Massamoord: vlucht 655 van Iran Air 30 jaar geleden door de VS neergehaald

Op 3
juli 1988 haalde de VS een passagiersvliegtuig van Iran Air, vlucht 655 neer binnen Iraans luchtruim, daarbij kwamen alle 290 inzittenden om het leven…… Nooit heeft
de VS haar excuses aangeboden voor deze enorme terreurdaad, niet aan
de nabestaanden van de slachtoffers, niet aan Iran en niet aan 
Dubai (het land van de uiteindelijke bestemming). George H.W. Bush, destijds vice-president, liet weten dat
de VS nooit excuus zal maken voor de door haar aangerichte massamoord en schade……. Wel heeft de VS de nabestaanden van de slachtoffers een schadevergoeding betaald.

Zoals gezegd kwamen 290
mensen om het leven en dat had makkelijk voorkomen kunnen
worden als de legerleiding, de leiding van het VS het marineschip
Vincennes had vervangen. De leiding van het marineschip stond bekend om haar verkeerde
inschatting van radarbeelden en ander klungelig optreden, waar men zelfs de marineleiding waarschuwde voor de onkunde van het personeel op de Vincennes….. Dat de
leiding niet werd vervangen, terwijl collega’s smalend over de
Vincennes spraken als ‘Robocruiser’, is voor velen dan ook het bewijs
dat vlucht 655 met opzet werd neergehaald…….

Afbeeldingsresultaat voor vincennes navy ship

USS Vincennes

Beste
bezoeker, het neerhalen van vlucht 655 is maar één voorbeeld van de
ongebreidelde VS terreur waar een fiks deel van de wereld onder
zucht…….

Ongelofelijk
dat men in de reguliere westerse media en politiek de VS als de goede
partij blijven zien, terwijl de laatst aan de VS voorgaande duivelse terreurstaat, het
nazibewind in Duitsland was (ook al was de VS al voor WOII bezig met
haar terreur tegen landen die zich niet wilden onderwerpen aan de
doctrine van de imperialistische VS…..) 

De VS heeft o.a. de coup tegen de destijds Perzische regering (Perzië is de ‘oude naam’ van Iran) van premier Mosaddegh in 1953 georganiseerd en geregisseerd… Voor en na het neerhalen van vlucht 655 had en heeft de VS een regimewisseling in Iran op het oog, waarbij de VS ook gewelddadige oppositie heeft gesteund met wapens en militaire training (in terreurdaden)….. 

En weer is de VS bezig met een regimewissel in Iran, waar een echte aanval op Iran al een paar jaar tot de mogelijkheden behoort, zeker met de grote vriend van de VS, de fascistische apartheidsstaat Israël dat Iran het liefst zou platgooien met kernraketten en keer en keer aandringt op het aanvallen van Iran…..

Intussen is het Iraanse volk al het slachtoffer, dit door de volkomen ten onrechte opgelegde sancties van de VS…… Eén van de smerigste vormen van chantage, zo van: als jullie ontevreden zijn moet je je regering omverwerpen, ofwel als er doden vallen door onze sancties, zijn jullie zelf verantwoordelijk voor de doden die daardoor vallen…… Zoals de VS sancties tegen Irak van eind 90er jaren in de vorige eeuw, waardoor 500.000 kinderen om het leven kwamen……. De verantwoordelijke oorlogsmisdadiger en massamoordenaar Albright, minister van BuZa onder Clinton, liet later weten dat die 500.000 kindslachtoffers (die zij in feite had vermoord) meer dan de moeite waard waren….*

An
Apology for a Different Plane Crash, 30 Years Later


Afbeeldingsresultaat voor An Apology for a Different Plane Crash, 30 Years Later

March
15, 2019 “Information
Clearing House
”  


The
tragic Ethiopian Airline plane crash recalls another passenger plane
crash some 30 years ago. The latter, however, was not due to a
mechanical malfunction but to U.S. missiles. And while very few
Americans remember this incident, it still weighs heavy on the hearts
of many Iranians–as we discovered on our recent trip there.


The
tragic downing of the commercial passenger airline, Iran Air Flight
655, happened on July 3, 1988. A U.S. Navy ship called the Vincennes
was stationed in the Persian Gulf to protect oil trade routes. The
plane had just taken off from nearby Bandar Abbas International
Airport in southern Iran when U.S. personnel on the warship fired two
surface-to-air missiles. The flight was still in Iranian airspace,
climbing on its regularly scheduled flight to Dubai, when it was hit.
The plane disintegrated immediately and crashed into the water,
killing all 290 onboard–274 passengers and 16 crew members.


According
to the U.S. government, this was an accident: the crew thought the
Iranian Airbus A300 was an attacking F-14 Tomcat fighter jet.


Most
Iranians, however, believe it was a deliberate war crime. Earlier
that day, the same U.S. ship had sunk two Iranian gunboats in Iranian
waters and damaged a third.


The
Iranian belief that the passenger plane was attacked on purpose was
reinforced when the U.S. government made a series of inaccurate
claims. One claim was that the plane was not on a normal flight path
but was diving toward the ship; the truth is that the plane was
climbing, and was on its correct path. Another was that the plane’s
identification transponder was not working or had been altered; the
truth is that the plane had actually been emitting, by radio, the
standard commercial identifying data.


Months
before the plane was shot down, air traffic controllers and the crews
of other warships in the Persian Gulf had been warning that poorly
trained U.S. crews, especially the gung-ho captain and crew of the
Vincennes (or “Robocruiser,” as other crews had nicknamed it),
were constantly misidentifying civilian aircraft over the Persian
Gulf, making this horrific incident entirely predictable.


The
U.S. Navy added insult to injury when, two years later, it awarded
combat medals to the warship’s captain and crew–never even
mentioning the downing of the plane. The town of Vincennes, Indiana,
for which the ship was named, even launched a fundraising campaign
for a monument to honor the ship and its crew.


Particularly
callous was a statement by then Vice-President George H.W. Bush, who
was campaigning for president at the time. “I will never apologize
for the United States of America. Ever,” he insisted, “I don’t
care what the facts are. I’m not an apologize-for-America kind of
guy.”


While
U.S. officials refused to accept culpability, in 1996 the Iranians
took to the U.S. government to the International Court of Justice.
With all the evidence against the Vincennes, the U.S. government
agreed to a settlement, granting $213,000 per passenger to the
victims’ families. But the government still refused to formally
apologize or acknowledge wrongdoing.


While
most Americans have no memory of this incident, in Iran the date of
the deaths of 290 innocent people at the hands of the U.S. military
is marked every year just as the 9/11 attack is remembered every year
in the United States. To some Iranians, it is just one more example
of the callousness of U.S. policy.


That’s
why our peace delegation that visited Iran in early March decided to
make a special gift to the Peace Museum in Tehran, a museum dedicated
to ending war. It was a hand-crafted commemorative book crafted by
one of our delegates, Barbara Briggs-Letson, who is an 85-year-old
retired American nurse from San Francisco. It contained a letter of
remorse, verses of poetry, the names—in Farsi—of all those who
lost their lives, and individual notes from the 28 members of our
delegation.


The
moving ceremony at the Peace Museum left all of us, Americans and
Iranians, weeping. We made it clear that while our government won’t
apologize for its dirty deeds in Iran—from overthrowing Iran’s
democratically elected government in 1953 to shooting down a
passenger plane in 1988 to unilaterally withdrawing from the nuclear
agreement in 2017—we, the people, will.


Medea
Benjamin is an American political activist, best known for
co-founding Code Pink.

==================================

* Zie: ‘Madeline Albright ‘gegrild’ over illegale interventies en sancties van de VS‘ (met video)

Voor meer berichten over Iran, klik op het label met die naam, direct onder dit bericht. Let
wel: na een aantal berichten wordt het laatst gelezen bericht telkens
herhaald, dan onder het laatst gelezen bericht even opnieuw op het
gekozen label klikken, enz. enz. 

Beste bezoeker, dat was het voor deze dag, morgen meer berichten. Maak er als het even mogelijk is, een mooie dag van.

Michelle Obama en massamedia proberen oorlogsmisdaden G.W. Bush weg te poetsen met een snoepje

Tijdens
de begrafenis van zijn vader, massamoordenaar en oorlogsmisdadiger
George H.W. Bush, gaf de nog grotere massamoordenaar en
oorlogsmisdadiger G.W. Bush, Michelle Obama een snoepje. Deze
handeling leidde tot een meer dan belachelijke en hysterische reactie
in de reguliere (massa-) media, waar men Bush als een geweldige en
gevoelige man afschilderde.

Deze
kontlikkerij van de reguliere media is niet alleen in het belang van
Bush, maar uiteraard ook van die media zelf, immers zij hebben
zonder enig onderzoek, laat staan kritiek de illegale oorlogen van die deze schoft begon van meet af aan gesteund (en zelfs nog daarvoor)……. Oorlogen tegen Afghanistan, Irak, Libië en Syrië, al
zijn de laatste 2 van die oorlogen aangegaan door de Obama administratie, zometeen meer
daarover.  Oh nee, dom van mij, de
oorlogen in Afghanistan en Irak zijn in feite nog steeds gaande en
hebben intussen aan meer dan 2 miljoen mensen uit die 2 landen het leven
gekost (alleen in Irak al meer dan 1,5 miljoen doden…..)….

Diezelfde
massamedia hebben ‘uiteraard’ ook de illegale oorlogen van de Obama
administratie uitentreuren gesteund. Het gaat dan om de illegale oorlogen tegen Libië en Syrië, naast een groot aantal geheime militaire operaties in
andere delen van Afrika, plus de opstand in Oekraïne, die door
Hillary Clinton, destijds minister van BuZa, werd georganiseerd
(i.s.m. de CIA) en waar de VS 4 miljard dollar aan spendeerde……..

Gevolg
van de gelukte opzet van die opstand in Oekraïne, een staatsgreep tegen de
democratisch gekozen regering Janoekovytsj, heeft ervoor gezorgd dat
de neonazi-junta van Porosjenko een oorlog begon tegen de Oekraïners in het oosten van het land, daar deze mensen niet wensten te leven
onder de neonazi-junta van Porosjenko en terecht goed pissig waren over de coup
tegen een o.a. door hen gekozen regering en president…….. 

Alle
leugens gefabriceerd door de VS over Oekraïne werden en worden zonder
enig commentaar overgenomen door de reguliere media
, op aangeven van de geheime diensten van de VS en die van haar westerse partners….. Ga maar eens
na wat diezelfde media te vertellen zouden hebben als er bijvoorbeeld
eenzelfde staatsgreep zou hebben plaatsgevonden in een land als België…… De rapen zouden gaar zijn geweest en diezelfde media
zouden moord en brand hebben geschreeuwd…… (hoewel, zouden ze dat
ook doen als de VS ook in België de antidemocratische agressor zou
zijn geweest?)

Voorts
zijn er nog de moorden die de VS pleegt op verdachten, dit middels
drones….. Dit terreurprogramma werd door Bush opgezet en in veel groter aantal door de Obama
administratie overgenomen, intussen heeft Trump deze terreuraanslagen nog verder uitgebreid…… Hoe is het mogelijk dat zogenaamd
onafhankelijke mediaorganen niet met hevige kritiek op deze
standrechtelijke executies zijn gekomen, zeker nadat een paar jaar
geleden al bekend werd gemaakt dat meer dan 90% van de slachtoffers van die
VS terreuraanslagen, niet eens werden verdacht, dus vooral vrouwen en
kinderen…???

Het
volgende artikel is van Caitlin Johnstone, vandaag gepubliceerd:

AUTHOR:
CAITLIN JOHNSTONE
DECEMBER
19, 2018

This
Isn’t News. This Is War Crimes Apologia.

The
fact that George W Bush has given Michelle Obama two pieces of candy
is once again making headlines in mainstream outlets like 
TimeThe
Hill
,
and 
Newsweek.
He has not given her any new pieces of candy since the last time he
did so at his father’s funeral. He also has not ceased to be the
man who facilitated the murder of a million Iraqis and inflicted a
whole new level of military expansionism and Orwellian surveillance
upon our world. As near as I can tell, the only reason this story is
once again making headlines is because Michelle Obama and the
mainstream media have decided to bring it up again.

He
has the presence of mind and the sense of humor to bring me a mint,
and he made it a point to give me that mint right then and there and
that’s the beauty of George Bush,” Obama said of the war criminal
in conversation at the SAP Center over the weekend, which we
apparently need to know about because the news is telling us about
it.

We’re
all Americans. We all care about our family and our kids, and we’re
trying to get ahead,” Obama continued. “And that’s how I feel
about [Bush]. You know? He’s a beautiful, funny, kind, sweet man.”

Amir@AmirAminiMD

I have always respected Michelle Obama. But continuing to glorify a mass murderer responsible for the death of over a million defenseless innocent civilians, reflects more on her own character than on that of that despicable war criminal.

322

11:42 PM – Dec 18, 2018

If
you’re starting to feel like attempts to rehabilitate George W
Bush’s image are being aggressively shoved down your throat by the
mass media at every opportunity, it’s because that is exactly what
is happening. Every few weeks there’s a new deluge of headlines
explaining to consumers of mainstream media why they should love the
43rd president because he’s such a cutesy wootsey cuddle pie, and
completely forget about the piles upon piles of human corpses he is
responsible for creating for no legitimate reason at all. The last
Bush appreciation blitz was 
less
than two weeks ago
.

And
there is a reason for this. Make no mistake, this relentless,
aggressive campaign to rehabilitate George W Bush whether you like it
or not is actually a campaign to rehabilitate what he did and the
mass media’s unforgivable complicity in it.

The
mass media failed spectacularly
 to
practice due diligence and hold power to account in the lead-up to
the illegal and unconscionable Iraq invasion, 
not
just the ghouls at Fox News
 but
respected centrist outlets like CNN, the 
New
York Times
 and
the 
Washington
Post
 as
well. Bogus government reports were passed on uncritically and
unquestioned, antiwar demonstrations with hundreds of thousands of
protesters were ignored and downplayed, and the words “Saddam
Hussein” and “9/11” were deliberately mentioned in the same
breath so frequently that seven out of ten Americans 
still
believed Saddam was responsible for the September 11 attacks
 months
after the Iraq invasion had occurred.

In
an environment where the 
New
York Times
 is
instructing its readers how to “
help
fight the information wars

against Russia, the BBC is 
coaching
its audience 
to
scream the word “whataboutism” whenever a skeptic of
establishment Russia narratives brings up Iraq, and the US Secretary
of Defense is claiming that Putin is trying to “
undermine
America’s moral authority
,”
the massive credibility hit that imperial media and institutions took
by deceiving the world into the destruction of Iraq matters.
Propaganda is a lot more important in cold war than in hot war since
avoiding direct military confrontation limits the options of the
participants, and Iraq is a giant bullet hole in the narrative of US
moral authority which Moscow is rightly all too happy to point out.

OffGuardian@OffGuardian0

Exactly this. This is a war on both morality & objective reality. People are rebranded “good” or “bad” not based on their actions, but whether or not they subscribe to a state mandated list of opinions.

Caitlin Johnstone ⏳@caitoz

Make no mistake, this relentless, aggressive, shove-it-down-your-throat campaign to rehabilitate George W Bush is actually a campaign to rehabilitate what he did and the mass media’s complicity in it. This isn’t news, it isn’t a heartwarming story, it’s war propaganda. https://twitter.com/TIME/status/1074907188429275136 

79

1:34 AM – Dec 19, 2018

Without
the claim of moral authority, none of America’s manipulations
against Russia make any sense. It’s absurd for America to spend
years shrieking about Russian election meddling after it 
openly
rigged Russia’s elections
 in
the nineties, unless America claims that it rigged Russia’s
elections for moral reasons while Russia rigged America’s elections
for immoral reasons. It makes no sense to have mainstream western
media outlets uncritically manufacturing support for wars and
coaching their audiences on how to help government agencies fight
“information wars” against Russia while also criticizing RT as
“state media”, unless you can say that western media functions as
an arm of the US government for moral reasons while RT does so for
immoral reasons. It makes no sense for the US to criticize Russian
military interventionism when the US is vastly more guilty of vastly
more egregious forms of military interventionism, unless the US can
claim its interventionism is moral while Russia’s is immoral.

For
this reason it’s been necessary to rehabilitate the image of the
Iraq invasion, and since there is no aspect of the Iraq invasion
itself that isn’t soaked in blood and gore, they are rehabilitating
its most recognizable face instead. Mainstream media outlets are
doing this both to restore their own credibility and the credibility
of the US world order they serve, in order to help secure crucial
narrative control as we slide ever closer to a 
direct
military confrontation with Russia and/or China
.

Whoever
controls the narrative controls the world, and Iraq is a major weak
point in the US-centralized empire’s narrative control. When you
see a political insider like Michelle Obama constantly facilitating
the mass media’s fixation on how cuddly wuddly George W Bush has
become, you are not witnessing a heartwarming moment, you are not
witnessing redemption, and you are most certainly not witnessing the
news. You are witnessing war propaganda, plain and simple.

____________________

That
was fun. So, the best way to get around the internet censors and make
sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list
for my
 website,
which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My
articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on
 Facebook,
following my antics on
 Twitter, throwing
some money into my hat on 
Patreon or Paypalpurchasing
some of my 
sweet
new merchandise
, buying
my new book 
Rogue
Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone
,
or my previous book 
Woke:
A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers
.

Bitcoin
donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

======================================

George H.W. Bush overleden: weer wordt een grote oorlogsmisdadiger de hemel in geprezen

George H.W. Bush overleden: weer wordt een grote oorlogsmisdadiger de hemel in geprezen

Afgelopen vrijdag overleed George H.W. Bush, VS president van 20 november 1989 tot 20 november 1993.

Alsof een groot staatsman was overleden, zo berichtten de landelijke (‘onafhankelijke’) radiozenders van Nederland, Duitsland, België en Groot-Brittannië over de dood van deze ‘zware’ oorlogsmisdadiger, die o.a. verantwoordelijk was voor de in feite illegale oorlog van de VS tegen Irak in 1991.

Voorts was deze Bush als president verantwoordelijk voor de oorlog tegen Panama, terwijl de leider van dat land Manuel Noriega*, een dictator was die door de VS aan de macht werd geholpen, waar Panama o.a. werd gebruikt door de VS voor terreuraanvallen op Nicaragua, waar Noriega destijds samenwerkte met de CIA……

Onder Bush als vicepresident en president werd de ‘war on drugs’ pas echt uitgerold, ook daarbij vielen enorm veel slachtoffers en werden hele gebieden onbewoonbaar gemaakt, door gif wat men vanuit vliegtuigen over landbouwgrond in o.a. Colombia verspreidde, zodat daar geen cocaplanten konden worden geteeld….. Terwijl de DEA en CIA met enige regelmaat gemeen spel speelden met de misdaadkartels en niet zelden zelf beter werden van de drugsverkoop in de VS…….. (waarmee men dan weer andere smerige spelletjes mee betaalde……)

Uiteraard werd Bush op de aangehaalde radiozenders alleen maar geprezen, niets over de zaken die hiervoor werden aangehaald………

Als vicepresident onder de mislukte cojboj Reagan, was Bush mede verantwoordelijk voor door de VS gepleegde massamoorden, staatsgrepen, illegale oorlogen en oorlogsmisdaden in het algemeen…….. De VS werd door de VN zelfs veroordeeld voor terreur gepleegd in Nicaragua, tijdens het vicepresidentschap van Bush….

Overigens is Bush ook nog even directeur van de CIA geweest, waar hij dan ook al is aan te merken als een groot crimineel en moordenaar voor de illegale acties van die geheime dienst………

Kortom: Bush had in Scheveningen moeten overlijden, tijdens een levenslange gevangenisstraf opgelegd door het Internationaal Strafhof (ICC)!!! Maar nee, de reguliere media ruimden soms zelfs hun hele nieuwsbericht in voor de dood van deze massamoordenaar, de BBC wist zelfs een uur vol te lullen over ‘de geweldige prestaties’ van Bush……

* Noriega werd later tot een 40 jarige gevangenisstraf veroordeeld in de VS, deze werd later omgezet in 30 jaar, in 2010 werd hij uitgeleverd aan Frankrijk, die hem tot 7 jaar gevangenisstraf veroordeelde, in 2017 werd hij vervroegd vrijgelaten voor een hersenoperatie in Panama, aan de gevolgen waarvan hij overleed.

Zie ook:

Michelle Obama en massamedia proberen oorlogsmisdaden G.W. Bush weg te poetsen met een snoepje

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

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

List of wars involving the United States

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

PS: ik sprak hier niet over de reacties van westerse politici, echter zoals je begrijpt bestaan die uit dezelfde valse bewoordingen als die de pers gebruikte.

Als de VS niet de VS was, zou de Verenigde Staten dit gestolen land bombarderen………

Zoals op deze pek al veelvuldig gesteld: de VS is de grootste terreurentiteit op aarde, het middels de grootste genocide ooit* gestolen land dat alleen al vanaf WOII meer dan 22 miljoen mensen vermoordde……………..

Gisteren kwam Anti-Media met een artikel onder de titel: ‘If America Wasn’t America, the United States Would Be Bombing It’. Hoewel ik de opzet van deze zin begrijp, klopt deze toch niet helemaal. Immers de VS laat andere terreurstaten gewoon hun gang gaan, zolang ze maar de VS steunen…. Neem Israël en Saoedi-Arabië, die zelfs door de VS worden gesteund in de terreur die ze brengen, en door diezelfde VS worden ontzien in de VN Veiligheidsraad, als het om resoluties tegen de smerige, bloederige praktijken gaat waar deze 2 landen zich keer op keer schuldig aan maken……

Maar geen gezeik: zeker niet als je ziet dat de VS haar illegale oorlogen verdedigt door te stellen dat het voor de verdrukte volkeren opkomt en democratie wil brengen**.

Darius Shahtahmasebi schreef het artikel n.a.v. een opiniestuk van voormalig VS regeringsadviseur Edward Luttwak. Deze oorlogshitser stelde in de kop dat het tijd is voor de VS om Noord-Korea te bombarderen.

Lullig genoeg voor Luttwak, gebruikte hij argumenten die nu juist van toepassing zijn op de wandel en handel van de VS… Zo geeft Shahtahmasebi een aantal voorbeelden, zoals het gebruik van atoombommen door de VS tegen Hiroshima en Nagasaki, terwijl deze aanvallen totaal onnodig waren zoals o.a. de hoge VS militairen Nimitz en Halsey destijds betoogden.

Lees het volgende artikel van Shahtahmasebi en oordeel zelf:

If
America Wasn’t America, the United States Would Be Bombing It

February
12, 2018 at 1:00 pm

Written
by 
Darius
Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) — On
January 8, 2018, former government advisor Edward Luttwak wrote
an
 opinion
piece
 for Foreign
Policy 
titled
“It’s Time to Bomb North Korea.”

Luttwak’s
thesis is relatively straightforward. There is a government out there
that may very soon acquire nuclear-weapons capabilities, and this
country cannot be trusted to responsibly handle such a stockpile. The
responsibility to protect the world from a rogue nation cannot be
argued with, and we understandably have a duty to ensure the future
of humanity.

However,
there is one rogue nation that continues to hold the world ransom
with its nuclear weapons supply. It is decimating non-compliant
states left, right, and center. This country must be stopped dead in
its tracks before anyone turns to the issue of North Korea.

In
August of 1945, this rogue nation dropped two atomic bombs on
civilian targets, not military targets, completely
obliterating
 between 135,000
and 300,000 Japanese civilians in just these two acts alone. Prior to
this event, this country killed even more civilians in the
 infamous
firebombing
 of
Tokyo and other areas of Japan, dropping close to 500,000 cylinders
of napalm and petroleum jelly on some of Japan’s most densely
populated areas.

Recently,
historians have become more open to the possibility that dropping the
atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not actually necessary to
end World War II. This has also been confirmed by those who actually
took part in it. As
 the Nation explained:

Fleet
Adm. Chester Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated
in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the
bombings that 
the
atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military
standpoint, in the defeat of Japan…’ 
Adm.
William “Bull” Halsey Jr., Commander of the US Third Fleet,
stated publicly in 1946 that 
the
first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. 
It
was a mistake to ever drop it…. [the scientists] had this toy and
they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…” 
[emphasis
added]

A
few months’ prior, this rogue country’s
 invasion of
the Japanese island of Okinawa also claimed at least one quarter of
Okinawa’s population. The Okinawan people have been protesting this
country’s military presence ever since. The most recent ongoing
protest
 has
lasted well over 5,000 days
 in
a row.

This
nation’s bloodlust continued well after the end of World War II.
Barely half a decade later, this country bombed North Korea into
complete oblivion, 
destroying over
8,700 factories, 5,000 schools, 1,000 hospitals, 600,000 homes,
and 
eventually
killing
 off
as much as 20 percent of the country’s population. As the 
Asia
Pacific Journal
 has
noted, the assaulting country dropped so many bombs that they
eventually ran out of targets to hit, turning to bomb the irrigation
systems, instead:

By
the fall of 1952, there were 
no effective
targets left for US planes to hit
.
Every significant town, city and industrial area in North Korea had
already been bombed. In the spring of 1953, the Air Force targeted
irrigation dams on the Yalu River, both to destroy the North Korean
rice crop and to pressure the Chinese, who would have to supply more
food aid to the North. Five reservoirs were hit, flooding thousands
of acres of farmland, inundating whole towns and laying waste to the
essential food source for millions of North Koreans.” 
[emphasis
added]

This
was just the beginning. Having successfully destroyed the future
North Korean state, this country moved on to the rest of East Asia
and Indo-China, too. As 
Rolling
Stone’s
 Matt
Taibbi
 has explained:

We
[this loose cannon of a nation] dumped 20 million gallons of toxic
herbicide on Vietnam from the air, just to make the shooting easier
without all those trees, an insane plan to win ‘hearts and minds’
that has left about a million still disabled from defects and disease
– including about 100,000 children, even decades later, little kids
with misshapen heads, webbed hands and fused eyelids writhing on
cots, our real American legacy, well out of view, of course.”

This
mass murder led to the deaths of between 1.5 million and 3.8 million
people,
 according to
the 
Washington
Post
.
More bombs were dropped on Vietnam than were unleashed during
the
 entire
conflict in World War II
.
While this was going on, this same country was also
 secretly
bombing
 Laos
and Cambodia, too, where there are over
 80
million unexploded bombs
 still
killing people to this day.

This
country also decided to bomb
 YugoslaviaPanama,
and 
Grenada before
invading Iraq in the early 1990s***. Having successfully bombed Iraqi
infrastructure, this country then punished Iraq’s entire civilian
population with brutal sanctions. At the time, the
U.N.
 estimated that
approximately 1.7 million Iraqis had died as a result,
 including
500,000 to 600,000 children
.
Some years later, a prominent medical journal 
attempted
to absolve the cause
 of
this infamous history by refuting the statistics involved despite the
fact that, when interviewed during the sanctions-era, Bill Clinton’s
secretary of state,

Madeleine
Albright, 
intimated that
to this rogue government, the deaths of half a million children were
“worth it” as the “price” Iraq needed to pay. In other words,
whether half a million children died or not was irrelevant to this
bloodthirsty nation, which barely blinked while carrying out this
murderous policy.

This
almighty superpower then invaded Iraq again in 2003 and plunged the
entire 
region
into chaos
.
At the end of May 2017, the Physicians for Social Responsibility
(PSR) released a
 study concluding
that the death toll from this violent nation’s 2003 invasion of
Iraq had led to over one million deaths and that at least one-third
of them were caused directly by the invading force.

Not
to mention this country also invaded Afghanistan prior to the
invasion of Iraq (even though the militants 
plaguing
Afghanistan
 were
originally trained and financed by this warmongering nation). It
then 
went
on to bomb
 Yemen,
Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and the 
Philippines.

Libya famously had
one of the highest standards of living in the region. It had
state-assisted healthcare, education, transport, and affordable
housing. It is now a lawless war-zone 
rife
with extremism
 where
slaves are 
openly
traded
 like
commodities amid the power vacuum created as a direct result of the
2011 invasion.

In
2017, the commander-in-chief of this violent nation took the
monumental death and destruction to a new a level by
 removing
the restrictions
 on
delivering airstrikes, which resulted in
 thousands upon thousands of
civilian deaths. Before that, in the first six months of 2017, this
country
 dropped
over 20,650 bombs
,
a monumental increase from the year that preceded it.

Despite
these statistics, all of the above conquests are mere child’s play
to this nation. The real prize lies in some of the more defiant and
more powerful states, which this country has already unleashed a
containment strategy upon. This country has deployed its own troops
all across the 
border
with Russia 
even
though it 
promised
in the early 1990s
 it
would do no such thing. It also has a specific policy of 
containing
Russia’s close ally, China,
 all
the while threatening China’s borders with talks of direct strikes
on North Korea (again, remember it already did so in the 1950s).

This
country also elected a president who not only believes it is okay
to 
embrace
this rampantly violent militarism
 but
who openly calls 
other
countries
 “shitholes”
– the very same term that aptly describes the way this country has
treated the rest of the world for decades on end. This same president
also reportedly once asked 
three
times in a meeting
,
If
we have nuclear weapons, why don’t we use them
?”
and shortly after proposed a policy to
 remove
the constraints
 protecting
the world from his dangerous supply of advanced nuclear weaponry.

When
it isn’t directly bombing a country, it is also 
arming
radical insurgent groups
,
creating instability, and directly 
overthrowing
governments
 through
its 
covert
operatives
 on
the ground.

If
we have any empathy for humanity, it is clear that this country must
be stopped. It cannot continue to act like this to the detriment of
the rest of the planet and the safety and security of the rest of us.
This country 
openly
talks
 about
using its nuclear weapons, has used them before, and has continued to
use all manner of weapons unabated in the years since while
threatening to expand the use of these weapons to other countries.

Seriously,
if North Korea seems like a threat, imagine how the rest of the world
feels while watching one country violently take on the rest of the
planet single-handedly, leaving nothing but destruction in its wake
and promising nothing less than a nuclear holocaust in the years to
come.

There
is only one country that has done and that continues to do the very
things North Korea is being accused of doing.

Take
as much time as you need for that to resonate.

Op-ed
Creative
Commons
 / Anti-Media / Report
a typo

==============================================

*    De grootste genocide ooit werd uitgevoerd in Noord-, Midden- en Zuid-Amerika

**  ‘Democratie brengen’, zelfs in landen waar NB een democratisch gekozen regering zat of zit, neem Syrië en Oekraïne (onder Janoekovytsj), waar de CIA eerst een opstand organiseerde, om deze te laten eindigen in een staatsgreep; deze zaak lukte wel in Oekraïne, maar niet in Syrië, waardoor deze landen wel in oorlog raakten en in chaos werden gestort……

*** De oorlog van de VS (NAVO) tegen Joegoslavië vond plaats nadat de VS op 17 januari 1991 onder de oude Bush-slachter (George H.W. Bush) de eerste VS oorlog tegen Irak begon, dit in tegenstelling tot wat Shahtahmasebi daar hierboven over heeft geschreven.

En om nog even te herinneren aan de enorme agressie van de VS, die niet op een illegale oorlog meer of minder kijkt:  ‘VS buitenlandbeleid sinds WOII: een lange lijst van staatsgrepen en oorlogen……….‘ en:  ‘List of wars involving the United States

Zie ook: ‘Top VS generaal stelt dat er een grote oorlog met Rusland op komst is, ofwel: WOIII……

        en: ‘Trumps atoomknop is groter dan die van Kim Yung-un, bovendien werkt de VS knop wel……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

        en: ‘VN chef Guterres geeft alarmcode rood af voor de wereld in 2018 en niet alleen vanwege het milieu of klimaat……

        en: ‘Trumps uitlating over de atoomknop en de onverschilligheid bij zijn achterban, een dictatuur waardig………

        en: ‘VS op weg naar daadwerkelijk gebruik van het kernwapen…………..‘ (plus twee andere Engelstalige artikelen)

        en: ‘VS sluit een nucleaire aanval niet uit als een mogelijke reactie op een ‘cyberaanval…….’

        en: ‘NAVO oefent op een nucleaire aanval tegen ‘een denkbeeldige vijand’, ofwel Rusland……….‘ (de NAVO is in feite een organisatie van de VS en is daarmee een organisatie die dan ook precies doet wat de VS wil en de VS helpt in haar grootschalige terreur )

       en: ‘Pompeo (CIA opperhoofd met koperen fluit): heeft alle aanwijzingen dat Rusland de midterm verkiezingen zal manipuleren……

En om nog even te herinneren aan de enorme agressie van de VS, die niet op een illegale oorlog meer of minder kijkt:  ‘VS buitenlandbeleid sinds WOII: een lange lijst van staatsgrepen en oorlogen……….‘ en:  ‘List of wars involving the United States

Dan nog over het bedreigen van Noord-Korea door Trump met ‘Fire and Fury): ‘Noord-Korea verkeerd begrepen: het land wordt bedreigd door de VS, dat alleen deze eeuw al minstens 4 illegale oorlogen begon……..‘   en: ‘Noord-Korea wil graag overleggen met de VS dat alweer de boot afhoudt………

Is Putin corrupt? De waarheid over ‘handel en wandel’ van de Russische president (en een nieuwe gifgasaanval in Syrië…..)

Over Putin worden de meest vreemde dingen verteld, zo zou hij o.a. corrupt zijn en zich zo verrijken middels zijn functie als president van Rusland.

Niet dat men met bewijzen komt waarmee e.e.a. wordt aangetoond, maar dat maakt niet uit, immers Putin is de kwaaie pier en barbertje moet hangen, daarvoor houdt men met grote graagte leugens in de lucht, of die leugens nu van de media, politiek of de geheime diensten komen (leugens die men uiteraard  van elkaar overneemt en steunt door deze te herhalen…)….

Voorlopig heeft Putin voorkomen dat in Syrie de boel niet veel verder escaleerde, neem de belachelijke beschieting van het vliegveld van Homs, na de zoveelste vermeende gifgasaanval van het Syrische leger, die ook in dit geval niet bleek te kloppen…… Vandaag wordt het Syrische leger weer beschuldigd van het aanvallen van doelen in de provincie Idlib met chlorine (chloorgas)…..

BBC World Service meldde rond 11.35 u. (CET) vanmorgen dat het Syrische leger gifgas zou hebben gebruikt bij een aanval in de provincie Idlib. Het bewijs daarvoor? Een woordvoerder van de White Helmets had e.e.a. van horen zeggen, voorts heeft de BBC correspondent Martin Patience ook van alles gehoord, terwijl hij in Beiroet (Libanon) zit……..

De woordvoerder van de White Helmets voerde de haat tegen Syrië verder op, door te stellen dat het in Idlib om veel vluchtelingen gaat die uit Aleppo zijn gevlucht en wel een kwart miljoen mensen……. Het grootste deel van de bewoners van Aleppo is al lang terug, blij dat de fundamentalistische terreurgroepen (‘gematigde rebellen’) niets meer te vertellen hebben in hun stad….. De bedoelde vluchtelingen zijn dan ook voornamelijk families van de terreurgroepen die in Aleppo op basis van de sharia wetgeving, een ware terreur uitoefenden, voordat het Syrische leger de stad weer innam………

De presentator van het BBC programma had het lef te durven zeggen dat (de bewering dat Syrië gifgas heeft gebruikt): “This is proven (to be true….)”

Door naar een ‘wat eerlijker’ verhaal over Putin:

Is
Putin Profoundly Corrupt or “Incorruptible?”

Sharon
Tennison recounts her personal experience of and observations about
Vladimir Putin

By Sharon Tennison

Sharon
Tennison recounts her personal experience of and observations about
Vladimir Putin. first published in 2014 and first appearing on this
site in April 2017, we are re-airing this alternative analysis in the
year of the Russian presidential election as being of continuing
relevance in the struggle to separate truth from #fakenews. Tennison
presents a view of VVP as essentially “incorruptible”. To those
who get their information from the mainstream media, and even from
many alternative news sites this will seem a slightly incredible
idea. Yet Tennison’s opinion is not unsourced or unconsidered. And
the numerous claims of Putin’s massive personal wealth and
“gangster” mentality remain entirely uncorroborated. Where does
the truth lie?

February
04, 2018 “Information
Clearing House
” – As the Ukraine situation has
worsened, unconscionable misinformation and hype is being poured on
Russia and Vladimir Putin. Journalists and pundits must scour the
Internet and thesauruses to come up with fiendish new epithets to
describe both. Wherever I make presentations across America, the
first question ominously asked during Q&A is always, “What
about Putin?” It’s time to share my thoughts which follow:

Putin
obviously has his faults and makes mistakes. Based on my earlier
experience with him, and the experiences of trusted people, including
U.S. officials who have worked closely with him over a period of
years, Putin most likely is a straight, reliable and exceptionally
inventive man.

He
is obviously a long-term thinker and planner and has proven to be an
excellent analyst and strategist. He is a leader who can quietly work
toward his goals under mounds of accusations and myths that have been
steadily leveled at him since he became Russia’s second president.

I’ve
stood by silently watching the demonization of Putin grow since it
began in the early 2000s –– I pondered on computer my thoughts
and concerns, hoping eventually to include them in a book (which was
published in 2011). The book explains my observations more thoroughly
than this article.

Like
others who have had direct experience with this little known man,
I’ve tried to no avail to avoid being labeled a “Putin
apologist”. If one is even neutral about him, they are considered
“soft on Putin” by pundits, news hounds and average citizens who
get their news from CNN, Fox and MSNBC.

I
don’t pretend to be an expert, just a program developer in the USSR
and Russia for the past 30 years. But during this time, I’ve have
had far more direct, on-ground contact with Russians of all stripes
across 11 time zones than any of the Western reporters or for that
matter any of Washington’s officials.

I’ve
been in country long enough to ponder on Russian history and culture
deeply, to study their psychology and conditioning, and to understand
the marked differences between American and Russian mentalities which
so complicate our political relations with their leaders.

As
with personalities in a family or a civic club or in a city hall, it
takes understanding and compromise to be able to create workable
relationships when basic conditionings are different. Washington has
been notoriously disinterested in understanding these differences and
attempting to meet Russia halfway.

In
addition to my personal experience with Putin, I’ve had discussions
with numerous American officials and U.S. businessmen who have had
years of experience working with him––I believe it is safe to say
that none would describe him as “brutal” or “thuggish”, or
the other slanderous adjectives and nouns that are repeatedly used in
western media.

I
met Putin years before he ever dreamed of being president of Russia,
as did many of us working in St.Petersburg during the 1990s. Since
all of the slander started, I’ve become nearly obsessed with
understanding his character. I think I’ve read every major speech
he has given (including the full texts of his annual hours-long
telephone “talk-ins” with Russian citizens).

I’ve
been trying to ascertain whether he has changed for the worse since
being elevated to the presidency, or whether he is a straight
character cast into a role he never anticipated––and is using
sheer wits to try to do the best he can to deal with Washington under
extremely difficult circumstances.

If
the latter is the case, and I think it is, he should get high marks
for his performance over the past 14 years. It’s not by accident
that Forbes declared him the most Powerful Leader of 2013, replacing
Obama who was given the title for 2012. The following is my one
personal experience with Putin.

The
year was 1992

It
was two years after the implosion of communism; the place was
St.Petersburg.

For
years I had been creating programs to open up relations between the
two countries and hopefully to help Soviet people to get beyond their
entrenched top-down mentalities. A new program possibility emerged in
my head. Since I expected it might require a signature from the
Marienskii City Hall, an appointment was made.

My
friend Volodya Shestakov and I showed up at a side door entrance to
the Marienskii building. We found ourselves in a small, dull brown
office, facing a rather trim nondescript man in a brown suit.

He
inquired about my reason for coming in. After scanning the proposal I
provided he began asking intelligent questions. After each of my
answers, he asked the next relevant question.

I
became aware that this interviewer was different from other Soviet
bureaucrats who always seemed to fall into chummy conversations with
foreigners with hopes of obtaining bribes in exchange for the
Americans’ requests. 
CCI stood
on the principle that we would never, never give bribes.

This
bureaucrat was open, inquiring, and impersonal in demeanor. After
more than an hour of careful questions and answers, he quietly
explained that he had tried hard to determine if the proposal was
legal, then said that unfortunately at the time it was not. A few
good words about the proposal were uttered. That was all. He simply
and kindly showed us to the door.

Out
on the sidewalk, I said to my colleague, “
Volodya,
this is the first time we have ever dealt with a Soviet bureaucrat
who didn’t ask us for a trip to the US or something valuable!

I
remember looking at his business card in the sunlight––it
read 
Vladimir
Vladimirovich Putin
.

1994

U.S.
Consul General Jack Gosnell put in an SOS call to me in
St.Petersburg. He had 14 Congress members and the new American
Ambassador to Russia, Thomas Pickering, coming to St.Petersburg in
the next three days. He needed immediate help.

I
scurried over to the Consulate and learned that Jack intended me to
brief this auspicious delegation and the incoming ambassador.

I
was stunned but he insisted. They were coming from Moscow and were
furious about how U.S. funding was being wasted there. Jack wanted
them to hear the”good news” about CCI’s programs that were
showing fine results. In the next 24 hours Jack and I also set up
“home” meetings in a dozen Russian entrepreneurs’ small
apartments for the arriving dignitaries (St.Petersburg State
Department people were aghast, since it had never been done
before––but Jack overruled).

Only
later in 2000, did I learn of Jack’s former three-year experience
with Vladimir Putin in the 1990s while the latter was running the
city for Mayor Sobchak. More on this further down.

December
31, 1999

With
no warning, at the turn of the year, President Boris Yeltsin made the
announcement to the world that from the next day forward he was
vacating his office and leaving Russia in the hands of an unknown
Vladimir Putin.

On
hearing the news, I thought surely not the Putin I remembered––he
could never lead Russia. The next day a 
NYTarticle
included a photo.

Yes,
it was the same Putin I’d met years ago! I was shocked and
dismayed, telling friends, “
This
is a disaster for Russia, I’ve spent time with this guy, he is too
introverted and too intelligent––he will never be able to relate
to Russia’s masses
.”

Further,
I lamented: “
For
Russia to get up off of its knees, two things must happen: 1) The
arrogant young oligarchs have to be removed by force from the
Kremlin, and 2) A way must be found to remove the regional bosses
(governors) from their fiefdoms across Russia’s 89 regions
”.

It
was clear to me that the man in the brown suit would never have the
instincts or guts to tackle Russia’s overriding twin challenges.

February
2000

Almost
immediately Putin began putting Russia’s oligarchs on edge. In
February a question about the oligarchs came up; he clarified with a
question and his answer:

What
should be the relationship with the so-called oligarchs? The same as
anyone else. The same as the owner of a small bakery or a shoe repair
shop.

This
was the first signal that the tycoons would no longer be able to
flaunt government regulations or count on special access in the
Kremlin. It also made the West’s capitalists nervous.

After
all, these oligarchs were wealthy untouchable businessmen––good
capitalists, never mind that they got their enterprises illegally and
were putting their profits in offshore banks.

Four
months later Putin called a meeting with the oligarchs and gave them
his deal:

They
could keep their illegally-gained wealth-producing Soviet enterprises
and they would not be nationalized …. IF taxes were paid on their
revenues and if they personally stayed out of politics.

This
was the first of Putin’s “elegant solutions” to the near
impossible challenges facing the new Russia. But the deal also put
Putin in crosshairs with US media and officials who then began to
champion the oligarchs, particularly Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

The
latter became highly political, didn’t pay taxes, and prior to
being apprehended and jailed was in the process of selling a major
portion of Russia’s largest private oil company, Yukos Oil, to
Exxon Mobil. Unfortunately, to U.S. media and governing structures,
Khodorkovsky became a martyr (and remains so up to today).

March
2000

I
arrived in St.Petersburg. A Russian friend (a psychologist) since
1983 came for our usual visit. My first question was, “
Lena
what do you think about your new president?

She laughed and retorted, “
Volodya!
I went to school with him!

She
began to describe Putin as a quiet youngster, poor, fond of martial
arts, who stood up for kids being bullied on the playgrounds. She
remembered him as a patriotic youth who applied for the KGB
prematurely after graduating secondary school (they sent him away and
told him to get an education).

He
went to law school, later reapplied and was accepted. I must have
grimaced at this, because Lena said:

Sharon
in those days we all admired the KGB and believed that those who
worked there were patriots and were keeping the country safe. We
thought it was natural for Volodya to choose this career.

My
next question was:

What
do you think he will do with Yeltsin’s criminals in the Kremlin?

Putting
on her psychologist hat, she pondered and replied:

If
left to his normal behaviors, he will watch them for a while to be
sure what is going on, then he will throw up some flares to let them
know that he is watching. If they don’t respond, he will address
them personally, then if the behaviors don’t change–– some will
be in prison in a couple of years.

I
congratulated her via email when her predictions began to show up in
real time.

Throughout
the 2000s

St.Petersburg’s
many CCI alumni were being interviewed to determine how the PEP
business training program was working and how we could make the U.S.
experience more valuable for their new small businesses. Most
believed that the program had been enormously important, even life
changing. Last, each was asked:

So
what do you think of your new president?

None
responded negatively, even though at that time entrepreneurs hated
Russia’s bureaucrats. Most answered similarly, “Putin registered
my business a few years ago”.

Next
question:

So,
how much did it cost you?

To
a person they replied, “
Putin
didn’t charge anything
”.
One said:

We
went to Putin’s desk because the others providing registrations at
the Marienskii were getting ‘rich on their seats.’

Late
2000

Into
Putin’s first year as Russia’s president, US officials seemed to
me to be suspect that he would be antithetical to America’s
interests––his every move was called into question in American
media. I couldn’t understand why and was chronicling these
happenings in my computer and newsletters.

Year
2001

Jack
Gosnell (former USCG mentioned earlier) explained his relationship
with Putin when the latter was deputy mayor of St.Petersburg. The two
of them worked closely to create joint ventures and other ways to
promote relations between the two countries. Jack related that Putin
was always straight up, courteous and helpful.

When
Putin’s wife, Ludmila, was in a severe auto accident, Jack took the
liberty (before informing Putin) to arrange hospitalization and
airline travel for her to get medical care in Finland. When Jack told
Putin, he reported that the latter was overcome by the generous
offer, but ended saying that he couldn’t accept this favor, that
Ludmila would have to recover in a Russian hospital.

She
did––although medical care in Russia was abominably bad in the
1990s.

A
senior CSIS officer I was friends with in the 2000s worked closely
with Putin on a number of joint ventures during the 1990s. He
reported that he had no dealings with Putin that were questionable,
that he respected him and believed he was getting an undeserved dour
reputation from U.S. media.

Matter
of fact, he closed the door at CSIS when we started talking about
Putin. I guessed his comments wouldn’t be acceptable if others were
listening.

Another
former U.S. official who will go unidentified, also reported working
closely with Putin, saying there was never any hint of bribery,
pressuring, nothing but respectable behaviors and helpfulness.

I
had two encounters in 2013 with State Department officials regarding
Putin:

At
the first one, I felt free to ask the question I had previously
yearned to get answered:

When
did Putin become unacceptable to Washington officials and why??

Without
hesitating the answer came back:

The
knives were drawn’ when it was announced that Putin would be the
next president.”

I
questioned
 WHY? The
answer:

I
could never find out why––maybe because he was KGB.”

I
offered that Bush #I, was head of the CIA. The reply was

That
would have made no difference, he was our guy.

The
second was a former State Department official with whom I recently
shared a radio interview on Russia. Afterward when we were chatting,
I remarked, “You might be interested to know that I’ve collected
experiences of Putin from numerous people, some over a period of
years, and they all say they had no negative experiences with Putin
and there was no evidence of taking bribes”. He firmly replied:

No
one has ever been able to come up with a bribery charge against
Putin.”

From
2001 up to today, I’ve watched the negative U.S. media mounting
against Putin …. even accusations of assassinations, poisonings,
and comparing him to Hitler.

No
one yet has come up with any concrete evidence for these allegations.
During this time, I’ve traveled throughout Russia several times
every year, and have watched the country slowly change under Putin’s
watch. Taxes were lowered, inflation lessened, and laws slowly put in
place. Schools and hospitals began improving. Small businesses were
growing, agriculture was showing improvement, and stores were
becoming stocked with food.

Alcohol
challenges were less obvious, smoking was banned from buildings, and
life expectancy began increasing. Highways were being laid across the
country, new rails and modern trains appeared even in far out places,
and the banking industry was becoming dependable. Russia was
beginning to look like a decent country –– certainly not where
Russians hoped it to be long term, but improving incrementally for
the first time in their memories.

My
2013/14 Trips to Russia
:

In
addition to St.Petersburg and Moscow, in September I traveled out to
the Ural Mountains, spent time in Ekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk and Perm.
We traveled between cities via autos and rail––the fields and
forests look healthy, small towns sport new paint and construction.
Today’s Russians look like Americans (we get the same clothing from
China).

Old
concrete Khrushchev block houses are giving way to new multi-story
private residential complexes which are lovely. High-rise business
centers, fine hotels and great restaurants are now common place––and
ordinary Russians frequent these places. Two and three story private
homes rim these Russian cities far from Moscow.

We
visited new museums, municipal buildings and huge super markets.
Streets are in good repair, highways are new and well marked now,
service stations look like those dotting American highways. In
January I went to Novosibirsk out in Siberia where similar new
architecture was noted. Streets were kept navigable with constant
snowplowing, modern lighting kept the city bright all night, lots of
new traffic lights (with seconds counting down to light change) have
appeared.

It
is astounding to me how much progress Russia has made in the past 14
years since an unknown man with no experience walked into Russia’s
presidency and took over a country that was flat on its belly.

So
why do our leaders and media demean and demonize Putin and Russia???

Like
Lady MacBeth, do they protest too much?

Psychologists
tell us that people (and countries?) project off on others what they
don’t want to face in themselves. Others carry our “shadow”
when we refuse to own it. We confer on others the very traits that we
are horrified to acknowledge in ourselves.

Could
this be why we constantly find fault with Putin and Russia?

Could
it be that we project on to Putin the sins of ourselves and our
leaders?

Could
it be that we condemn Russia’s corruption, acting like the
corruption within our corporate world doesn’t exist?

Could
it be that we condemn their human rights and LGBT issues, not facing
the fact that we haven’t solved our own?

Could
it be that we accuse Russia of “reconstituting the USSR”––because
of what we do to remain the world’s “hegemon”?

Could
it be that we project nationalist behaviors on Russia, because that
is what we have become and we don’t want to face it?

Could
it be that we project warmongering off on Russia, because of what we
have done over the past several administrations?

Some
of you were around Putin in the earlier years. Please share your
opinions, pro and con …. confidentiality will be assured. It’s
important to develop a composite picture of this demonized leader and
get the record straight. I’m quite sure that 99% of those who
excoriate him in mainstream media have had no personal contact with
him at all. They write articles on hearsay, rumors and fabrication,
or they read scripts others have written on their tele-prompters.
This is how our nation gets its “news”, such as it is.

There
is a well known code of ethics among us: Is it the Truth, Is it Fair,
Does it build Friendship and Goodwill, and Will it be Beneficial for
All Concerned?

It
seems to me that if our nation’s leaders would commit to using
these four principles in international relations, the world would
operate in a completely different manner, and human beings across
this planet would live in better conditions than they do today.

As
always your comments will be appreciated. Please resend this report
to as many friends and colleagues as possible.

Sharon
Tennison ran a successful NGO funded by philanthropists, American
foundations, USAID and Department of State, designing new programs
and refining old ones, and evaluating Russian delegates’ U.S.
experiences for over 20 years. Tennison adapted the Marshall Plan
Tours from the 40s/50s, and created the Production Enhancement
Program (PEP) for Russian entrepreneurs, the largest ever business
training program between the U.S. and Russia. Running several large
programs concurrently during the 90s and 2000s, funding disappeared
shortly after the 2008 financial crisis set in. Tennison still runs
an orphanage program in Russia, is President and Founder, Center for
Citizen Initiatives, a member of Rotary Club of Palo Alto,
California, and author of 
The
Power of Impossible Ideas: Ordinary Citizens’ Extraordinary Efforts
to Avert International Crises
.
The author can be contacted at sharon@ccisf.org

This
article was originally published by “
Off Guardian

Untitled Post

Corruptie:
Europese Commissie
maakt gemene zaak met Monsanto over toestaan
glyfosaat!

In
een uitgebreid schrijven toont William Engdahl aan (hij is economie onderzoeker,
historicus en journalist) dat Monsanto en de Europese Commissie
onder één hoedje hebben gespeeld, om glyfosaat, een onderdeel van
Monsanto’s Roundup, op de EU markt te houden……..

Voorts
toont Engdahl aan dat het onderzoek van Monsanto naar de effecten van
haar gif op de gezondheid, totaal onvoldoende was en dat een echt
wetenschappelijk onderzoek wel degelijk aantoont dat glyfosaat
kankerverwekkend is!!

Engdahl
spreekt zelfs onomwonden over corruptie: “
In
this installment I want to share with you something I have written on
one of the most shocking corruption scandals in the history of a very
corrupt European Union Commission together with corruption by
Monsanto and the related GMO agribusiness industry”.
 Een Nederlandse wetenschapper, Harry Kuiper speelt ook een smerige rol in het geheel, deze plork pleit er voor de regulering op GMO zaden (o.a. van Monsanto en haar opkoper Bayer) te verzwakken en het gebruik van deze zaden toe te staan in de EU

Lees
over de hele smerige gang van zaken aangaande het toestatan van een
kankerverwekkend gif, dat ook jij al jaren binnenkrijgt, althans als je niet jouw producten in een ecologische levensmiddelenzaak, dan wel op een
ecologische groentemarkt kocht/koopt…..

Ten
overvloede blijkt nogmaals dat de overheid allesbehalve oog heeft
voor uw gezondheid en veiligheid, maar wel voor de financiële belangen
van (grote) bedrijven en aandeelhouders…… De overheid in deze, de Europese
Commissie, is ook nog eens een niet democratisch gekozen orgaan, waarin godbetert de enorme PvdA kwal Timmermans zitting heeft…… Moet
je nagaan: men geeft als excuus voor het geven van extreem hoge inkomens en onkostenvergoedingen in het EU parlement,
zoals die aan politici en nog hogere inkomens voor figuren als Timmermans, dat men
dan niet ‘vattelijk’ is voor corruptie…. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Nogmaals: NEXIT NU!

Cancerous
rats, corruption and Terminator seeds

©
F. William Engdahl

The
Cancer of Corruption in Brussels

September
2012 a respected international scientific journal, 
Food
and Chemical Toxicology
,
released a study by a team of scientists at France’s Caen
University led by Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini. The Seralini study
had been reviewed over a four-month period by a qualified group of
scientific peers for its methodology and was deemed publishable.

It
was no amateur undertaking but rather, the carefully-documented
results of tests on a group of 200 rats over a two-year life span,
with one group of non-GMO fed rats, a so-called control group, and
the other a group of GMO-fed rats.

Significantly,
following a long but finally successful legal battle to force
Monsanto to release the details of its own study of the safety of its
own NK603 maize, Seralini and colleagues reproduced a 2004 Monsanto
study published in the same journal and used by the European Food
Safety Authority (EFSA) for its 2009 positive evaluation of NK603.

Seralini’s
group based their experiment on the same protocol as the Monsanto
study but, critically, testing more parameters more frequently. And
the rats were studied for much longer—their full two year average
life-time instead of just 90 days in the Monsanto study. The long
time span proved critical. The first tumors only appeared 4 to7
months into the study. In industry’s earlier 90-day study on the same
GMO maize Monsanto NK603, signs of toxicity were seen but were
dismissed as “not biologically meaningful” by industry and EFSA
alike. It seems they were indeed very biologically meaningful.

The
study was also done with the highest number of rats ever measured in
a standard GMO diet study. They tested “also for the first time 3
doses (rather than two in the usual 90 day long protocols) of the
Roundup-tolerant NK603 GMO maize alone, the GMO maize treated with
Roundup, and Roundup alone at very low environmentally relevant doses
starting below the range of levels permitted by regulatory
authorities in drinking water and in GM feed.” 
[1]

Their
findings were more than alarming. The Seralini study concluded, “In
females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls, and
more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs.
All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological
profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors
almost always more often than and

before
controls; the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex
hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In
treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5 times
higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission
electron microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also
generally 1.3–2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large
palpable tumors than controls…” 
[2]

Four
times meant four hundred percent more large tumors in GMO fed rats
than in normally fed ones of the control group. Moreover, they
reported, “By the beginning of the 24th month, 50–80% of female
animals had developed tumors in all treated groups, with up to 3
tumors per animal, whereas only 30% of controls [
non-GMO-fed—w.e.]
were affected. The Roundup treatment groups showed the greatest rates
of tumor incidence with 80% of animals affected with up to 3 tumors
for one female, in each group.” 
[3]

Such
alarming results had not yet become evident in the first 90 days, the
length of most all Monsanto and agrichemical industry tests to date,
a clear demonstration of how important it was to conduct longer-term
tests and apparently why the industry avoided the longer tests.

Seralini
and associates continued to document their alarming findings: “We
observed a strikingly marked induction of mammary tumors by R
(Roundup) alone, a major formulated pesticide, even at the very
lowest dose administered. R has been shown to disrupt aromatase which
synthesizes estrogens (Richard et al., 2005), but to also interfere
with estrogen and androgen receptors in cells (Gasnier et al., 2009).
In addition, R appears to be a sex endocrine disruptor in vivo, also
in males (Romano et al., 2010). Sex steroids are also modified in
treated rats. These hormone-dependent phenomena are confirmed by
enhanced pituitary dysfunction in treated females.” 
[4]

Roundup
herbicide, by terms of the license contract with Monsanto, must be
used on Monsanto and most other GMO seeds. The seeds are in fact
“modified” only to resist the weed-killing effect of Roundup, the
world’s largest-selling weed-killer.

In
plain language, as another scientific study noted, “GMO plants have
been modified to contain pesticides, either through herbicide
tolerance or by producing insecticides, or both, and could therefore
be considered as ‘pesticide plants’” 
[5]

Further,
“Roundup Ready crops [
such
as Monsanto NK603 maize-w.e.
]
have been modified in order to become insensitive to glyphosate. This
chemical, together with adjuvants in formulations, constitutes a
potent herbicide. It has been used for many years as a weed
killer…GMO plants exposed to glyphosate-based herbicides such as
Roundup…can even accumulate Roundup residues throughout their
life…Glyphosate and its main metabolite AMPA (with its own
toxicity) are found in GMOs on a regular and regulatory basis.
Therefore, such residues are absorbed by people eating most GMO
plants (as around 80% of these plants are Roundup tolerant).” 
[6]

Monsanto
had repeatedly refused scientific requests to publish the exact
chemicals used in its Roundup aside from one—glyphosate. They
argued that it was a “trade secret.” Independent analyses by
scientists indicated, however, that the combination of glyphosate
with Monsanto’s mystery added chemicals created a highly toxic
cocktail that was shown to toxically affect human embryo cells in
doses far lower than used in agriculture.
[7]​​​​​​​

Mammary
tumors that developed in rats fed GMO corn and/or low levels of
Roundup. From the paper “Long term toxicity of a Roundup
herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize,”
published in 
Food
and Chemical Toxicology
.

​​​​​​​

What
was more than alarming in the context of that first long-term
independent study of the effects of a GMO diet on rats was that it
took place some twenty years after US President George H.W. Bush gave
the commercial release of GMO seeds the green light and mandated no
government safety tests before release. Bush did so following a
closed-door meeting with top officials of Monsanto Corporation, the
world’s largest GMO concern. The US President decreed that GMO
seeds were to be permitted in the United States with not one single
independent precautionary government test to determine if they were
safe for human or animal consumption. It became known as the Doctrine
of Substantial Equivalence, about which more in a subsequent chapter.
The EU Commission dutifully aped the US Substantial Equivalence
Doctrine of “hear no bad effects, see no bad effects…hear no
evil, see no evil.”

EFSA
‘science’ exposed

What
the Seralini study set off was the scientific equivalent of a
thermonuclear explosion. It exposed the fact that the EU “scientific”
controls on GMO were nothing other than accepting without question
the tests given them by Monsanto and the other GMO companies
themselves. As far as the irresponsible bureaucrats of the EU
Commission were concerned, when it came to GMO, the Monsanto fox
could indeed “guard the hen house.”

Suddenly,
with worldwide attention to the new Seralini results, the EU
Commission and its EFSA was under fire as never in their history. How
they reacted was worthy of a bad copy of an Agatha Christie murder
novel. Only it was no novel but a real-life conspiracy (yes,
Virginia, there are conspiracies in the real world…). The
conspiracy evidently involved some form of collusion between Monsanto
and the GMO agrichemical cartel, EU commissioners, the GMO panel
members of EFSA, complacent major media and several member
governments of the EU, including Spain and Holland.

The
Brussels EU scientific food regulatory organization, EFSA, was under
the gun from the damning results of the long-term Seralini study.
EFSA had recommended approval of Monsanto’s NK603 Roundup-tolerant
maize in 2009 without first conducting or insuring any independent
testing. They admitted in their official journal that they relied on
“information supplied by the applicant (Monsanto), the scientific
comments submitted by Member States and the report of the Spanish
Competent Authority and its Biosafety Commission.” EFSA also
admitted that the Monsanto tests on rats were for only 90 days.
Seralini’s group noted that the massive toxic effects and deaths of
GMO-fed rats took place well after 90 days, a reason why longer-term
studied were obviously warranted. 
[8]

The
Spanish report cited by EFSA was itself hardly convincing and was
anything but independent. It stated, “according to the current
state of scientific knowledge and after examining the existing
information and data provided by the Monsanto Company, the Spanish
Commission on Biosafety could give a favorable opinion to the
commercialization in the EU of maize NK603…” And the scientific
comments submitted by Member States seemed to include Spain and
Holland which applied to license the Monsanto seed in the first
place. 
[9]

The
EFSA concluded at the time of its approval in 2009 that, “the
molecular data provided [
by
Monsanto-w.e.
]
are sufficient and do not raise a safety concern.” The Brussels
scientific panel further declared amid scientific-sounding verbiage
that, “The EFSA GMO Panel is of the opinion that maize NK603 is as
safe as conventional maize. Maize NK603 and derived products are
unlikely to have any adverse effect on human and animal health in the
context of the intended uses.” 
[10]

Now,
in September 2012, three years after the commercial introduction of
Monsanto GMO maize in the EU, Seralini showed, complete with ghastly
photos, that Monsanto’s GMO maize demonstrably caused severe rates
of cancerous tumors and early death in rats.

The
EU Commission in Brussels had stated clear guidelines that were as
revealing for what they did not say as for what they did say about
what precautions are taken to insure public health and safety from
exposure to GMO plants and their paired toxic herbicides:
“Toxicological assessments on test animals are not explicitly
required for the approval of a new food in the EU or the US.
Independent experts have decided that in some cases, chemical
analyses of the food’s makeup are enough to indicate that the new
GMO is substantially equivalent to its traditional counterpart…In
recent years, biotech companies have tested their transgenic products
(maize, soy, tomato) before introducing them to the market on several
different animals over the course of up to 90 days. Negative effects
have not yet been observed.” 
[11]

Because
of US Government arm-twisting and of the obviously powerful lobby
power of the Monsanto-led GMO agrichemical lobby in the US and EU, as
of the time of the Seralini study, no regulatory authority in the
world had  requested mandatory chronic animal feeding studies to
be performed for edible GMOs and formulated pesticides. The only
studies available were a tiny handful of 90 day rat feeding trials
carried out by the biotech industry and no studies longer than that,
apparently on the principle that conflict of interest in an area as
important as the safety of food should not be taken as a serious
matter.

Revealingly,
the EU stated publicly the following seemingly reassuring policy:
“GMO critics claim that feeding studies with authorized GMOs have
revealed negative health effects. Such claims have not been based on
peer-reviewed, scientifically accepted evaluations. If reliable,
scientific studies were to indicate any type of health risk, the
respective GMO would not receive authorization.” 
[12] That
was the EU official line until the 2012 Seralini bomb exploded in
their faces.

EU
Commission coverup

The
September 2012 Seralini study was peer-reviewed, and it was published
in a highly respected international scientific journal after such
review. What was the response of the EU Commission and the EFSA?
Nothing short of fraudulent deception and coverup of their corruption
by the Monsanto GMO lobby.

On
November 28, 2012, only a few weeks after the study was published,
EFSA in Brussels issued a press release with the following
conclusion: “Serious defects in the design and methodology of a
paper by Séralini et al. mean it does not meet acceptable scientific
standards and there is no need to re-examine previous safety
evaluations of genetically modified maize NK603.”   Per
Bergman, who led EFSA’s work, said: “EFSA’s analysis has shown
that deficiencies in the Séralini et al. paper mean it is of
insufficient scientific quality for risk assessment. We believe the
completion of this evaluation process has brought clarity to the
issue.” 
[13] Nothing
could have been farther from the truth.

At
the very minimum, the precautionary principle in instances involving
even the potential for grave damage to the human population would
mandate that the EU Commission and its EFSA should order immediate
further serious, independent long-term studies to prove or disprove
the results of the Seralini tests. That refusal to re-examine its
earlier decision to approve Monsanto GMO maize, no matter what flaws
might or might not have been in the Seralini study, suggested the
EFSA might be trying to cover for the GMO agrichemical lobby at the
very least.

Instead
of clarity, the EFSA statement once more fed EFSA critics who had
long argued that the scientists on EFSA’s GMO Panel had blatant
conflicts of interest with the very GMO lobby they were supposed to
regulate. Corporate Europe Observer, an independent EU corporate
watchdog group noted about the EFSA response, “EFSA failed to
properly and transparently appoint a panel of scientists beyond any
suspicion of conflict of interests; and it failed to appreciate that
meeting with Europe’s largest biotech industry lobby group to discuss
GMO risk assessment guidelines in the very middle of a EU review
undermines its credibility.” 
[14]

More
damaging for the shoddy EFSA coverup on behalf of Monsanto was the
fact that over half of the scientists involved in the GMO panel which
positively reviewed the Monsanto’s study for GMO maize in 2009,
leading to its EU-wide authorization, had conflicts of interests with
the biotech industry.
[15]

A
report by Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) found that more than
half of the GMO panel experts who signed the approval had conflicts
of interest.

The
conflicts ranged from receiving research funding from the biotech
industry, being a member or collaborator in a pro-biotech industry
association, to writing or reviewing industry-sponsored publications.
Some conflicts revealed a conflict of scientific interests, with some
panel members involved in working on the creation of transgenic
plants – including potatoes – with antibiotic-resistant marker
genes – including nptII.
[16]

Secondly,
although none of EFSA’s GMO panel members were medical experts in
the use of antibiotics in human medicine, they decided that neomycin
and kanamycin were antibiotics with “no or only minor therapeutic
relevance”. The World Health Organisation (WHO) classified these
antibiotics as “critically important” in 2005.

Dutch
scientist Harry Kuiper, chair of the EFSA GMO panel who had close
links to the biotech industry, played a key role in the framing of
this disputed key scientific advice.

Kuiper
himself was an open advocate of less controls on GMO seed
proliferation in the EU. He led the EFSA GMO panel since 2003, during
which time EFSA went from no GMO approvals to 38 GMO seeds approved
for human consumption. The criteria for approval were developed by
Kuiper for EFSA in cooperation with Monsanto and the GMO industry and
a Monsanto pseudo-scientific front group called ILSI, the
Washington-based International Life Sciences Institute, between 2001
and 2003. The board of the noble-sounding ILSI in 2011 was comprised
of senior people from Monsanto, ADM (one of the world’s biggest
purveyors of GMO soybeans and corn), Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods (major
proponent of GMO in foods) and Nestle, another giant GMO food
industry user. 
[17]

One
critic of the blatant conflict of interest in EFSA regulator in bed
with the industry whose practices he was mandated to objectively
assess noted, “During that period, Harry Kuiper and Gijes Kleter
(both members of the EFSA GMO Panel) were active within the ILSI Task
Force as experts and as authors of the relevant scientific
publications. It is a scandal that Kuiper has remained as Chair of
EFSA’s GMO Panel since 2003, and that he is still Chair in spite of
the massive criticism directed at the Panel from NGOs and even from
the Commission and EU member states.” 
[18]

The
brazen conflicts of interest between Monsanto and the agribusiness
lobby and the EFSA went further. In May 2012 Professor Diána Bánáti
was forced to resign as Chairman of the EFSA Management Board when it
was learned she planned to take up a professional position at the
Monsanto-backed International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) in
Washington. The same Diána Bánáti had been forced to resign, not
as EFSA chairman but as a simultaneous Board Member of ILSI in 2010.
Public interest groups made calls for her to resign from EFSA but to
no avail. 
[19] At
ILSI

she
would be able to use expertise and contacts gained from working for
the EFSA to help GMO companies like Monsanto and other food industry
companies influence policy across the world.

In
sum, it came as no surprise to those familiar with the notorious
“revolving door” in Brussels between the GMO industry and the
regulatory body entrusted with making independent decisions on the
risks of GMO in the EU, that EFSA condemned the Seralini study
results. Most telling however of the brazen pro-GMO industry bias of
EFSA’s GMO Panel members was the fact that the final ruling
statement by the EFSA GMO Panel reviewing Seralini’s results
announced, “Serious defects in the design and methodology of a
paper by Séralini et al. mean it does not meet acceptable scientific
standards and there is no need to re-examine previous safety
evaluations of genetically modified maize NK603.” 
[20]

The
EFSA was not the only source of blatant and reckless pro-GMO
sentiment in Brussels. Some weeks before release of the embarrassing
Seralini study, Anne Glover, chief scientific adviser of the EU
Commission, said in an interview on 24 July, 2012, “There is no
substantiated case of any adverse impact on human health, animal
health or environmental health, so that’s pretty robust evidence,
and I would be confident in saying that there is no more risk in
eating GMO food than eating conventionally farmed food.” She
added that the precautionary principle also “no longer applies,”
which means the EU should not err on the side of caution on the
approval of GMOs—equivalent of a “damn the torpedoes, full speed
ahead with GMO” stance despite polls showing some 60% to 80% of EU
citizens opposed to GMO.
[21]

Were
there any pretense of scientific responsibility in the clearly
corrupt EFSA panel, or Professor Glover’s office, they would have
immediately called for multiple, independent similar long-term rat
studies to confirm or disprove the Seralini results. They and the
Monsanto GMO lobby influencing them clearly had no desire to do
anything but try to slander the Seralini group with vague accusations
and hope the obedient international media would take the headline and
close the embarrassing story. It was typical of the entire history of
the spread of patented GMO seeds and paired toxic herbicides like
Roundup.

Pushing
GMO on Africans

Some
years before the EFSA scandalous ruling, Monsanto had launched a
major project to push its patented GMO seeds and chemicals on unwary
or corruptible African governments. It was called the Alliance for a
Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). The Rockefeller and Bill Gates
foundations backing the scheme managed to get former UN Secretary
General Kofi Annan, a man with a known bent to corruption, to become
the head of the AGRA.
[22] A
black African was reportedly chosen to overcome criticism among
African states that AGRA was a white man’s neo-colonial effort. It
was, but now with a face from a black African.

In
2006, the Rockefeller Foundation put up $50 million of initial
funding toward the project and the Gates Foundation put up $150
million, the largest single grant of the Gates foundation worldwide
that year. The stated focus of AGRA was to increase crop production,
which involved the same harmful industrialized farming practices
including heavy pesticide use, planting of GMO crops, and training of
African scientists and farmers to spread that model throughout the
continent.

AGRA,
as it called itself, was an alliance again with the same Rockefeller
Foundation which created the “Gene Revolution.” A look at the
AGRA Board of Directors confirmed the fact. In addition to former UN
Secretary General Kofi Annan as chairman, the board numbered almost
exclusively people from the Rockefeller or Gates foundations such as
South African, Strive Masiyiwa, a Trustee of the Rockefeller
Foundation, Sylvia M. Mathews of the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation; Rajiv J. Shah of the Gates Foundation; Nadya K.
Shmavonian of the Rockefeller Foundation; Roy Steiner of the Gates
Foundation; Gary Toenniessen the Managing Director of the Rockefeller
Foundation and Akinwumi Adesina, Associate Director, Rockefeller
Foundation.

The
new Africa Green Revolution was clearly a high priority of the
Rockefeller Foundation. 
[23]How
that fit the decades-long eugenics strategy of the same Rockefeller
Foundation will become clearer during the course of this book.

While
they tried hard to keep a low profile, Monsanto and the major GMO
agribusiness giants were accused by researchers of using AGRA to
spread their patented GMO seeds across Africa under the deceptive
label, ‘bio-technology,’ the new euphemism for genetically
engineered patented seeds. To date South Africa was the only African
country permitting legal planting of GMO crops. In 2003 Burkina Faso
authorized GMO trials. In 2005 Kofi Annan’s Ghana drafted
bio-safety legislation and key officials expressed their intentions
to pursue research into GMO crops.

Africa
was the next target after the EU in a US-government campaign to
spread GMO worldwide. Its rich soils made it an ideal candidate. Not
surprisingly many African governments suspected the worst from the
GMO sponsors as a multitude of genetic engineering and biosafety
projects had been initiated in Africa, with the aim of introducing
GMOs into Africa’s agricultural systems. They included sponsorships
offered by the US government to train African scientists in genetic
engineering in the US, biosafety projects funded by the United States
Agency for International Development (USAID) and the World Bank; GMO
research involving African indigenous food crops.

The
Rockefeller Foundation had been working for years to promote, largely
without success, projects to introduce GMOs into the fields of
Africa. They backed research that supports the applicability of GMO
cotton in the Makhathini Flats in South Africa.

Green
Revolution?

The
decision by the Rockefeller Foundation to name their project Alliance
for a Green Revolution in Africa was both calculated Public Relations
and revealing. The original mis-named Green Revolution, developing
hybrid sorts of dwarf wheat in Mexico and later India during the
1960’s had also been a Rockefeller Foundation project. Norman
Borlaug came from his post as a research scientist with the
Rockefeller University to Mexico to develop his wheat varieties. For
the Rockefeller’s the original Green Revolution was an attempt to
organize a global agribusiness monopoly structure based on their
experience with oil. Along with Borlaug’s wonder wheat strains came
large-scale mechanization of the land in Mexico, introduction of
chemical fertilizers and pesticides and a linking of Mexican
agriculture with a global grain market controlled by Archer Daniels
Midland, Cargill and other grain cartel giants close to the
Rockefellers. 
[24]

Now
the same Rockefeller circles wanted to globalize into their worldwide
agribusiness food chain the incredibly rich land and food potentials
of Africa and use the project to spread their patented GMO seeds via
the back door. AGRA was being used to create networks of
“agro-dealers” across Africa, at first with no mention of GMO
seeds or herbicides, in order to have the infrastructure in place to
massively introduce GMO later.
[25]

Monsanto,
which had a strong foothold in South Africa’s seed industry, both
GMO and hybrid, conceived of an ingenious smallholders’ program
known as the ‘Seeds of Hope’ Campaign, introducing a green
revolution package to small scale poor farmers, followed, of course,
by Monsanto’s patented GMO seeds.  Syngenta AG of Switzerland,
one of the ‘Four Horsemen of the GMO Apocalypse’ was pouring
millions of dollars into a new greenhouse facility in Nairobi, to
develop GMO insect resistant maize. 
[26]

The
collusion of the Gates Foundation with Monsanto Corporation was no
accident. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation itself was one of the
largest owners of stock shares in Monsanto and AGRA itself also
purchased 500,000 stock shares in Monsanto stocks, proof of that
close relationship. 
[27] 

Despite
many words by Gates officials since the inception of the AGRA agenda
denying that GMO seeds would be used as part of AGRA, their close
relationship with Monsanto had been uncovered as a key element in
their agronomic “new green revolution” strategy, more
appropriately called Alliance for a GMO Revolution in Africa. The
Gates Foundation gave at least $264 million as of 2011 in grants to
AGRA and hired Dr. Robert Horsch, a former Monsanto executive who
developed Roundup, to head up AGRA.
[28]

Gates
Family Eugenics Agenda

Bill
Gates and his Gates Foundation, contrary to their well-cultivated
public image as philanthropic, had an evident and clear eugenics
agenda for Africa, and it evidently included a large role for
Monsanto’s patented seeds.

Gates,
along with billionaire banker David Rockefeller and a handful of
other billionaires created something they called the “Good Club”
at the home of the President of the Rockefeller University in New
York in May 2009. Its aim, according to press reports was to impose a
global series of programs to reduce population—in other words
eugenics.
[29] 

Moreover,
the chairman of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Bill’s
father, William H. Gates Sr., had been head of the
Rockefeller-financed eugenics group Planned Parenthood, an
organization spawned from the American Eugenics Society.
[30]

In
a 2010 Long Beach California TED conference, Bill Gates himself spoke
enthusiastically of new vaccines that would reduce the planet’s
birth rate. In his titled, “Innovating to Zero!,” along with his
scientifically absurd proposition of reducing manmade CO2 emissions
worldwide to zero by 2050, approximately four and a half minutes into
the talk, Gates declared, ‘First we got population. The world today
has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if
we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive
health services, we lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.’ 
[31]

As
one critic described the Monsanto and Gates focus on Africa through
AGRA, “African governments are much weaker and easier to persuade
than the governments of Europe to allow for GMO crops to be
introduced into their countries. Public awareness of the threats of
GMOs has been slower to develop in Africa, and the democratic
processes of citizen advocacy weaker.” 
[32]

Africa
was also the focus for a great global land grab by private companies
from the USA to China in search of some of the planet’s richest
fertile soil. It has been estimated that were proper farming
techniques using purely organic methods, without chemicals introduced
across Africa the Continent could feed ten billion people. Were
Africa to fall to the spread of patented GMO seeds as USA and
Argentina had done, the powerful interests behind the creation of GMO
would have reached a major advance in their global agenda to control
the seeds of life on the planet.

Patrick
Mulvany the head of a UK watchdog organization, UK Food Group, 
identified the strong interest of Monsanto and US-dominated
agribusiness in Africa: “Agribusiness corporations see smallholder
farmers of the developing world as only representing an opportunity
for securing supplies of food at relatively cheap prices, using cheap
labor and, most importantly, as representing a burgeoning market for
proprietary agrochemicals, compliant GMO seeds and fertilisers.”
Mulvany added, “There are opportunities for smallholders to
sustain a strong and vibrant bio-diverse food system using
agro-ecological approaches … yet the only value for agribusiness
are the chains which bind the food serfs to the food barons.”
[33]

Monsanto’s
‘Terminator’ Project

The
United States Government had been financing research since 1983 on a
genetic engineering technology which, when commercialized, would give
its owners the power to control the food seed of entire nations or
regions. Research grants from the US Department of Agriculture went
to a tiny company in Mississippi, Delta & Pine Land. In 2007
Monsanto completed a successful takeover of Delta and Pine Land in a
move that confirmed there was truly a darker agenda behind Monsanto’s
GMO engagement than “feeding the world’s hungry.”

The
takeover of the small Mississippi company in 2007 by Monsanto was
significant because Delta and Pine Land, together with the US
Government, jointly held the patent on what popularly was called
“Terminator” technology, or by its scientific name, Genetic Use
Restriction Technology (GURT).

For
almost a quarter century, since 1983, the US Government had quietly
been working to perfect a genetically engineered technique whereby
farmers would be forced to turn to their seed supplier each harvest
to get new seeds. The seeds would only produce one harvest. After
that the seeds from that harvest would commit ‘suicide’ and be
unusable—a high-tech new serfdom.

The
patented Monsanto ‘suicide’ seeds, officially termed GURTs
(Genetic Use Restriction Technologies), represented an unprecedented
threat to poor farmers in developing countries like India, Nigeria or
Brazil, who traditionally saved their own seeds for the next
planting. In fact, GURTs, more popularly referred to as Terminator
seeds for the brutal manner in which they kill off plant reproduction
possibilities, was a threat to the food security as well of North
America, Western Europe, Japan and anywhere Monsanto and its elite
cartel of GMO agribusiness partners enters a market.

In
March 1998 the US Patent Office granted Patent No. 5,723,765 to Delta
& Pine Land for a patent titled, Control of Plant Gene
Expression. The patent was owned jointly, according to Delta & 
Pine’s Security & Exchange Commission 10K filing, ‘by D&PL
and the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of
Agriculture.’ To quote further from the official D&PL SEC
filing, ‘The patent broadly covers all species of plant and seed,
both transgenic (GMO-ed) and conventional, for a system designed to
allow control of progeny seed viability without harming the
crop’(sic).’ 
[34]

D&PL
claimed, ‘One application of the technology could be to control
unauthorized planting of seed of proprietary varieties…by making
such a practice non-economic since non-authorized saved seed will not
germinate, and, therefore, would be useless for planting.’ D&PL
calls the thousand-year-old tradition of farmer-saved seed by the
pejorative term, ‘brown bagging’ as though it is something dirty
and corrupt.

Translated
into lay language, D&PL  declared the purpose of its Patent
No. 5,723,765, Control of Plant Gene Expression, was to prevent
farmers who once get trapped into buying GMO seeds from Monsanto from
‘brown bagging’ or being able to break free of control of their
future crops by Monsanto and friends. As D&PL puts it, their
patent gives them ‘the prospect of opening significant worldwide
seed markets to the sale of transgenic (GMO-w.e.) technology in
varietal crops in which crop seed currently is saved and used in
subsequent seasons as planting seed.’
[35]

Terminator
was the answer to the agribusiness dream of controlling world food
production. No longer would Monsanto need to hire expensive
detectives to spy on whether farmers were re-using Monsanto or other
GMO patented seed. Terminator corn or soybeans or cotton seeds could
be genetically modified to ‘commit suicide’ after one harvest
season. The technology would be a means of enforcing Monsanto or
other GMO patent rights, and forcing payment of farmer use fees not
only in developing economies, where patent rights were,
understandably, little respected, but also in industrial OECD
countries.

With
Terminator patent rights, once a country such as Argentina or Brazil
or Iraq or the USA or Canada opened its doors to the spread of GMO
patented seeds among its farmers, their food security would be
hostage to a private multinational company which, for whatever
reasons, especially given its intimate ties to the US Government,
might decide to use ‘food as a weapon’ to compel a US-friendly
policy from that country or group of countries.

If
it sounded implausible that the US Government would back such a
private and dangerous seed technology, one needed only go back to
what Secretary of State Henry Kissinger did in countries like
Allende’s Chile to force a regime change to a ‘US-friendly’
Pinochet dictatorship by withholding USAID and private food exports
to Chile. Kissinger dubbed it ‘food as a weapon.’ Terminator was
merely the logical next step in food weapon technology.

The
role of the US Government in backing and financing Delta & Pine
Land’s decades of Terminator research is even more revealing. As
Kissinger said back in the 1970’s, ‘Control the oil and you can
control entire Continents. Control food and you control people…’

In
a June 1998 interview, USDA spokesman, Willard Phelps, defined the US
Government policy on Terminator seeds. He explained that USDA wanted
the technology to be ‘widely licensed and made expeditiously
available to many seed companies.’ He meant agribusiness GMO giants
like Monsanto, DuPont or Dow. The USDA was open about their reasons:
They wanted to get Terminator seeds into the developing world where
the Rockefeller Foundation had made eventual proliferation of
genetically engineered crops the heart of its GMO strategy from the
beginnings of its rice genome project in 1984.

USDA’s
Phelps stated that the US Government’s goal in fostering the widest
possible development of Terminator technology was ‘to increase the
value of proprietary seed owned by US seed companies and to open up
new markets in Second and Third World countries.’ 
[36]

Under
WTO rules on free trade in agriculture, countries are forbidden to
impose their own national health restrictions on GMO imports if it is
deemed to be an ‘unfair trade barrier.’ It begins to become clear
why it was the US Government and US agribusiness which during the
late 1980’s pushed at the GATT Uruguay Round for creation of a
World Trade Organization, with its supranational arbitrary powers
over world agriculture trade. It all fits into a neat picture of
patented seeds, forced on reluctant WTO member nations, under threat
of WTO sanctions, and now of Terminator or suicide seeds.

Monsanto
Terminator deception

What
was so attractive about Delta & Pine Land that Monsanto made a
second bid to add it to its global genetically-engineered seeds
empire?

It
was the patent that Delta & Pine Land, together with the US
Government, held Patent No. 5,723,765, titled, Control of Plant Gene
Expression. The USDA through its Agricultural Research Service
(USDA-ARS) worked with Delta & Pine Land since 1983 to perfect
Terminator GMO technology. Patent No. 5,723,765 was the patent for
Terminator technology.

In
early 1999 Monsanto, the largest producer of GMO seeds and related
agri-chemicals, announced it was acquiring Delta & Pine Land
along with Delta’s Terminator patents.

In
October 1999, however, following a worldwide storm of protest against
Terminator seeds that threatened the very future of the Rockefeller
Foundation’s ‘Gene Revolution’ Dr. Gordon Conway, President of
the Rockefeller Foundation, met privately with the Board of Directors
of Monsanto. Conway convinced Monsanto that for the long-term future
of their GMO Project, they must go public to indicate to a worried
world that it would not ‘commercialize’ Terminator.

The
Anglo-Swiss Syngenta joined with Monsanto in declaring solemnly that
they would also not “commercialize” their work on GURTS or
Terminator suicide seed technology.

That
1999 announcement took enormous pressure off of Monsanto and the
agribusiness GMO giants, allowing them to advance the proliferation
of their patented GMO seeds globally. Terminator would come later,
once farmers and entire national agriculture areas like North America
or Argentina or India had been taken over by GMO crops. Then, of
course, it would be too late. Despite the Monsanto declaration of a
moratorium on Terminator development, the US Government and Delta &
Pine Land refused to drop their Terminator development.

In
2000, a year after the Monsanto Terminator moratorium announcement,
the Clinton Administration’s USDA Secretary, Dan Glickman, refused
repeated efforts by various agriculture and NGO organizations to drop
the Government’s support for Terminator or GURTs. His Department’s
excuse for not dropping support for the work with Delta & Pine
Land was that it allowed the US Government to put ‘leverage’ on
D&PL to ‘protect the public interest.’

Delta
Vice President, Harry Collins, declared at the time in a press
interview in the Agra/Industrial Biotechnology Legal Letter, ‘We’ve
continued right on with work on the Technology Protection System (TPS
or Terminator). We never really slowed down. We’re on target,
moving ahead to commercialize it. We never really backed off.’ 
[37]

Nor
did their partner, the United States Department of Agriculture, back
down on Terminator after 1999. In 2001 the USDA Agricultural Research
Service (ARS) website announced: ‘USDA has no plans to introduce
TPS into any germplasm…Our involvement has been to help develop the
technology, not to assist companies to use it.’ They went on to say
the USDA was, ‘committed to making the [Terminator] technology as
widely available as possible, so that its benefits will accrue to all
segments of society (sic)…ARS intends to do research on other
applications of this unique gene control discovery…When new
applications are at the appropriate stage of development, this
technology will also be transferred to the private sector for
commercial application.’
[38]

In
2001, the USDA and Delta & Pine executed a Commercialization
Agreement for Terminator, its infamous Patent No. 5,723,765. The
Government and Delta & Pine Land were not at all concerned about
worldwide outcry against Terminator.

The
key scientific member of the Delta & Pine Land board since 1993,
Dr. Nam-Hai Chua was also head of the Rockefeller University Plant
Molecular Biology Laboratory in New York, and had been for over 25
years, the labs which are at the heart of the Rockefeller
Foundation’s decades-long development, and spending of more than
$100 millions of its own research grants to create their GMO
Revolution. Until 1995, Chua was also a scientific consultant to
Monsanto Corporation, as well as to DuPont’s Pioneer Hi-Bred
International. Chua was at the heart of Rockefeller’s Gene
Revolution. And their development of Terminator was in the center of
that work. 
[39]

This
vast global network combined with Monsanto’s dominant position in
the GMO seeds and agri-chemicals market along with the unique DP&L 
Patent No. 5,723,765, Control of Plant Gene Expression, now gave
Monsanto and its close friends in Washington an enormous advance in
their plans to dominate world food and plant seed use. It was an
ominous goal and the US Government implemented it ruthlessly as the
2003 military occupation of Iraq was to prove.
[40]


[1] Seralini
et al., Op. Cit.

[2] Ibid. 

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Gilles-Eric
Seralini et al, 
Genetically
modified crops safety assessments: present limits and possible
improvements
,
Environmental Sciences Europe 2011, 23:10, accessed
in
http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Aris,
A., Leblanc, S., 
Maternal
and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified
foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada
,
Reproductive Toxicology, 2011 May;31(4):528-33. Epub 2011 Feb 18.

[8] European
Food Safety Authority (EFSA),
 Scientific
Opinion of the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on
applications (EFSA-GMO-NL-2005-22 and EFSA-GMO-RX-NK603) for the
placing on the market of the genetically modified glyphosate
tolerant maize NK603 for cultivation, food and feed uses and import
and processing, and for renewal of the authorisation of maize NK603
as existing product, 
The
EFSA Journal (2009) 1137, 1-50.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] GMO-Kompass, Food
Safety Evaluation–Evaluating Safety: A Major Undertaking
,
February 15, 2006, accessed
in 
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/safety/human_health/41.evaluation_safety_gm_food_major_undertaking.html

[12] Ibid.

[13] EFSA, Séralini
et al. study conclusions not supported by data, says EU risk
assessment community
,
EFSA Press Release, 28 November 2012, accessed
in
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121128.htm

[14] Corporate
Europe Observatory, Op. Cit.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Corporate
Europe Observatory,  
Approving
the GM potato: conflicts of interest, flawed science and fierce
lobbying
,
CorporateEurope.org, November 7, 2011, accessed
in
http://corporateeurope.org/publications/approving-gm-potato-conflicts-in…

[17] ILSI, 2011
Annual Report, Board of Trustees
,
accessed in 
http://www.ilsi.org/Documents/ILSI_AR2011_rFinal.pdf

[18] Tore
B. Krudtaa, 
Harry
Kuiper Chair of EFSA GMO panel – Another regulator in the business
of deregulation?
,
Monsanto.No, 22 September 2011, accessed
in
http://www.monsanto.no/index.php/en/environment/gmo/gmo-news/166-harry-kuiper-chair-of-efsa-gmo-panel-another-regulator-in-the-business-of-deregulation

[19] EFSA, FAQ
on the resignation of Diana Banati as member and Chair of EFSA´s
Management Board
,
accessed
in  
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/faqs/faqresignationdianabanati.htm

[20] EFSA, Séralini
et al. study conclusions not supported by data, says EU risk
assessment community
,
EFSA Press Release, 28 November 2012, accessed
in
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121128.htm.

[21] EurAktiv.com, GMOs:
“Anne Glover, you are wrong,”
 27
July 2012, accessed
in
http://www.euractiv.com/cap/gmos-anne-glover-wrong-analysis-514185

[22] Ethics
Scoreboard,
 Kofi
Annan and the U.N.’s Culture of Corruption
,
5 March 2005, accessed
in 
http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/list/annan.html

[23] Ibid.

[24] Cf.
Kapitel 9, pp. 172-187.

[26] Ibid.

[27] La
Via Campesina, 
Global
Small Farmers Denounce Gates Foundation Purchase of 500,000 Monsanto
Stock Shares
,
September 13, 2010, accessed
in
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_21606.cfm

[28] Ibid.

[29] F.
William Engdahl, 
Secret
Good Club holds first meeting in New York
,
2 June  2009.

[30] PBS, Transcript
Bill Moyers Interviews Bill Gates
,
May 9, 2003, accessed in

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_gates.html.

[31] F.
William Engdahl, 
Bill
Gates talks about ‘vaccines to reduce population,

4 March 2010, accessed
in 
http://oilgeopolitics.net/Swine_Flu/Gates_Vaccines/gates_vaccines.html.

[32] Stephen
Bartlett, 
Wikileaks
Documents Gov Complicity with GMO Seed Monopolies
,
Netline, January 2011, accessed
in  
http://www.agriculturalmissions.org/netline_2011_002.htm.

[33] Matthew
Newsome, 
Does
the future of farming in Africa lie in the private sector?,
 23
November 2012, 
guardian.co.uk,
Sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, accessed
in 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2012/nov/23/future-farming-africa-private-sector.

[34] F.
William Engdahl,
 Monsanto
buys ‘Terminator’ Seeds Company

August 27, 2006, accessed
in 
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/GMO/Monsanto/monsanto.html

[35] Ibid.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Ibid.

Hier het boek dat Engdahl over deze zaak schreef:

Image

You can find this great and informative book on amazon.com 

 www.williamengdahl.com

========================

Zie ook: ‘Obama, ‘kampioen natuur en milieu’ tekent lobbydocument Monsanto……..

        en: ‘Bayer/Monsanto: de vergiftiging van de aarde. Hoe kunnen fabrikanten van pesticiden en transgene zaden nog rustig slapen…..??

        en: ‘Glyfosaat, een kankerverwekkend gif, nu ook gevonden in honing en graan……..

        en: ‘Voedselfraude in de VS >> als het aan de EU ligt binnenkort ook in onze supermarkten……

        en:  ‘Bayer oefent druk uit op Nederland voor nieuw ‘bijengif…….’

        en: ‘TTIP: wat ons te wachten staat >> verboden labeling van o.a. genetisch gemanipuleerde voeding……

       en: ‘Van Dam (PvdA staatssecretaris), Monsanto lobbyist….. EU tekent waarschijnlijk voor nog 7 jaar lang vergiftiging mens en dier met glyfosaat………

       en: ‘Monsanto ‘liefdadigheidsorganisatie die zich inzet voor wereldvoedselprobleem……

       en: ‘Monsanto en EPA hebben samen Roundup veilig verklaart >> Alweer een ‘samenzweringstheorie’ verheven tot waarheid

       en: ‘Timmermans’ Europese Commissie dreigt in strijd met de regels het kankerverwekkend glyfosaat, opnieuw toe te laten op de EU markt………….

       en: ‘EU: verbiedt het uiterst gevaarlijke glyfosaat voorgoed!‘ (Helaas, te vroeg gejuicht…)

       en: ‘Kamp (VVD) glyfosaat gifmenger van het jaar!

       en: ‘Glyfosaat, de leugens van Monsanto over dit kankerverwekkend gif……….

       en: ‘Bas Eickhout (‘GroenLinks’ EU): het is nodig dat glyfosaat nog 5 jaar gebruikt mag worden……… ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

       en: ‘Op aardbei zes keer meer landbouwgif dan op ander fruit………

       en: ‘EPA tegenstrijdig over glyfosaat >> EU ‘politici’ laten als ware lobbyisten van o.a. gifmenger Monsanto het kankerverwekkende Roundup nog eens 5 jaar op ons los….

       en: ‘Greenpeace vraagt Australische regering de verkoop van Roundup aan banden te leggen, nadat een VS rechter oordeelde dat het gif kankerverwekkend is…..

Zie daarnaast ook: Verbied gebruik glyfosaat tot er bewijzen zijn (De Standaard)http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20170426_02852617 en: Monsanto koopt wetenschap die de “onschuld” van glyfosaat bewijst.http://www.dewereldmorgen.be/artikel/2017/03/27/monsanto-koopt-wetenschap-die-de-onschuld-van-glyfosaat-bewijst 

NAVO uitbreiding in Oost-Europa is bewezen tegen gesloten overeenkomst met Rusland…….

Al jaren
durven de NAVO, een groot deel van de westerse politici, gesteund
door de westerse reguliere (massa-) media, de bevolking van de EU en
de VS voor te liegen dat er nooit een overeenkomst is gesloten met
Gorbatsjov in 1991, waarin men Rusland beloofde dat de NAVO zich niet
uit zou breiden in Oost-Europa, richting Russische grens. 

Terwijl
iedereen die zich enigszins heeft verdiept in deze zaak kon weten, dat
dit wel degelijk het geval was. Sterker nog: dit was voor Gorbatsjov
de voorwaarde om in te stemmen met de vereniging van West- en
Oost-Duitsland. 
Uit meerdere documenten blijkt nu dat het westen Rusland in de jaren 1990/1991 heeft verzekerd dat die NAVO uitbreiding niet zou plaatsvinden in de toekomst……..

Dit zet
grote vraagtekens bij alle leugens over Russische agressie in
Oost-Europa, zo bezien mogen de VS en de EU blij zijn dat Rusland zo
verstandig is geweest nooit actie te ondernemen tegen deze VS en NAVO
agressie*. Het is nu zelfs zo zot dat de VS dicht op de Russische
grens, in Roemenië en Polen, beiden ‘NAVO-landen’ een raketschild
heeft gestationeerd…… Een schild zogenaamd tegen Iraanse
raketten, echter die antiraketten kunnen in een mum van tijd voorzien
worden van kernkoppen (en dat zijn ze waarschijnlijk al), waarna ze als aanvalsraketten ingezet kunnen worden tegen Rusland en dat op redelijk korte afstand van
bijvoorbeeld Moskou…….

Voorts worden er de laatste jaren voortdurend grote NAVO oefening, gehouden langs de Russische grens…….. Tel daar nog eens de wil van de VS en Groot-Brittannie bij op, een eerste aanval met kernraketten niet langer uit te sluiten en WOIII ligt binnen schootsafstand…….**

Lees het
volgende artikel van Darius Shahtahmasebi over deze zaak (en laat u
nooit meer voorliegen door de anti-Russische propagandamachine van
oorlogshitsers en dienaren van het vervloekte militair-industrieel
complex):

Turns
Out Russia Was Right: Declassified Docs Prove NATO Broke Its Promise

December
23, 2017 at 6:03 am

Written
by 
Darius
Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA)  When
the media talks about Russia’s activities in neighboring Europe,
Russia is 
typically
portrayed
 as
the aggressor. Russia’s standard response is usually that it has
been forced to protect its interests because the U.S. is actively
trying to
 contain
the country within a host of NATO allies
,
which would essentially put
 American
troops and missiles alongside its border
 despite assurances at
the end of the Cold War that NATO would not expand into eastern
Europe.

However,
western critics are still debating whether such a promise ever
existed, as is NATO itself. As a result of this attempt to rewrite
history, NATO has continued to expand as far into eastern Europe as
possible, with Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic all 
joining in
1999. The alliance has 
broadened its
reach in the years since, ultimately to Russia’s detriment.

In
an article for 
Foreign
Affairs 
in
December 2014, Mark Kramer, director of the Harvard Project on Cold
War studies,
 stated he
had “
examined
the declassified negotiating records and concluded that no such
promise was ever offered.”

Mary
Elise Sarotte (“
A
Broken Promise?

September/October
2014) points to my article as an example of the history she intends
to correct,”
 Kramer
wrote, “
but
she provides nothing that would change my judgment about what
happened. As I wrote, the question of NATO’s possible expansion
eastward arose numerous times during negotiations Gorbachev conducted
with U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, West German Chancellor
Helmut Kohl, and U.S. President George H. W. Bush. Viewed in
context, 
however,
it is clear that they were speaking solely about expanding the
alliance into East Germany.” 
[emphasis
added]

Kramer’s
assertion is that while it has been previously understood that
then-Secretary of State James Baker had assured Mikhail Gorbachev
that NATO would expand “not one inch eastward” during a meeting
that took
 place
on February 9, 1990
,
the context was that of German reunification, not wider Europe.

However,
as the 
National
Interest
 recently
learned
,
even Kramer’s assessment appears to be incorrect due to the release
of some further
 declassified
material
.

The
[recently declassified] documents show that multiple national leaders
were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European
membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991,”
 George
Washington University National Security Archives researchers Svetlana
Savranskaya and Tom Blanton 
wrote
in the National Security Archives.
 “That
discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations
in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German
territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about
being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written
contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.”

According
to the National Interest — and Russia continuously argues —
Gorbachev only accepted the proposal for German reunification (which
Gorbachev could have vetoed) due to these assurances that NATO would
not expand into Eastern Europe. This sequence of events is similar to
how Russia was duped out of using its veto power on a U.N. Security
Council Resolution in Libya in 2011 after having
 received
assurances
 that
the NATO coalition would not pursue regime change.

I
believe that your thoughts about the role of NATO in the current
situation are the result of misunderstanding,”
 Major told Gorbachev,
according to British 
Ambassador
Rodric Braithwaite’s diary entry of March 5, 1991.
 “We
are not talking about strengthening of NATO. We are talking about the
coordination of efforts that is already happening in Europe between
NATO and the West European Union, which, as it is envisioned, would
allow all members of the European Community to contribute to enhance
[our] security.”

The
documents also show that Gorbachev and other Soviet leaders received
assurances against NATO expansion from Baker; President George H.W.
Bush; West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher; West
German Chancellor Helmut Kohl; former CIA Director Robert Gates;
French leader Francois Mitterrand (who told Gorbachev he was in favor
of “gradually dismantling the military blocs”; Margaret Thatcher;
British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd; and NATO secretary-general
Manfred Woerner.

Having
perused the relevant documents, Savranskaya and Blanton concluded
that “Gorbachev went to the end of the Soviet Union assured that
the West was not threatening his security and was not expanding
NATO.

We
would do well to bear this in mind the next time the U.S.
saber-rattles Russia for wanting to 
protect
its borders against NATO aggression
.
That being said, very few newspapers have paid any headline attention
at all to this story or its implications even though it continues to
be a major source of conflict between the two countries that hold the
majority of the world’s nuclear weapons.

Creative
Commons
 / Anti-Media / Report
a typo

========================================

*  Al zou je met gemak kunnen stellen dat directe Russische actie (destijds bijna onmogelijk onder de corrupte alcoholist Jeltsin) tegen deze NAVO uitbreiding van meet af aan, heel veel ellende had kunnen voorkomen, ellende waar we nu mee te maken hebben, waar de VS en de NAVO Rusland tarten langs haar grenzen……

** Dit feit kreeg amper aandacht in de reguliere westerse (massa-) media, echter toen Rusland als reactie op deze nieuwe inzet op kernwapens door de VS en GB, ook een eerste aanval met kernwapens niet uit te sluiten, stonden deze zelfde media op de kop en spraken daar schande van……. Je weet wel, dezelfde media die zich onafhankelijk durven te noemen en een grote bek hebben over ‘fake news’ in de alternatieve media, terwijl ze zelf het ene ‘fake bericht’ na het andere brengen (neem alleen al de illegale oorlogen van de VS tegen Afghanistan, Irak, Libië en Syrië…)……

Zie ook: ‘VS gaat wapens leveren aan Oekraïne, puur en alleen om Rusland te schofferen en verder voet aan de grond te krijgen….

        en: ‘Zuid-Koreaanse president Moon Jae-in buiten spel gezet inzake Noord-Korea…..

        en: ‘Rusland waarschuwt VS voor oorlog tegen Noord-Korea

        en: ‘VS bezig met de voorbereiding van een militaire aanval op Noord-Korea……….

        en: ‘Top VS generaal stelt dat er een grote oorlog met Rusland op komst is, ofwel: WOIII……

        en:  ‘Zuid-Koreaanse president Moon Jae-in buiten spel gezet inzake Noord-Korea…..

        en: ‘Remco Breuker over ‘het Noord-Koreaanse gevaar’ en dwangarbeid in de EU…..

        en: ‘VS oorlog tegen China bijna onvermijdelijk……….

        en: ‘Bernhard Hammelburg veegt Nobelprijswinnaar Beatrice Fihn de mantel uit, zelfs voordat hij wist wat ze te berde bracht…….

Iraanse minister stelt de wereld voor Saoedisch ‘terreur-feiten’, helaas toch met een kleine ‘vergissing………’

De Iraanse minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, Mohammad Javad Zarif heeft eindelijk de ‘terreurkoe’ Saoedi-Arabië de bel aangebonden. Na alle smerige leugens van S-A, de VS en hun hielenlikkers over Iran, maakte Zarif duidelijk, dat niet Iran, maar S-A een terreurstaat is, die de stabiliteit in het Midden-Oosten ernstige schade toebrengt (voor zover je nog van enige stabiliteit kan spreken…)…..

Echter Zarif maakte hier een enorme vergissing, niet S-A is grootste terreurstaat op aarde, maar de VS, daarbij vergeleken is S-A ‘s smerige terreur nog maar kinderspel!!!

Je begrijpt natuurlijk dat Zarif niet zo zeer over het uitoefenen van terreur sprak, maar over de Saoedische steun voor terreurgroepen als Al Qaida en ISIS. Echter zonder de grootschalige terreur van de VS in het Midden-Oosten, vanaf de Golfoorlog die Bush senior in 1990 tegen Irak begon, zou het maar zeer de vraag zijn of IS en Al Qaida ooit zo groot waren geworden. Sterker nog: meer en meer feiten komen naar buiten waaruit blijkt dat de VS deze terreurgroepen van wapens, munitie en militaire training voorzag……..

Hoe dan ook, Zarif toont op een redelijk simpele manier aan, dat niet Iran, maar S-A verantwoordelijk is voor 94% van de terreuraanslagen op onze kleine aarde (waarbij hij overigens terecht niet stelt, dat Iran verantwoordelijk is voor de resterende 6%)……. Waarbij je de uitgeoefende terreur van de VS en S-A buiten beschouwing moet laten, terreur zoals de door de Saoediërs gevoerde genocide op sjiieten in buurland Jemen, of de illegale oorlogen (beiden grootschalige terreur en enorme oorlogsmisdaden) die de VS in het Midden-Oosten is begonnen…….

Iran’s
Foreign Minister: Saudis Involved in 94% of Terrorist Attacks in the
World

July
22, 2017 at 12:19 pm

Written
by 
American
Herald Tribune

He
added there are certain countries in the Middle East who have been
“consistently” supporting terrorism.

(AHT) — “We
don’t see the situation in our region as a winning or losing
battle. It’s a situation where the initial U.S. invasion of Iraq
has led everybody to lose. Because we believe that the situation in
today’s world is so interconnected that we cannot have winners and
losers; we either win together or lose together,” Zarif 
told The
National Interest
.

Zarif
also said that Shias, Sunnis and Kurds are all
important segments of Iraqi society with whom Iran needs to
have relations.

Iran
has rushed to the aid of the Iraqis, not just the Shias, but
everybody. For us, the Shias, the Sunnis, the Kurds—all of them are
an important segment of Iraqi society with whom we need to have
relations.” 

Citing
an example of Iran’s help to Iraqis when Daesh (IS of ISIS, Ap) invaded Iraq in
2014, the foreign minister said, “We went to the support of the
Kurds: when they had been invaded by ISIS, we were the first to go to
 
Erbil
to secure it and to rescue it, basically, from a Daesh occupation.”

He
added there are certain countries in the Middle East who have been
“consistently” supporting terrorism.

You
have countries in the region who have consistently supported
extremists… Some countries consistently supported the wrong
groups—these are the same countries from whose nationals, almost 94
percent of those engaged in acts of terror, came—so we are talking
about a consistent record on their side and a consistent record on
the Iranian side.” 

He
added that Iran does not seek to exclude Saudi Arabia from
the security calculus of the Middle East region.

We
believe that Saudi Arabia is an important part of that security, as
we believe that other countries in the region should be an important
part of that security understanding.”

By
AHT Staff / 
Creative
Commons
 / American
Herald Tribune
 / Report
a typo


Zie ook: ‘Iran Rejects Trump’s Warning, Demands the Release of Detained Iranians in the US


      en: ‘Trump’s Appointees Worse Than Obama’s‘, een artikel van Stephen Lendman, o.a gepubliceerd op Stan van Houcke. Daarin o.a. aandacht voor de leugens van CIA top-oplichter en oorlogshitser Pompeo over o.a. Iran.


      en: ‘Assange: ‘CIA Not Only Armed Syrian Terrorists -It Paid Their Salaries’‘ Een artikel op Information Clearing House waaronder u kan klikken voor een vertaling.


      en: ‘CIA-backed Fighters Killed Or Wounded 100,000 Syrian Soldiers‘ Een artikel op Information Clearing House waaronder u kan klikken voor een vertaling.

Excuus voor de belabberde vormgeving, krijg het niet op orde.

VS tart Iran met marine manoeuvres in Straat van Hormuz….. Hoewel de BBC daar heel anders over denkt……

BBC World Service radio bracht gistermiddag een verslag vanaf het VS oorlogsschip George H. W. Bush, dat van zins was door de Straat van Hormuz te varen, dit uiteraard zo dicht mogelijk onder de Iraanse kust….

De verslaggever stelde verontrust, dat de Iraanse marine al snel agressief contact zocht met het VS fregat, bovendien gelaste Iran helikopters van een dichtbij varend vliegdekschip, terug te keren naar hun schip en niet meer op te stijgen……..

Een ‘fraai sfeerplaatje’ dat bij de luisteraar onmiddellijk walging moet oproepen, want zeg nu zelf: Iran is het land dat overal en nergens illegale oorlogen begint, opstanden uitlokt en staatsgrepen regisseert….. Oh nee, ik vergis me, dat is de VS, de verreweg grootste terreurentiteit op aarde….. Niet zo vreemd, dat de Iraniërs uitermate gespannen zijn, als deze terreurstaat marine manoeuvres uitvoert vlak voor de Iraanse kust…..

De verslaggever sprak met de kapitein van het schip, ene Will Tillington (al kon ik die naam niet terugvinden in combinatie met de marine van de VS), deze stelde dat Iran een gevaar is voor de stabiliteit in de regio…… ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Welke stabiliteit? De stabiliteit die de VS heeft veroorzaakt middels o.a. illegale oorlogen tegen Afghanistan, Irak en Libië, landen die nu in grote chaos zijn gedompeld?

Of de stabiliteit door de opstand, die in Syrië uitliep op een oorlog, een opstand door de VS op poten gezet en geregisseerd, maar die ‘helaas’ voor hen misliep (dit daar de opstand had moeten uitmonden in het afzetten van Assad)…… Een oorlog: -waarbij dit land voor een groot deel werd geruïneerd, -waarin een enorm aantal mensen is vermoord en -waardoor een groot deel van de bevolking op de vlucht is geslagen, nogmaals: ‘met dank’ aan hoofdverantwoordelijke en ‘stabilisator’ VS…..

De kapitein bad via de intercom (en riep zijn militairen op mee te bidden) voor een veilige doorgang door de Straat van Hormuz….. Terwijl zijn opperhoofd, het beest Trump, hem en zijn collega’s al had opgeroepen Iran, als het even kan, uit het water te schieten……

Godverdomme walgelijk!!!!

Het schaap van de BBC stelde uiteraard werkelijk niet één kritische vraag, zoals: getuigt het niet van enorme agressie om zo dicht onder de kust van Iran met oorlogsschepen te spelen??? Nee, ze beaamde gewoon het cliché, dat Iran een uiterst gevaarlijk land is……… Dan durft de BBC nog steeds te stellen, dat haar nieuwsgaring onafhankelijk is…… ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Klik voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terug kan vinden.

Bush opa was nazibankier……….

Dat de familie Bush één groot boeven- en terroristennest is, zal zelfs een hond niet meer verbazen (ja dat is nog ééns wat anders hè?!). Brasscheck bracht afgelopen donderdag een video, die nog wat dieper ingaat op deze ploertenfamilie…… In die video wordt uit de doeken gedaan, dat George Prescott Bush, de vader van smeerlap George H.W. Bush*, flink fout was voor, tijdens en na WOII, de ploert bankierde in die tijd voor de nazi’s……… Tot slot wordt in de video stelt ook een ‘open vraag’ gesteld over de huidige tijd…….

Hier de link naar de video (duur: < 5 minuten).

* Deze Bush, George H.W. Bush is de vader van George W. Bush, die meer dan 1 miljoen slachtoffers maakte, met de illegale oorlog tegen Irak in 2003… ‘George H.W.’ was eerst directeur van de CIA en later de eerste ‘Bush president’. ‘George H.W. Bush is weliswaar een schoft met minder bloed aan z’n handen, dan z’n terroristische zoon, maar nog altijd een stuk geteisem van formaat……..

Voor meer berichten over/met George W. Bush, WOII, Irak, Golfoorlog, illegale oorlog, nazi-Duitsland en andere onderwerpen, klik op het desbetreffende label, onder dit bericht.