen en democraten durven te zeggen dat de migranten VS burgers hun banen afnemen…… Terwijl nu juist de grote bedrijven hun fabrieken verplaatsten naar landen in Azië en Midden-Amerika (m.n. naar Mexico) en zij daarmee de verantwoordelijken zijn voor de grote werkloosheid onder het arme deel van de VS bevolking……
Arme mensen die nu bespeeld worden door fascisten als Trump met leugens die hen moeten opzetten tegen migranten, die godbetert maar al te vaak vluchten voor door de VS aangerichte ellende in hun thuisland (neem de totaal mislukte ‘War on Drugs’ die in Mexico bijkans een oorlog van de drugsmaffia tegen de bevolking heeft veroorzaakt….. Mensen die dat geweld ontvluchten zijn niet langer welkom, zo liet opperschoft Sessions afgelopen week weten*)
Trump gaat zover met zijn angst en haatzaaierij, dat hij migranten beesten noemt die de VS komen ruïneren…… Hitler en Goebbels zouden trots zijn geweest op zo’n ijverige leerling……..
Yes,
US Immigration Prisons Are Absolutely ‘Concentration Camps’
(MPN) —
The ongoing furor over a drastic increase in the mass confinement of
migrant families and children has forced people in the United States
to cast a hard look at the immigration enforcement regime that has
aggressively developed in recent years.
The
discussion is increasingly recasting immigrant detention centers as
U.S. concentration camps. This has brought questions
of justice, human and civil rights back into focus — in contrast to
the Trump administration’s narrow reliance on the question of
law-and-order.
Prisons
for detained migrants conform to the basic, literal meaning of a
concentration camp: these are security enclosures where masses of
people from a targeted community are isolated from the general
population and subject to confinement, usually for political
purposes. Deprived of liberty, legal protections, or medical care,
those incarcerated in such camps see their lives reduced to a basic
biological existence.
Sexual
abuse, physical punishment, psychological trauma and even the forced
injection of children with
drugs are the daily reality for those captured at the border by U.S.
Customs and Border Protection officers or abducted from their homes
and workplaces by the Department of Homeland Security – Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, or DHS-ICE.
While
the term concentrationcamp is often
dismissed as extreme or exaggerated given its connotation of
Nazi Konzentrationslager like Auschwitz or Dachau —
which could more accurately be called death camps or forced
enslavement camps — concentration camps were widely used
by Western governments throughout the early 20th century as a
means to cope with insurgent populations in the colonies and waves of
migrants fleeing war in Europe.
Now,
in the 21st century, the U.S. immigrant enforcement regime has
assumed monstrous proportions. The country is being progressively
enveloped in a steel-clad mesh of stringent bureaucracy and inhumane
facilities devoted to legalized violence toward immigrants —
naturally, this has come in the name of security, sovereignty, and
enforcing the law.
Euphemisms,
Lies, and Mass Confinement
Like
the fig-leaf covering Adam and Eve’s genitals in Renaissance
paintings, a euphemism is a word or phrase meant to hide the true
nature of something considered embarrassing or offensive. Euphemisms
are common in our social interactions: We’re sleeping together; I’m
visiting the water closet; he passed away; we’re downsizing the
staff.
For
politicians, euphemisms are the bread and butter of “talking-points”
(propaganda) and serve to shield the state from public scrutiny and
criticism. Authorities will describe repressive police state measures
as necessary to public
safety, while
the elimination of public services is called balancing
the budget. Likewise, militaries
will refer to a blatantly imperialist war as a “humanitarian
intervention,” while
an indiscriminate bombing campaign and
capture of enemy-held territory is an act of “liberation.”
In
the world of criminal justice, solitary confinement and total
isolation from human contact — a form of torture – takes place in
the Security Housing Unit (SHU), a phrase that almost sounds like a
type of condominium apartment.
Immigration-related
U.S. concentration camps come in different varieties, each with its
own preferred euphemisms: there are detention
centers for
adults,childcare
facilities for
young children ripped from their families; and for those incarcerated
migrant adults (usually women) fortunate enough to remain with their
children, there areFamily
Residential Centers –
a cheerful term that makes it sound as if families are having a
therapeutic retreat at Club Med rather than facing incarceration.
The
Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington, provides a good
example of the concentration camps operated by the commercial prison
corporation, GEO Group. Immigrant detainees who went on hunger strike
last year describe the facility as riddled with filthy, exploitative
and abusive conditions. Incarcerated migrants are given cheap,
poor-quality food while being forced to wear soiled underwear.
Medical care access is restricted and often administered by
unqualified prison guards themselves; it’s not uncommon that
prisoners die from treatable diseases like staph infection,
pneumonia, or diabetes.
Those
confined to such camps “temporarily” spend much of their time
with no light at the end of the tunnel, as immigration court
proceedings face repeated delays without explanation. Forced to
languish in horrendous conditions for an indefinite period, prisoners
inevitably fall into a state of deep despondency that sometimes leads
to suicide. In other cases, prisoners who wage hunger strikes face
punitive detention and physical abuse. Prisoners are also expected to
take part in manual labor tasks, where they are paid $1 per hour to
take care of the upkeep of the facilities, drawing comparisons to
enslaved prison labor.
At
“childcare facilities,” young children ripped from their
families’ arms are kenneled in wire-cage compounds or encamped in
overcrowded former Wal-Marts where they are subject to 22-hour
lockdown and given only two hours of fresh air — effectively
amounting to conditions of punitive incarceration for children as
young as seven years old.
Even
toddlers under the age of five have been placed in
three so-called “tender
age shelters” located in Texas, with a fourth compound planned for
Houston at a former warehouse slated to be re-purposed into a
“permanent unaccompanied alien children program facility. ”During
the Second World War, the government vocabulary was riddled
with similarly clean, bureaucratic euphemisms that obscured the
persecution of a community seen as a hostile and inherently “alien”
minority: Japanese immigrants and Japanese-descended citizens of the
U.S.
The
Wartime Precedent: Japanese-American Incarceration
On
February 19, 1942, long-seething anti-Asian racism and the Imperial
Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor culminated in the signing of
Executive Order 9066 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The order
gave xenophobia the seal of approval as official state policy and
decreed the “evacuation” or forced removal of 120,000 U.S.
residents of Japanese ancestry from their homes. Over two-thirds of
those impacted were U.S. citizens, including children.
The
mass incarceration of Japanese-descended families was justified on
the basis of a fear of sabotage by a yet-to-be-exposed “fifth
column,” as well as claims by military authorities that Justice
Department investigations were unable to keep pace with wartime
national-security needs. However, Depression-era white farmers also
saw Japanese Americans as a threat to their economic interests and
had clamored for stripping citizenship from the “Japs.”
apanese
immigrants and Japanese Americans were detained and placed in
assembly centers (temporary detention centers) and relocation
centers, which were at the time depicted as akin to “summer camps.”
In reality, these were concentration camps in the middle of harsh
desert climates, which were surrounded by guard towers and
barbed-wire fences, where Japanese-descended prisoners were overseen
and routinely abused by U.S. Army personnel equipped with machine
guns and even tanks.
By
January 2, 1945, the camps were closed; not a single incarcerated
Japanese had been successfully prosecuted as a spy or agent of the
Japanese government. Yet thousands of
Japanese
Americans incarcerated at the notorious Tule Lake Segregation Center
in California had already been coerced into renouncing their U.S.
citizenship, and were subsequently deported en masse back
to a Japan that was shattered by war.
Descendants
of incarcerated Japanese citizens and immigrants have struggled hard
in recent years to ensure that wartime mass-confinement is described
in terms that accurately reflect the unjust nature of their
experience. In 2013, the Japanese American Community League responded
to criticism over the use of the term “concentration camp,”
stating:
Misleading
government euphemisms like relocation camp, assembly center,
and internment camp should no longer be an insurmountable
obstacle to understanding. Ridiculous notions that we were being
protected or pampered will diminish.
Honest
terms like American concentration camp, incarceration camp,
illegal detention center, forced removal, and others, can now
truthfully tell a story: How the government used language to cover up
the denial of constitutional rights, the racism, forced removal,
incarceration, and oppressive conditions directed against 120,000
innocent people of Japanese ancestry.”
By
2015, Republican then-candidate Donald Trump began floating the idea
of a database of Muslim Americans to prevent, “until we are able to
determine and understand,” the alleged threat of “horrendous
attacks by people that believe only in Jihad.”
When
asked if he would have supported the wartime incarceration of
Japanese Americans, the former reality-TV star answered that it may
have been an option he would have favored. He also suggested that the
concentration camps may have played a role in the U.S. victory over
Japan. Trump explained:
I
would have had to be there at the time to tell you, to give you a
proper answer … It’s a tough thing. It’s tough.. But you
know war is tough. And winning is tough. We don’t win anymore. We
don’t win wars anymore. We don’t win wars anymore. We’re not a
strong country anymore. We’re just so off.”
‘90s
Roots: White “Nativist” Anxiety and the Neoliberal Offensive
Aside
from the deeply racist, white-supremacist roots of the United States
as a whole, Trump-style xenophobia and anti-immigrant racism became a
major phenomenon in the 1990s, when mass-media outlets and right-wing
politicians filled Americans’ heads with lurid tales of the threat
posed by brown-skinned foreigners. War and terrorism in the Middle
East flooded headlines as the Gulf War in Iraq and resistance to
Israel in Palestine and Lebanon raged.
Meanwhile,
at the southern U.S. border, tens of thousands of Mexican migrants
poured through as a result of the desperate conditions and economic
chaos unleashed by the North American Free Trade Agreement of 1994
and previous neoliberal policies foisted on pliant Mexican
governments by the World Trade Organization (WTO). NAFTA led to a
major influx of investment in Mexico by Canadian and U.S.-based
multinationals, yet the net effect was the plundering of the
country’s resources and wealth, the devastation of its agricultural
sector and rural regions, and a huge uptick in unemployment and
poverty in the country.
As
scholar Richard D. Vogel wrote in his 2007
meticulously-researched essay, Transient
Servitude:
U.S.
financial and political intervention in the national life of Mexico
during the 1980s and 1990s, often carried out through the WTO, has
pauperized the Mexican working class. It is they who have had to
suffer the brunt of the mandatory austerity programs, strict debt
restructuring, and privatization initiatives that were imposed on
Mexico in the 1980s after the credit binge of the Mexican bourgeoisie
during the previous decade. The result of this foreign intervention
has been widespread unemployment and displacement from the land that
has produced onerous hardship and sparked internal migration from the
interior of Mexico to the industrialized border region and to the
United States.”
Unauthorized
migration from Mexico became a driving force for nativist resentment
and racism among white workers, resulting in a push for
anti-immigrant laws like California’s Proposition 187 ballot
initiative in 1994. White workers found convenient scapegoats in the
Mexican undocumented workforce, despite the fact that it was U.S.
capitalism as a whole that had undercut their jobs and living
standards through the search for cheap labor in Mexico and other
offshore locations.
The
U.S. responded to the nativist clamor by militarizing the U.S. border
— resulting in the deaths of thousands of border-crossers who died
in the harsh frontier climate — and by conducting showy Border
Patrol operations and raids such as 1993’s Hold the Line in
San Diego and 1995’s Operation Gatekeeper in El
Paso, which did little to stem the flow of migrants.
However,
the generally lax open border policy provided employers and
corporations with access to a huge pool of cheap labor to tap into,
handsomely benefiting a then-booming U.S. economy. By 2005, about 12
million undocumented migrants — over half of whom were Mexican —
resided in the United States.
The
2006 implementation of the U.S.-Central America Free Trade Agreement
(CAFTA, now CAFTA-DR) had a similarly negative impact on development
in Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala,
Honduras, and Nicaragua, whose governments each signed. Rural
migrants were displaced and found no employment in cities, fueling
the growth of organized crime and acting as a sharp push factor for
migration to Mexico and the United States.
Subsequent
administrations’ security agreements with right-wing governments
and imperialist meddling — such as the Obama-Clinton State
Department’s success in overthrowing left-populist Honduran
President Manuel Zelaya in June 2009 — further exacerbated the
instability and misery plaguing Central America, creating
an inexorable
current that
continues to tens of thousands of desperate migrants to the doorstep
of the southern U.S. border in their life-or-death bid for asylum.
“Fortress
America” and the Bipartisan Construction of DHS-ICE
The
double standards inherent in U.S. partisan politics have led some to
believe that concentration camps were reintroduced on such a broad
scale under Trump, when in fact the mass confinement of
asylum-seekers and non-citizens was a daily reality under the
administrations of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, who both
oversaw the expansion of the sprawling DHS machinery.
Indeed,
ever since the Clinton administration’s 1996 Immigration Act, minor
misdemeanor convictions are enough reason for even legal permanent
residents to be deported.
This
history is often ignored by liberal critics of the Trump regime,
owing in no small part to his absolute disregard for the
multicultural sensitivities of his predecessors who built the
immigration enforcement apparatus. The president has no qualms about
resorting to blatantly dehumanizing rhetoric when describing whole
categories of asylum-seekers as “animals” that are “infesting”
the United States, drawing comparisons between the right-wing U.S.
leader’s political ideology and that of Nazi Germany.
Yet
Trump is merely picking up the baton that was passed to him, albeit
with a relish that appears to be both calculating and visceral.
After
September 11, 2001, the U.S. was pushed over the brink by hysteria
over the fear of another spectacular terrorist attack. Muslim
Americans and immigrant communities from Asia, Africa and the Middle
East became the target not only of racist attacks on the streets, but
also of anti-terrorism bills like the USA PATRIOT Act. The act
significantly widened the ability of immigration agents to conduct
mass-detention sweeps of terrorism suspects, while allowing for the
mandatory detention of non-citizens suspected of terrorism for up to
48 hours after arrest.
In
2003, the PATRIOT Act was followed by the establishment of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which consisted of three
separate bureaus: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs
and Border Protection (CBP), and Citizen and Immigration Services
(CIS). ICE began to extend its facilities, field offices and subfield
offices across the country.
In
June, 2003, ICE introduced its 10-year strategic enforcement plan,
Operation ENDGAME. The plan called
for information
sharing across government agencies while also explicitly calling for
the forcible removal of the entire unauthorized migrant population of
12 million people from the United States by 2014. In a memorandum
describing the program, ICE Office of Detention and Removal
Operations (DRO) director Anthony Tangemann stated:
DRO
provides the endgame to immigration enforcement and that is the
removal of all removable aliens. This is also the essence of our
mission statement and the ‘golden measure’ to our successes …
We must strive for 100% removal rate.”
Obviously,
the plan was never fulfilled, yet the Obama administration stubbornly
pushed forward in the fortification of ICE as a highly-funded,
fully-staffed and largely unaccountable organization with facilities
and contracted privately-operated concentration camps dotting the
entire country.
While
supporters of Obama will quickly point to his 2013 granting of
temporary relief to non-prioritized unauthorized migrant youth, in
the form of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA),
immigration-rights advocates will be just as quick to point to his
introduction of Secure Communities: A Comprehensive Plan to Identify
and Remove Criminal Aliens (SCOMM).
SCOMM,
which was guided by the goals stipulated in Operation Endgame,
cleared the way for ICE to deport hundreds of thousands of
unauthorized migrants through biometric data-sharing between federal
immigration authorities and thousands of local jails — leading to
the deportation of people convicted of minor crimes such as driving
under the influence or the possession of small amounts of drugs.
SCOMM
was eventually phased out by Obama owing to public pressure, only to
be revived by
the Trump administration. Obama’s campaign promises to reform the
U.S. immigration enforcement regime were never fulfilled and instead,
around three million were deported on his watch – earning the
former president the ignominious title “Deporter-In-Chief.”
The
Danger of Ignoring Homeland Security State Cruelty
Amid
the exponential growth of the federal government’s need for jails,
encampments, and kennels for migrant families, immigration-related
concentration camps are increasingly being normalized by an unashamed
Republican Party with Trump as its capo and ideological lodestar.
Even mainstream news hosts like Laura Ingraham of FOX News have
audaciously described incarceration facilities for children as
“essentially summer camps.”
And
on Wednesday — lost in the fanfare of his apparent
family-separation feint — Trump issued an executive order extending
the ability of ICE to incarcerate unauthorized migrants from 20 days
to an indefinite period.
The
United States government has long maintained the largest and most
technologically advanced system of mass confinement in human history.
Over time, a growing component of this system has consisted of new
migrant concentration camp.
It’s
about time that we recognize what led the U.S. to this point and
where that path may lead. Even the most superficial reading of
history reveals how in times of crisis, legal rights taken for
granted as permanent or foundational vanish like a puff of smoke when
security threats and a push to restore “law and order” casts a
dragnet into civilian populations.
In
1973, constitutional scholar Alexander Bickel offered a prescient
criticism of the concept of “citizenship as the tie that binds the
individual to government and [serves] as the source of his rights,”
noting that the right to citizenship can easily be revoked at the
will of the state:
A
relationship between government and the governed that turns on
citizenship can always be dissolved or denied … No matter what
safeguards it may be equipped with, it is at best something that was
given, and given to some and not to others, and it can be taken away.
It has always been easier, it always will be easier, to think of
someone as a noncitizen than to decide that he is a nonperson.”
As
history teaches us, threats to the nation — both external or
internal — can suddenly or gradually change. Today’s
flash-in-the-pan monster at our door might be migrant “animals”
from Latin America, but tomorrow it may take the form of anyone
or any group who threatens or disrupts social order — be
it a religious group, a national minority, the swelling homeless
population, the politically non-compliant or any other class of
people criminalized by a government that exclusively caters to the
needs of capital.
Disoriented
by sensationalist propaganda presented as objective news or informed
commentary, U.S. citizens gripped by anxiety and fear eagerly cheer
on the promise of misery for the “alien” as a means to ensure
fortune and safety for the “native.” Blinded by the false pride
found in white supremacy and the nostalgic idyll peddled by Trump and
his cohort, “conservatives” applaud as new walls, “residential
centers” and open-air penitentiaries for “illegals” are
constructed in their hometowns.
Trapped
in a daze of patriotic fervor, supporters of the punitive immigrant
policy regime under Trump remain oblivious to the consequences of
their faith in state violence guided by policies of official bigotry.
And
as for the rest of us, wringing our hands and expressing outrage
alone will get us nowhere in terms of preventing systematic cruelty
and state terror. Instead, we should continue to develop a serious
analysis of the overall situation and organize to defend our basic
rights before the windows of opportunity are bolted shut.
Hier nog een video van Brasscheck TV met dezelfde strekking:
CONCENTRATION
CAMPS FOR CHILDREN IN THE US
SOME
SIMPLE FACTS YOU ARE NOT BEING TOLD
THIS
IS A BUSINESS OPERATION
Seeking
asylum in the US is not a crime. It’s an administrative process.
After the hearings, the US can always no to the application.
There’s
absolutely no legal basis to take the children of asylum seekers
from their parents.
People
who cross the border illegally and are found not to have criminal
records used to be returned to the border they crossed. Now they are
being jailed for six months – at taxpayer expense – and having
their children taken from them.
The
revenues for these interments are going to the shareholders of
PRIVATELY owned prisons.
Privately
owned Prison companies like GEO and CoreCivic donated nearly
$500,000 to support Trump’s election campaign and underwrite his
inauguration.
The
Trump administration has no procedure in place for reuniting
children with the parents they have been taken from.
7.
The government will not disclose where the children they have seized
are being held. Nor will they allow Congressman or the news media to
enter these facilities.
Het volgende uitstekende artikel komt van ‘Aleke’s Blog!‘, lees het artikel, zie de film (mooi gefilmd en zoals het artikel uitermate indrukwekkend) en geeft het ajb door! De leugens over Oekraïne en de ramp (ofwel: de false flag operatie) met MH17 moeten eindelijk worden doorgeprikt. Verdere woorden overbodig:
Het
valse lied van…..!
Dit
weekend viel ik in een aflevering van Pauw, waarin Freek de Jonge het
seizoen mocht afsluiten met zijn item: “Hoe zouden “wij”
Nederlanders, ons opstellen als Nederland wél aan het WK voetbal in
Rusland gekwalificeerd zou zijn.
Rusland
die de MH17 slachtoffers op z’n geweten heeft, volgens de Jonge en
vele, vele anderen! Geen
vraag, geen twijfels, nee…. zeker weten! De
Jonge mag zijn praatje beëindigen met een lied, in stijl van
“Neerlands Hoop”. Is
dat de kritische Freek de Jonge, die in de 60er jaren heilige huisjes
omverwierp, samen met Bram Vermeulen? Of
zou Bram achteraf bekeken, de werkelijke motor achter de kritische
teksten zijn geweest?
Ik
stond perplex, toen ik in dat lied hem hoorde “zingen”: ‘Ik
moet de eerste Rus nog tegenkomen die zijn excuses maakt!’…..Hé,
waar heb ik die woorden eerder gehoord? Hij
had in dat lied ook kunnen zingen: ‘Waar is de zwarte doos
gebleven?!’
Hij
houdt zijn verhaal op het moment dat er net een actie is geweest van
de Russische journalist Babtsjenko, die zijn eigen dood in Kiev in
scene heeft gezet om daarmee te bewijzen dat Rusland daarachter
zit. Bij
de vergiftiging van de Russische dubbelspion Skripal gaf Engeland
meteen de schuld aan Rusland. Het kon niet snel genoeg gaan. Daar
hoor je de Jonge niet over.
De
Amerikaanse evangelist Duplantis, was vorige week in het nieuws,
omdat hij in zijn “goedgelovigheid” zijn volgelingen vraagt
om $50.000.000 voor een vliegtuig, waarmee hij geen tussenstops hoeft
te maken. Iedereen
verklaart die man voor…… vul maar in en niemand gelooft zijn
praatjes. Maar
de rol van Rusland in het MH17 ongeluk, wordt wél geloofd. De
domineeszoon, de Jonge, twijfelt niet, want hij weet….. twijfel is
het begin van ongeloof! Hij weet het zeker!
Freek
de Jonge is, zoals zovelen een exemplarisch voorbeeld van de
Post-moderne mens. Ofwel je aanpassen aan de op dat moment heersende
mening. Je gedragen, denken en handelen op een dusdanige manier,
waarbij je geaccepteerd wordt door de goegemeenschap….. een
modinette, identiteitsloos!
Misschien
zou de Jonge en de vele, vele anderen, deze Duitse
documentaireeens
moeten bekijken! Daar
word je stil van, i.p.v. een vals lied de wereld in te slingeren!
Leefse!
Aaltje.
====================
PS: Aaltje vraagt zich af of Bram Vermeulen niet de drijvende kracht was achter de politiek kritische opstelling van ‘Neerlands Hoop’ >> de vraag stellen is haar beantwoorden……
Ongelofelijk
maar waar: NAVO leden VS en Frankrijk gaan geheel illegaal
permanente militaire bases bouwen in het noordoosten van
Syrië, GB bouwt zelf geen bases in Syrië maar maakt gebruik van de Franse en VS bases…….. Samen met deze nieuwe bases, zullen de VS, GB en Frankrijk nog meer militairen naar Syrie struren
Daarmee
behoort ook Nederland tot de zwaar misdadige of beter gezegd
terroristische organisatie die men NAVO noemt, waar we godbetert ook nog eens een enorme berg belastinggeld aan spenderen……. Het bouwen van een militaire basis op het grondgebied van een autonoom, soeverein land en tegen de wil van dit land is een oorlogsmisdaad van formaat!
Uiteraard
komen de bewuste terreurstaten met het excuus dat men verdere terreur
in Syrië wil voorkomen, terwijl de VS, GB en Frankrijk wel
samenwerken met terreurgroepen ofwel met moordenaars, verkrachters en
martelbeulen, kortom groepen waarbij de legers van de 3 voornoemde
landen en de rest van de NAVO zich prima thuis voelen…….
Natuurlijk
gaat het om een andere zaken: niet als laatste olie! Het gebied waar de bases gebouwd
zullen worden ligt in een olierijk gebied………. Een nog onbekende oliemaatschappij uit de VS zou al olie verkopen in de regio……. Daarnaast wordt met deze bases voldaan aan de wens van Israël om Syrië op te delen, ofwel de Balkanisering van Syrië, als één van de eerste voorwaarden daartoe zet men in op het afzetten van de regering Assad…….
Nog een opvallend gegeven: het gebied dat de eerder genoemde westerse landen controleren, beschikt over de grootste watervoorraad in Syrië………
Hoe
is het mogelijk dat de rest van de wereld deze terreurstaten hun gang
laten gaan, waarvoor hebben we de VN nog? Om Rusland, China,
Noord-Korea en Iran de les te lezen??
US,
UK and France Establishing New Military Bases in Syria
The
coalition of the US, UK and France are establishing new military
bases throughout Northern Syria in support of its Kurdish-majority
proxy army, angering nearby Turkey and cementing the coalition’s
hold over Syria’s most oil rich region.
(TIM) — Despite
the fact that President Trump recently considered withdrawing U.S.
forces from Syria, the United States— along with its allies the
United Kingdom and France— are doubling down and expanding their
military presence in Northeastern Syria by establishing new military
bases near the town of Manbij. Reports of the bases first broke last
month, but were recently confirmed by Reuters. The
bases are believed to be part of a wider effort by the
U.S./U.K./France coalition to aid its military proxy force in Syria,
the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in its “resistance”
to the Turkish government.
Turkey
has long maintained that the SDF, which is largely composed of
members of the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), are
terrorists. The U.S. announcement earlier this year that they would
be using the SDF to build a “border
force”
subsequently led Turkey to invade parts of Northern Syria previously
controlled by the SDF with help from its own proxy force in Syria,
the Free Syrian Army (FSA).
After
Turkey took control of Afrin, Turkish President Recep Tayyip
Erdogan announced that
he was considering removing YPG/SDF forces from Manbij as well,
prompting the coalition forces to consolidate their positions. With
the coalition now beefing up its military presence to prevent Turkey
from encroaching further, Syria is set to become a new sore point in
Turkey’s relationship with NATO and the West.
According
to reports, the military bases are located throughout the Manbij
region, with the U.S. having at least two bases while the French are
constructing one. The U.K. does not have its own base, but its
soldiers are known
to be present in
the area and to work with U.S. and French troops stationed in Manbij.
Helil
Bozi, the commander of the Military Council of Manbij of the Syrian
Democratic Forces (SDF), told Sputnik that “the U.S. has deployed
its Special Forces units near the Sajur River thereby setting a red
line the crossing of which will be seen by the [U.S.-led] coalition
forces as an attack and will prompt retaliatory actions,” noting
that the increase in the coalition’s military presence was a direct
result of Turkey’s prior statements regarding Manbij.
Though
locals have claimed that the presence of the coalition members of the
military are aimed at Turkey, they are also likely to prevent Syrian
government forces from retaking the area. Now that the Syrian
government has successfully
removed terrorist
groups from Damascus as well as other key parts of the country, there
has been speculation that the Syrian military would turn its focus to
areas of the country occupied by foreign powers.
Indeed,
the Syrian government is very interested in recuperating the area
currently occupied by the coalition and nominally controlled by the
Kurds as it holds
95% of
the entire country’s oil and gas potential. Under Kurdish
leadership, an unknown U.S. company is already extracting and selling
oil in the region, thus making it unlikely that the U.S. would
willingly leave the area. The U.S. is also unlikely to leave its
investment in the SDF behind, having recently
allocated $550
million to arm and train the group over the next year.
In
addition, the area also boasts the country’s largest fresh water
reservoirs and over 60% of its agricultural land, making it an
invaluable bargaining chip in determining the future of Syria, a
future that coalition powers hope will remove the current Syrian
government from power and replace it with a more Western-friendly
government.
However,
the aims of the coalition appear directed more toward partition than
regime change. The U.S. has
long sought to
divide Syria in order to take control of the country’s resource
rich Northeast and to isolate the
Syrian government and, by extension, its regional
allies such
as Iran.
Though
the U.S. has played on the hopes of Kurdish nationalists, it has long
established plans for an authoritarian Wahhabist enclave in
Northeastern Syria according to a
leaked Defense Intelligence Agency document from
2012 and, more recently, courting
the Saudis to
“rebuild” the area. Furthermore, the fact that the SDF includes
militias composed of “retrained” ISIS fighters also underscores
that the coalition is more interested in controlling the region than
aiding a Kurdish nationalism project.
Though
advertised as an effort to “protect” the Kurds, the establishment
of new American
and
French military bases in Northern Syria appear to serve as protection
of the coalition’s regional ambitions and plans for the region.
Hoorde afgelopen zaterdag op VRT 1 dat de NAVO officieel Colombia als partner laat toetreden tot haar organisatie…… De NAVO was al enige tijd aanwezig in Colombia, maar blijkbaar was dit niet genoeg voor deze uiterst agressieve, om niet te zeggen terroristische organisatie…….
De VS speelt al dik meer dan 100 jaar een uiterst smerige rol in Zuid- en Midden-Amerika, blijkbaar moet de NAVO, die in feite onder direct bevel van de VS staat, ook meehelpen de neoliberale status quo (en daarmee het neokolonialistisch stelen van o.a. grondstoffen door de VS) te bewaren en te promoten met geweld……
Uiteraard zal de NAVO meewerken met de VS als deze grootste terreurentiteit op aarde zal besluiten dat Maduro van Venezuela met geweld moet worden afgezet, ofwel meedoen aan één van de grootste oorlogsmisdaden die bestaan: een soeverein land met een democratisch gekozen regering aanvallen….. Waar de VS al jaren een economische oorlog voert tegen Venezuela, de oorzaak dat er zo weinig te krijgen is in dit land, zoals een enorm tekort aan medicijnen….. Dit is een vorm van ongelofelijke terreur, immers de gewone bevolking blijft hierdoor verstoken van belangrijke medicijnen, zoals die tegen kanker…… De VS wil met deze boycot de bevolking dwingen zich te verzetten tegen de eigen regering, anders gezegd een smerig staaltje chantage waar je ijskoud van wordt……
Met de NAVO eenmaal in Columbia, is de stap richting Bolivia snel gezet, zeker omdat daar de democratisch gekozen socialistische president Evo Morales aan de macht is en zoals je weet: daar heeft de VS een enorme hekel aan, aan het socialisme…… Immers veronderstel dat de grote onderlaag in de VS wakker wordt, ziet hoe het ook kan, haar kont tegen de krib gooit en zich niet langer als derderangs burgers, of beter gezegd als uitschot laat behandelen………. Vandaar dat de VS elk succesvol socialistisch regime in Zuid- en Midden-Amerika met zoveel geweld bestrijdt, neem de bloedige staatsgreep op 11 september 1973 in Chili, tegen de socialistische regering Allende, een coup georganiseerd en geregisseerd door de CIA……. (al voerde de VS ook daaraan voorafgaand een economische oorlog tegen Chili…)
Je snap dat wij daarmee niet alleen via de belasting opdraaien voor de illegale oorlogen die de VS in het Midden-Oosten voert (en waarvan de gevolgen de kiem van toekomstige ellende al in zich dragen, zie Libië en Malie, of terreur op de straten in de EU), maar we vanaf nu ook zullen bijdragen aan het onderdrukken van de grote onderlaag in Latijns-Amerikaanse landen……. Latijns-Amerika daar de bemoeienis van de VS en daarmee de NAVO zich ook zal uitstrekken naar Midden-Amerika, waar de VS al zolang de beest heeft uitgehangen……
Hoelang laten wij nog toe, dat onze opvolgende regeringen ons leger inzetten om grootschalige terreur uit te oefenen, of deze te steunen?? Dan durft men gvd nog te zeggen dat we meer moeten bijdragen aan defensie in het belang van terreurorganisatie NAVO! Een organisatie waarvan de landen gezamenlijk meer uitgeven aan defensie, uh oorlogvoering dan Rusland en China samen uitgeven aan defensie en dat meer dan één keer…….
Alsof
een groot deel van de wereld de VS niet al bijzonder lang ziet als
terreurentiteit, is de VS nooit te beroerd om naast illegale oorlogvoering, de boel internationaal mondeling telkens weer op scherp te stellen……..
Zijne
kwaadaardigheid Mike Pompeo liet weten dat de VS op basis van leugens
(al zei hij dit laatste er natuurlijk niet bij) bereid is Iran te vermorzelen.
De misdadiger en klimaatscepticus (hij was o.a. topschoft van de CIA en president-directeur van Sentry International, een servicebedrijf voor de oliemaffia) durfde te stellen dat de VS wereldwijd
jacht gaat maken op Iraanse agenten en leden van Hezbollah…… ha!
ha! ha! ha! ha!
Alsof Iran:
over een groot deel van de wereld
militairen en militaire bases (meer dan 800!!) heeft, i.p.v. de VS….
precies als de VS de ene na de andere illegale oorlog aangaat en daarbij alleen deze eeuw al meer dan 2 miljoen mensen heeft vermoord (waaronder veel vrouwen en kinderen….)……..
zoals de VS in een aantal landen mensen standrechtelijk executeert middels drones, ofwel vermoord zonder enig proces en met die aanvallen, waarbij meer dan 90% van de slachtoffers die door de VS werden vermoord, niet eens verdachten waren van een misdaad (alweer: veelal vrouwen en kinderen….)……
als de VS op een fiks aantal landen geheime militaire acties uitvoert, waarbij mensen ofwel worden vermoord, dan wel ontvoerd om daarna te worden gemarteld en voor onbepaalde tijd gevangen te worden gezet (wat in misdaadtermen wordt aangeduid als gijzeling door ontvoerders)….
als de VS overal waar het haar uitkomt: -verkiezingen manipuleert, -zich schuldig maakt aan computerinbraak, spionage (ook bij bevriende naties) en bedrijfsspionage, -opstanden op poten zet om zo coups uit te lokken, dan wel meteen een staatsgreep uitvoert…..
En zo kan ik nog wel even doorgaan beste bezoeker, maar de zaak zal je wel duidelijk zijn: als er één land op de wereld is waar andere landen (en wij allen) bang voor moeten zijn, is het de VS wel, (nogmaals) de grootste terreurentiteit op aarde!! (met nu de psychopathische imbeciel Trump aan het bewind….)
US
Threatens to ‘Crush’ Iran, Vows ‘Strongest Sanctions in
History’
(ANTIWAR.COM) — Setting
up a new level of hostility toward Iran after the US withdrew from
the P5+1 nuclear deal, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo promised
“unprecedented financial pressure” Monday in comments to the
Heritage Foundation. He said the US would impose the “strongest
sanctions in history”
against the Iranians.
“We
will track down Iranian operatives and their Hezbollah proxies
operating around the world and crush them,” Pompeo said.
The
justification for this was a vague mention of Iran being a “malign
influence,” and false allegations that they have “nuclear
ambitions,” despite Iran still being a part of a nuclear deal which
limits them to only a very small civilian nuclear program.
Pompeo
said sanctions are in full effect and more are coming. He further
issued a broad
string of demands on the Iranians.
This included withdrawing all forces from Syria, and totally ending
support for both Hezbollah and Hamas.
Asking
Iran to withdraw all “forces” from Syria is likely not possible
for them to comply with, as US officials have generally presented
Shi’ite militias who aren’t from Iran in the first place as
“Iranian controlled” force. Iran could no more expel these
Shi’ites from Syria than the US could remove all Kurdish forces
from Syria.
Whether
the demands are reasonable, or practical, is neither here nor there
anyhow. That’s because Pompeo is not suggesting that compliance
with all of these demands would mean an end to sanctions. Even if he
did, the US just got done reneging on sanctions relief toward Iran
with the nuclear deal.
The
Trump Administration wanted out of the nuclear deal to start
ratcheting up sanctions, which they see as an end unto themselves.
Having done so, Pompeo is just bragging about how great those
sanctions will be, not implying that there is any way to avoid them.