Tijdens en vlak na de
Twin Towers aanslagen, werden een aantal Israëlische mannen
gearresteerd die feestvierden met de WTC ramp op de achtergrond. Het
was duidelijk dat ze feestvierden n.a.v. de aanvallen op de Twin
Towers….. Volgens eigen zeggen waren zij Mossad agenten die werden
uitgezonden om de vernieling van het WTC te filmen, zo verklaarden ze
later op de Israëlische tv…… Zonder enig onderzoek werden de
mannen vrijgelaten en mochten ze zelfs terugreizen naar Israël…….
Paul
Craig Roberts, de schrijver van het Information Clearing House artikel dat hieronder is opgenomen, schrijft verder over de ‘daders’
en haalt intussen al bekende zaken aan, als dat deze daders
onmogelijk de vliegtuigen in de Twin Towers kunnen hebben gevlogen,
een zaak die zelfs geroutineerde piloten naar eigen zeggen niet
kunnen (de daders zouden een paar vlieglessen hebben gehad in kleine
vliegtuigjes). Het is dan ook duidelijk dat de zogenaamde daders
werden begeleid door of geheime diensten van de VS en/of Israël, dit
om de false flag operatie, die 9/11 was, te verhullen…. Overigens werden de vliegtuigen volgens een aantal deskundigen op afstand bediend….
Ook
genoemd door Roberts de aanval op het Pentagon, daar moeten diverse
camera’s beelden hebben opgenomen van wat er werkelijk gebeurde, deze beelden
worden al 18 jaar lang door de FBI afgeschermd voor het publiek en de
politiek. Iedereen met meer dan 2 hersencellen kan zien dat er nooit
een vliegtuig in het Pentagon kan zijn gevlogen, daarvoor was de
schade veel te gering (en dat is nog maar 1 van de redenen die
aangeven dat het geen vliegtuig kan zijn geweest, maar waarschijnlijk
een raket van de VS…..)
Nog een
vreemde zaak, de telefoontjes uit het vliegtuig dat in
Pennsylvania zou zijn neergestort: in die tijd was het nog
onmogelijk om met een mobiele telefoon vanuit een vliegtuig te bellen met het
thuisfront…
Roberts betoogt terecht dat wanneer een handjevol terroristen de VS zo hebben kunnen misleiden (als men het publiek wil doen geloven), Rusland zelfs al ten tijde van de Sovjet-Unie de VS en West-Europa zonder veel moeite kon hebben weggevaagd……
Zoals dik is bewezen sinds 11 september 2001 is het neerhalen van de Twin Towers middels vliegtuigen een onmogelijke zaak, daarnaast hebben deskundigen de resten van heftige springstoffen teruggevonden in de puinhopen van 9/11……
Hoeveel bewijs heb je nog nodig om in te zien dat 9/11 een door de VS overheid gecontroleerde aanslag was…… Roberts noemt nog een aantal zaken, die duidelijk maken dat 9/11 een door de VS (waarschijnlijk met hulp van Israël) opgezette zaak is….. Bush en Cheney zouden hebben geweigerd te getuigen voor de 9/11 commissie…… De leidende figuren van deze commissie stellen zelfs dat ze tot bepaalde zaken geen toegang hadden, dat men werd voorgelogen en dat het de opzet was dat de commissie zou falen……
Het gaat zelfs zover dat de VS overheid zelf de leugen heeft gelanceerd dat de gebouwen door een kernwapen dan wel een gericht-energiewapen (o.a. laser en deeltjesstralen) werden neergehaald om degenen die niet geloven in de officiële lezing in een belachelijk daglicht te stellen en daarmee de aandacht af te leiden van de werkelijke reden van instorting van de gebouwen……
Lees het
volgende artikel en zegt het voort! De aanslagen zijn nu 18 jaar
geleden, daarbij kwamen volgens zeggen 3.000 mensen om het leven,
als reactie daarop heeft de VS alleen in Irak al meer dan 1,5 miljoen
mensen vermoord (met hulp van andere NAVO-lidstaten), in Afghanistan
zouden dit er rond de 500.000 zijn (al houdt het westen veel lagere
aantallen aan….). Als reactie daarop hebben we ‘islamterreur’ op de
straten van Europa en zijn er enorme vluchtelingenstromen
opgang gekomen, voorts zijn onze privacyrechten zo goed als helemaal
uitgekleed (al is dat laatste ook de duidelijke opzet van de 9/11
aanvallen, zie de bevoegdheden en de enorme geldstromen die de geheime diensten erbij kregen na 9/11…..)
Some
of the Many Things Most Americans Never Heard About 9/11
By
Paul Craig Roberts
September
14, 2019 “Information
Clearing House”
– The “Dancing Israelis” who turned out to be Israeli Mossad
agents caught filming and celebrating the destruction of the twin
towers. Arrested by police and released without investigation, they
were not mentioned in the 911 Commission Report. Later on
Israeli TV they said they were sent to New York to film the
destruction of the twin towers. Allegedly, there was no
advance warning of the event, but obviously the Israelis knew.
The
alleged fundamentalist orthodox fanatical Muslims who were prepared
to die to be martyrs, but who drank, drugged, and lived with
strippers and prostitutes in Florida. They were the patsies paraded
through flight schools and left a highly visible public record. They
all flunked out and could not even fly small planes, but performed
miraculous flight feats in their attacks on the WTC towers and
Pentagon that military and civilian airline pilots say are beyond
their own skills. These Saudi Arabians were being operated
by US or Israeli intelligence to create a record to serve as a
parallel patsy operation that could be used to cover up the false
flag attack.
Numerous
video cameras recorded whatever exploded at the Pentagon, but the FBI
has refused to release them for 18 years. Clearly, the videos do not
support the official story.
About
half of the alleged hijackers have been found alive and well and deny
that they had ever left their countries.
In
2001 no cell phone calls were possible from aircraft at the altitudes
from which calls were reported.
The
airliners that allegedly hit the twin towers were flimsy compared to
the steel and concrete of the towers. The airliners would
have smashed against the structure and fallen to the street below.
Pre-knowledge
of 9/11 was widespread. The stocks of the two allegedly
hijacked airlines were sold short prior to the event, resulting in
large profits when the stocks fell in response to the hijackings. The
short-sellers were swept under the carpet and not investigated.
FBI
director Robert Mueller was instrumental in covering up for the false
official story of 9/11, a story that has zero evidence in its behalf.
If
a handful of young men with no intelligence service or government
support can defeat the entire national security state of the United
States and all of its NATO and Israeli allies and successfully attack
with devastating results both New York and the Pentagon itself—the
very symbol of American military supremacy—the Soviet Union could
have wiped out the US and all of Europe without detection. Don’t
you wonder how we survived the Soviet Union when the “Great
American Superpower” was so easily defeated by a handful of young
Saudi Arabians?
Four
hijacked airliners are alleged hijacked, all at airports served by an
Israeli security company.
All four airliners allegedly crash. Two
into the WTC towers, one into a field in Pennsylvania, and one into
the Pentagon. Yet no airliner debris exists. The
Pentagon’s lawn is not even scratched.
The
President of the United States refuses to testify before the 9/11
Commission unless he is accompanied by his handler, Vice President
Cheney. Both refuse to testify under oath. The 9/11
Commission is oh-so-respectful to the distinguished president and
vice president.
One
member of the 9/11 Commission, a US Senator, resigned from the
Commission, saying that “the fix is in.” After the
Commission report was issued, the Commission chairman, vice chairman,
and legal counsel wrote books in which they said that information was
withheld from the Commission, that the Commission was lied to and
considered referring the false testimony to the Justice (sic)
Department for prosecution, and that “the Commission was set up to
fail.” And not a peep from the controlled pressitute
media whose only function is to deliver the controlled explanations
that the ruling oligarchs want planted into Americans’ minds.
Tenants
of the WTC buildings reported constant noises, floors sealed off,
service disruptions and that the excuse was the installation of fiber
optic cable. If the buildings faced condemnation as reported because
of asbestos fireproofing, who would go to the expense of installing
fiber optic cable to upgrade the Internet capability of condemned
buildings?
Scientists
have found reacted and unreacted nano-thermite and other elements
used in controlled demolition. They have proved the
existence of these elements. They have samples from the
WTC dust left which they have offered to scientists and governments
for testing in order to prove or disprove their own findings. No
takers.
Instead,
we have the appearance of nonsensical claims that the WTC buildings
were brought down by a directed energy weapon and by nuclear
bombs. These are preposterous allegations, the purpose of
which is the deliberate creation of disinformation in order to focus
attention away from the false official story and bury it in
disagreements about what caused the buildings to fail.
I
have checked with weapons specialists who are critics of US
government foreign policy and who monitor every development in weapon
systems in the US and Russia. This is what they tell me: “I
can confidently state that no direct energy weapon, capable of
demolishing such a structure at the Twin Towers, existed in 2001, nor
does it exist today.”
Another
reported that there are lab tests of directed energy in Russia but no
deployed weapon. He suggested that people who believe in this fantasy
story should explain the safe source of high energy that the alleged
weapon used, and how it was moved on site and removed without
detection. Moreover, a directed energy burst would show on
detectors which monitor the electromagnetic spectrum. No
such evidence exists. Since no such weapon has ever been tested to
bring down skyscrapers, why would the government take the risk of
using such a weapon for the first time in a public scenario where who
knows what could go wrong and explanations would have to be
given? And why reveal to foreign powers the existence of
such a weapon? Controlled demolition is an old and
familiar technology that works. And it did.
I
could go on and on.
As
I wrote in a previous column, when Americans fell for the 9/11
deception, they lost their country, and peoples in seven countries
lost their lives, limbs, and families.
Gisteren
op The American Conservative een artikel van Robert W. Merry, waarin hij
schrijft over eerdere false flag operaties en andere manipulaties die
tot oorlog dan wel oorlogsdeelname van de VS hebben geleid.
Je had
al begrepen dat Merry dit artikel schreef n.a.v. de beschuldigingen
aan het adres van Iran over het aanvallen van olietankers en het
neerhalen van een VS drone.
Met 5
voorbeelden geeft Merry aan dat de VS in een aantal gevallen
onterecht in een oorlog verwikkelde raakte. Daarbij noemt Merry ook
WOII, echter het was bijna onmogelijk dat de VS uit deze oorlog kon
blijven, daar ook het beheersen van olievoorraden (in de grond) deel uitmaakte van
deze oorlog, echter de manier waarop e.e.a. gebeurde is welhaast ongelofelijk……
Lies
They Told Us: A Long History of Being Manipulated Into War
Before
we retaliate over drone and oil tanker attacks, take a look at all
the times we’ve been duped.
“It
is the assessment of the U.S. government that Iran is responsible for
today’s attacks in the Gulf of Oman” Credit: @SecPompeo
Secretary
of State Mike Pompeo says there’s no question that Iran initiated
the recent attacks on those two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman. The
evidence, he says, is “indisputable” and “unmistakable.”
President Donald Trump weighs in with the same degree of certainty.
“Well, Iran did do it,” he told Fox News.
Maybe.
But our past is screaming at us: don’t buy it; you can’t trust
your leaders when war fever sets in and war prospects are on the
rise. Consider the history surrounding the run-ups to the Mexican
War, World War I, World War II, Vietnam, and the Iraq war. Lies,
misrepresentations, and manipulations abound in all those episodes.
As
for those tankers, where’s the evidence? True, the U.S. Central
Command trotted out a video that appears to show unidentified people
in a small boat removing something from the side of a tanker—an
unexploded mine, we are told by U.S. officials, who assert this
constitutes proof of Iran’s complicity. As Trump puts it, “And
you know they did it because you saw the boat.”
But
that’s pretty thin stuff. The Germans and Japanese made that clear
when they requested stronger evidence than that grainy video released
by the Pentagon.
Now
comes Politico with a piece saying the Trump
administration has been making the case “in public and private”
that no new congressional authorization would be necessary to go to
war with Iran. They could simply rely on the 2001 authorization
against Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks on American soil.
Leave
aside for the moment the ominous threat this poses to the
constitutional precept that Congress is the repository of the
nation’s warmaking power. It also would preclude a congressional
debate on the matter, depriving the nation of an opportunity to
assess the facts before hostilities actually begin. The following
historical episodes reveal the importance of getting those facts
established before the country goes to war.
James
K. Polk and the Mexican War: Contrary to allegations that
have dogged the 11th president for nearly 180 years, it isn’t quite
true to say that he lied. But he did declare to the nation that
Mexico had “spilled American blood on the American soil.” The
problem is that it wasn’t, strictly speaking, American soil. That
territory had been under dispute between Mexico and Texas during the
time of Texas independence, and America inherited that dispute when
it acquired Texas through annexation in 1845. So it could be argued
that Polk was merely expressing his view that that disputed territory
actually belonged to the United States, just as Texas had always
insisted that it belonged to Texas.
But
such niceties of language shrouded the fact that, if there was no
other way for America to acquire what is now the Southwest and
California, then Polk wanted a war with Mexico. And he maneuvered
events with a clear intent to force the issue, much as Pompeo seems
to be doing now.
Polk
sent an army into the disputed territory and planted it directly
across the Rio Grande from the dusty little Mexican town of
Matamoros, where a large number of Mexican troops were stationed.
This was highly incendiary, and it inevitably led to a skirmish in
which 11 American soldiers were killed and another 50 or so captured.
Polk promptly sent a message to Congress saying the United States and
Mexico were in a state of war and calling for a congressional war
declaration.
South
Carolina’s Senator John C. Calhoun, among others, would have none
of it. This skirmish, he said, was a “mere local conflict, not
authorized by either government,” and it was “monstrous” to
blow it up into a doctrine that “every American is [now] an enemy
of every Mexican.” But American blood had been spilled, and the
country was riled. The final Senate vote was 40 to 2, with Calhoun
refusing to answer the roll call. The previous House vote was 173 to
14.
There
is plenty of documentary evidence, including Polk’s own diary, that
the president wanted that war and that, by maneuvering his troops in
such a way as to render bloodshed all but inevitable, he manipulated
public opinion. Indeed, even before the skirmish on the Rio Grande,
he was preparing to ask Congress for a war declaration.
Woodrow
Wilson and World War I: There can be no doubt that Wilson
was reelected president in 1916 (with just 49.2 percent of the vote)
on his stated resolve to keep America out of Europe’s Great War.
But it was all phony, as he’d always hankered to get America onto
the world stage. It wasn’t easy keeping the United States out of
the war through the election season, given delicate neutrality issues
forced upon the U.S. by both Britain and Germany. Britain imposed a
blockade designed to thwart all trade to Germany and the Central
Powers and to ”starve the whole population—men, women, and
children, old and young, wounded and sound—into submission,” as
Britain’s pugnacious First Sea Lord, Winston Churchill, brazenly
declared.
Wilson
initially sought to wend his way through this neutrality thicket,
rendered all the more difficult after Germany initiated submarine
attacks designed to stop munitions shipments to Britain and
counteract the blockade. But ultimately he favored the UK and took
actions he knew would draw America into the war. He not only observed
the British blockade but also allowed armed British merchant ships
entry to U.S. ports, which in turn fostered a flow of American
munitions to the Allied Powers. At the same time, Wilson declared
that Germany would be held to a “strict accountability” for any
American loss of life or property from German submarine attacks
designed to enforce the neutrality that Wilson was flouting. This
policy, he added, would apply even if affected Americans were
traveling or working on British or French ships. After all, he
declared, Americans had the “right” to travel on any vessels they
wanted, even in wartime.
Wilson’s
secretary of state, William Jennings Bryan, warned the president that
he faced a stark choice: either adopt a more evenhanded approach or
accept the inevitability of war. Bryan ultimately resigned over the
issue, and he turned out to be right. A desperate Germany, suffering
horrendously under Churchill’s starvation policy, initiated
unrestricted submarine warfare against ships carrying goods to
Britain or France. Wilson promptly asked for a congressional
declaration of war—and got it.
Franklin
Roosevelt and World War II: When Europe was once again
thrust into a dark conflict after Nazi Germany’s invasion of Poland
in September 1939, FDR almost desperately wished to take America in.
But the country, still stung by the bitter fruits of Wilson’s
previous intervention, didn’t want to enter the fray. “I am
almost literally walking on eggs,” Roosevelt wrote to a foreign
official, explaining the precarious perch between his own powerful
conviction and the public’s aversion to war. “I am at the moment
saying nothing, seeing nothing, and hearing nothing.”
But
this wasn’t quite true. He was applying his stealth and wiles in
every way possible to help Britain and nudge his country to war. He
passed diplomatic secrets to friendly reporters to help the cause. He
initiated secret depth charge attacks on German submarines in the
North Atlantic. As Robert Shjogan writes in his book Hard
Bargain, FDR almost certainly violated the prevailing Neutrality
Acts by making destroyers available to Britain—an action that in
another time and political climate could have been impeachable. And
he maneuvered Japan into a position of near desperation in an effort
to force a confrontation. That he knew what he was doing is evidenced
by the fact that he initiated planning for the removal of Japanese
Americans from the West Coast even before Pearl Harbor, as John
Toland reveals in his 1982 book Infamy. Shogan writes
that FDR didn’t hesitate “to twist the law, flout the
Constitution, hoodwink the public, and distort the political
process.”
Lyndon
Johnson and the Vietnam war: On August 2, 1964, North
Vietnamese PT boats attacked the U.S.S. Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin.
This could not have surprised those in the know inside the U.S.
government. The Maddox had been providing logistical and electronic
surveillance support to South Vietnamese forces engaged in raiding
parties on North Vietnamese soil. Two days later, when it seemed
another attack on the Maddox had ensued, President Johnson snapped
into action. He asked for a congressional resolution authorizing him
to counter such raids with military action as needed. This allowed
Johnson to prosecute what became America’s disastrous seven-year
Vietnam war.
But
that second attack on the Maddox never took place. It seems that rare
weather patterns distorted radar imaging and gave the impression of
multiple hostile ships when none had been in the vicinity.
When
this was ascertained by Navy Captain John Herrick, commander of the
Seventh Fleet destroyer division, he promptly sent a corrective
message to Washington: “Review of action makes many reported
contacts and torpedoes fired appear doubtful. Freak weather effects
on radar and overeager sonarmen may have accounted for many reports.
No actual visual sightings by Maddox. Suggest complete evaluation
before any further action taken.”
But
action already had been taken, and Johnson administration officials
weren’t about to turn around and let the opportunity slip. So they
lied. Within days, Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Defense Secretary
Robert McNamara traveled to Capitol Hill to assure lawmakers that the
August 4 “attacks” represented ”open aggression on the high
seas against the United States of America,” as Johnson put it.
In
response to expressions of skepticism by Oregon Senator Wayne Morse,
McNamara declared, “Our Navy played absolutely no part in, was not
associated with, was not aware of, any South Vietnamese actions, if
there were any…. The Maddox was operating in international waters,
was carrying out a routine patrol of the type we carry out all over
the world at all times.” As Robert Mann writes in a footnote in A
Grand Delusion: America’s Descent into Vietnam, “That
statement was, as McNamara knew, false.”
Arkansas
Senator William Fulbright agreed to manage the Tonkin Gulf resolution
on the Senate floor largely because he had faith in Johnson’s
veracity. As Fulbright’s staff chief, Lee Williams, later said, “He
had no reason to believe that he was used as a dupe, if you will, and
that this was a ruse on behalf of Johnson to get the authority that
he needed to conduct a wider war.”
George
W. Bush and the Iraq war: Did Bush lie to the American
people about those weapons of mass destruction that the U.S.
government expected to find in Iraq? Probably not. More likely, Bush
and his people lied to themselves in their zealous efforts to fashion
justifications for overthrowing Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, and
to ensure Middle East peace, protect the U.S. homeland, and preserve
America’s regional influence. But officials have a grave
responsibility to ensure extensive fact finding and sober
deliberation in matters of war and peace. Presidents shouldn’t take
America to war based on an oops. This was reckless behavior for which
the Bush people, including Bush himself, have never been brought to
account.
And
it’s undeniable that the president and many of his top officials
were bent on going to war against Saddam irrespective of the factual
intricacies involved. There’s the rub. That invasion arguably
constitutes the greatest American strategic blunder in at least half
a century, perhaps in the entire postwar period. Those kinds of
decisions require serious due diligence. So if Bush and his people
didn’t know that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,
they should have. If not malfeasance, it was abject nonfeasance.
The
lesson: beware when our leaders manifest a passion for war. That’s
when it’s time to demand honesty, sobriety, and restraint—and
answers. The burden of proof rests with the war advocates. It doesn’t
mean we shouldn’t go to war, just that when we do, it should be
with our eyes open.
Nog even het volgende: Merry noemt ook Pearl Harbor, waar intussen bekend is dat de VS op de hoogte was van de komende aanval, maar deze heeft laten gebeuren om zo mee te kunnen doen aan de oorlog in een fiks gebied van de Stille Oceaan.
Hier meer voorbeelden van VS terreur, gefundeerd op leugens, fake news en andere manipulaties:
‘VS vermoordde meer dan 20 miljoen mensen sinds het einde van WOII……..‘ Tot het jaar 2000, deze eeuw zijn er intussen meer dan 2,5 miljoen moorden aan toe te voegen, moorden begaan door de VS en de NAVO (waar deze terreurorganisatie onder opperbevel stond en staat van de VS…)….
Het
uitvoerige 9/11 rapport, n.a.v. de aanslagen in 2001 laat veel vragen open, vragen als waarom
werden een fiks aantal zaken niet onderzocht, terwijl ze wel degelijk
heel belangrijk waren (en zijn) voor het onderzoek naar die aanslagen. Niet alleen werd Saoedi-Arabië afgeschermd
terwijl het grootste deel van de ‘daders’uit dat land
kwam, maar ook een groep Israëlische mannen die met
de Twin Towers brandend op de achtergrond feest vierden en elkaar
‘high fives gaven’, waarbij het geheel werd gefilmd…….
‘Daders’:
dus degenen die de vliegtuigen zouden hebben gevlogen, waar het volgens
deskundigen onmogelijk is voor slecht opgeleide piloten om een
vliegtuig een gebouw in te vliegen als op de manier die werd gebruikt op 11 september 2001 met de Twin Towers….. Bovendien is het meer dan duidelijk
dat de torens en gebouw 7 van het WTC werden ondermijnd met
explosieven, vliegtuigen zouden onmogelijk het instorten van deze
gebouwen kunnen veroorzaken, zo stelt intussen een heel leger aan
deskundigen……
E.e.a.
kan maar tot 1 conclusie leiden: de geheime diensten van de VS hebben
meegewerkt aan deze aanslagen….. Niet voor niets dat de VS de
grootste baat had bij het instorten van de Twin Towers en gebouw 7
van het WTC……. Ten eerste had men weer een vijand nodig voor het
militair-industrieel complex, een vijand die er niet meer was met het verdwijnen van de
Sovjet-Unie, tien jaar eerder….. Ten tweede dacht men hiermee een excuus te hebben om
Irak aan te vallen, de wens van de psychopathische Bush administratie….. Ten derde verdween een groot deel van de schulden van de VS. Ten
vierde kon men het instorten van de beurs (die al gaande was voor
9/11) afwentelen op een terreuraanslag. Ten vijfde kwamen met de
aanslagen van 9/11 enorme kapitalen vrij voor de geheime diensten van
de VS., bovendien werden de bevoegdheden van die diensten fiks
uitgebreid ten koste van de privacy van burgers…….. Ook Israël, de ‘grote’ bondgenoot van de VS, had baat bij de aanslagen, zoals Palestijnenslachter Natanyahu zelf opmerkte….. Mensen er
zijn nog meer redenen, zoals het oppompen van de populariteit van Bush, die
op een dieptepunt was beland, maar de hiervoor genoemde redenen zijn wel de
belangrijkste.
Echter vergeet niet dat Israël naast het hieraan voorgaande, belang had bij de ‘war on terror’ die begon met de 9/11 aanslagen en waarbij een aantal vijanden van Israël het doelwit werden van VS terreur, want zo moet je de ongebreidelde agressie (o.a. in de vorm van illegale oorlogen) van de VS zien….. Niet voor niets dat de Bush administratie alles op alles zette om Irak, een vijand van Israël, de aanslagen in de schoenen te schuiven (zo zou Saddam Hoessein Al Qaida, NB een terreurgroep die tot zijn grootste vijanden behoorde, hebben ondersteund bij de aanslagen). De Bush administratie begon de illegale oorlog in 2003 uiteindelijk op basis van de leugens over massavernietigingswapens, een oorlog die intussen aan meer dan 1,5 miljoen Irakezen het leven heeft gekost…….
Lees het
volgende ontluisterende artikel, ook al was veel eerder bekend, de feiten
tellen dubbel zo zwaar…… Het artikel werd geschreven door Philip
Giraldi, eerder gepubliceerd op Unz Review en door mij
overgenomen van Information Clearing House:
Israel’s
Role In 9/11
FBI
evidence supports prior knowledge or complicity
By
Philip Giraldi
June
03, 2019 “Information
Clearing House” – The tale of 9/11 will just not
go away, largely because it is clear to anyone who reads the lengthy
9/11 Commission Report that many issues that should have been subject
to inquiry were ignored for what would appear to be political
reasons. The George W. Bush Administration quite obviously did not
want to assume any blame for what had happened and that bias also
extended to providing cover for U.S. “allies,” most particularly
Saudi Arabia and Israel. Those who have sought the truth about 9/11
have been persistent in their attempts to find out information that
was suppressed but they have been blocked repeatedly in spite of
numerous FOIA requests.
Now,
eighteen years after the event, there has been something like a
breakthrough, penetrating the wall of silence erected by the
government. FBI reports on the possible Israeli role in 9/11 were
released on May 7th and
they serve to support speculation by myself and other former
intelligence officers that Israel, at a minimum, had detailed prior
knowledge of what was to take place. More than that, Israeli
intelligence officers working in the United States might well have
enabled certain aspects of the conspiracy.
To
recount some of what is already
known and suspected,
one should first examine the 2016 release of a heavily edited
and redacted
28 pages long
annex to the 9/11 Commission Report that explored the Saudi Arabian
role in the terrorist attack . The section concluded that the Saudi
government may have played a direct role in 9/11 by assisting two of
the hijackers, including a dry run exercise intended to learn how to
get into a plane’s cockpit. There was also considerable evidence
suggesting that wealthy Saudis and even members of the Royal Family
had been supporting and funding al-Qaeda.
But
far exceeding the Saudi role is the involvement of the Israeli
intelligence service Mossad, which was not subject to any serious
inquiry or investigation by U.S. intelligence or police agencies.
Israel, in spite of obvious involvement in 9/11, was not included in
the 9/11 Commission Report despite the existence of an enormous
Israeli intelligence operation freely working in the United States
that was known to the FBI. Some of those Mossad officers were notably
filmed celebrating as the Twin Towers were burning and collapsing.
In
the year 2001 Israel was running a massive spying operation through a
number of cover companies in New Jersey, Florida and also on the west
coast that served as spying mechanisms for Mossad officers. The
effort was supported by the Mossad Station in Washington D.C. and
included a large number of volunteers, the so-called “art students”
who traveled around the U.S. selling various products at malls and
outdoor markets. The FBI was aware of the numerous Israeli students
who were routinely overstaying their visas and some in the Bureau
certainly believed that they were assisting their country’s
intelligence service in some way, but it proved difficult to actually
link the students to undercover operations, so they were regarded as
a minor nuisance and were normally left to the tender mercies of the
inspectors at the Bureau of Customs and Immigration.
American
law enforcement was also painfully aware that the Israelis were
running more sophisticated intelligence operations inside the United
States, many of which were focused on Washington’s military
capabilities and intentions. Some specialized intelligence units
concentrated on obtaining military and dual use technology. It was
also known that Israeli spies had penetrated the phone systems of the
U.S. government, to include those at the White House.
In
its annual classified counterespionage review, the FBI invariably
places Israel at the top for “friendly” countries that spy on the
U.S. In fact, the pre-9/11 Bureau did its best to stay on top of the
problem, but it rarely received any political support from the
Justice Department and White House if an espionage case involved
Israelis. By one estimate, more than 100 such cases were not
prosecuted for political reasons. Any Israeli caught in flagrante
would most often be quietly deported and most Americans who were
helping Israel were let off with a slap on the wrist.
But
the hands-off attitude towards Israel shifted dramatically when, on
September 11, 2001, a New Jersey housewife saw something from the
window of her apartment building, which overlooked the World Trade
Center. She watched as the buildings burned and crumbled but also
noted something strange. Three young men were kneeling on the roof of
a white transit van parked by the water’s edge, making a movie in
which they featured themselves high fiving and laughing in front of
the catastrophic scene unfolding behind them. The woman wrote down
the license plate number of the van and called the police, who
responded quickly and soon both the local force and the FBI began
looking for the vehicle, which was subsequently seen by other
witnesses in various locations along the New Jersey waterfront, its
occupants “celebrating and filming.”
The
license plate number revealed that the van belonged to a New Jersey
registered company called Urban Moving Systems. At 4 p.m. the vehicle
was spotted and pulled over. Five men between the ages of 22 and 27
years old emerged and were detained at gunpoint and handcuffed. They
were all Israelis. One of them had $4,700 in cash hidden in his sock
and another had two foreign passports. Bomb sniffing dogs reacted to
the smell of explosives in the van, which had very little actual
moving equipment inside.
According
to the initial police report, the driver identified as Sivan
Kurzberg, stated “We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your
problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.” The
four other passengers were Sivan’s brother Paul, Yaron Shmuel, Oded
Ellner and Omer Marmari. The men were detained at the Bergen County
jail in New Jersey before being transferred the FBI’s Foreign
Counterintelligence Section, which handles allegations of spying.
After
the arrest, the FBI obtained a warrant to search Urban Moving
System’s Weehawken, N.J., offices. Papers and computers were
seized. The company owner Dominick Suter, also an Israeli, answered
FBI questions but when a follow-up interview was set up a few days
later it was learned that he had fled the country for Israel, putting
both his business and home up for sale. The office space and
warehouse were abandoned. It was later learned that Suter has been
associated with at least fourteen businesses in the United States,
mostly in New Jersey and New York but also in Florida. Suter and his
wife Omit Levinson Suter were the owners of 1 Stop Cleaner located in
Wellington Florida and Dominick was also associated with Basia
McDonnell, described as a Polish “holocaust survivor,” as a
business partner in yet another business called Value Ad. Florida was
a main focus for the Israeli intelligence operation in the U.S. that
was directed against Arabs.
The
five Israelis were among 140 Israelis arrested after 9/11, most of
whom had military backgrounds, including some who were trained in
“intelligence.” The five were held in Brooklyn, initially on
charges relating to visa fraud. FBI interrogators questioned them for
more than two months. Several were held in solitary confinement so
they could not communicate with each other and two of them were given
repeated polygraph exams, which they failed when claiming that they
were nothing more than students working summer jobs. The two men that
the FBI focused on most intensively were believed to be Mossad staff
officers and the other three were volunteers helping with
surveillance.
The
Israelis were not exactly cooperative, but the FBI concluded from
documents obtained at their office in Weehawken that they were
targeting Arabs in New York and New Jersey, most particularly in the
Paterson N.J. area, which has the second largest Muslim population in
the U.S.
They were particularly interested in local groups possibly
linked to Hamas and Hezbollah as well as in charities that might be
used for fund raising. The FBI also concluded that the Israelis had
actually monitored the activities of at least two of the 9/11
hijackers.
To
be sure, working on an intelligence operation does not necessarily
imply participation in either the planning or execution of something
like 9/11, but there are Israeli fingerprints all over the place,
with cover companies and intelligence personnel often intersecting
with locations frequented by the hijackers.
Apart
from the interrogations of the five men from Weehawken, the U.S.
government has apparently never sought to find out what else the
Israelis might have known or were up to in September 2011. There are
a lot of dots that might well have been connected once upon a time,
but the trail has grown cold. Police records in New Jersey and New
York where the men were held have disappeared and FBI interrogation
reports have been inaccessible. Media coverage of the case also died,
though the five were referred to in the press as the “dancing
Israelis” and by some, more disparagingly, as the “dancing
Shlomos.”
Inevitably,
the George W. Bush White House intervened. After 71 days in
detention, the five Israelis were released from prison by Attorney
General John Ashcroft, put on a plane, and deported. Two of the men
later spoke about their unpleasant experience in America on an
Israeli talk show, one explaining that their filming the fall of the
Twin Towers was to “document the event.” In 2004 the five men
sued the United States government for damages, alleging “that their
detention was illegal and that their civil rights were violated,
suffering racial slurs, physical violence, religious discrimination,
rough interrogations, deprivation of sleep, and many other offenses.”
They were represented by Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, who in the previous
year had founded the Shurat HaDin Israel Law Center which seeks to
bankrupt groups that Israel considers to be “terrorists.” Shurat
HaDin is closely tied to the Israeli government.
Now
it is just possible that the Urban Moving Israelis were indeed
uninvolved in 9/11 but nevertheless working for Mossad, which the
Israeli government even subsequently admitted, but the
new evidence suggests that
the Israelis almost certainly had considerable prior knowledge and
were likely involved in what developed. The new information reveals
that minutes after the first plane struck the World Trade Center,
five Israelis had taken up position in the parking lot of the Doric
Apartment Complex in Union City, New Jersey, where they took pictures
and filmed the attacks while also celebrating the fall of the towers
and “high fiving.” One
eyewitnessinterviewed
by the Bureau had seen the Israelis’ van circling the building
parking at 8:00 a.m. that day, more than 40 minutes prior to the
attack, indicating prior knowledge of what was about to happen.
The photo reproductions were obtained via a FOIA request made by a
private citizen and
are of poor quality, deliberately made so by the FBI to conceal faces
and other details. They constitute only 14 of over seventy photos
taken by the Israelis. Nevertheless, they clearly demonstrate that a
celebration was going on. One photo, intriguingly, shows Sivan
Kurzberg holding a lit lighter in front of the Manhattan Skyline on
September 10th,
one day before 9/11. It was apparently taken at the Doric Complex on
a reconnoitering visit made on that day and suggests that Kurzberg
was simulating the attack on the towers on the following day.
Why
would the Israelis do it? Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
described 9/11 initially as “a good thing.” He was later quoted
as saying somewhat
more expansively “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the
attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in
Iraq.” To be sure, 9/11 was a gift to Israel and it is a gift that
keeps on giving. America is at war in a number of Muslim countries
and its troops blanket the Middle East, to include a base in Israel
dedicated to the defense of that country. It is all a result of the
Global War on Terror and the GWOT started with 9/11. And just maybe
it was a fire that was ignited by Israel.
Philip
Giraldi is a former counter-terrorism specialist and military
intelligence officer of the United States Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA) and a columnist and television commentator who is Executive
Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax
deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023)
that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle
East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address
is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email
is inform@cnionline.org.
This
article was originally published by “Unz
Review“-
Voor meer berichten over de 9/11 aanslagen, klik op het label 911, direct onder dit bericht. Let
wel: na een aantal berichten wordt het laatst gelezen bericht telkens
herhaald, dan onder dat laatst gelezen bericht even opnieuw op het label 911 klikken, enz. enz.
De
volkomen belachelijke situatie waar de VS een interim-president heeft
aangewezen in het soevereine land Venezuela, leidt tot o.a. heftige situaties bij de
Venezolaanse ambassade in Washington. Deze interim-president, Juan Guaidó, is een fascist die voor deze handeling van de VS, gesteund door o.a. Canada
en de EU, niet eens bekend was bij meer dan 95% van de Venezolanen……
Deze Guaidó werd door de terreuradministratie Trump, in samenwerking met diensten als de CIA en NSA, plus de onvoorwaardelijke steun van de reguliere westerse media en politici, gebombardeerd tot
oppositieleider in Venezuela……. In werkelijkheid was Guaidó de voorzitter van een
onbetekenende oppositionele splinterpartij…. Niet voor niets ook dat hij voor zijn ultieme couppoging tegen het democratisch gekozen bewind van Maduro, slechts een paar honderd mensen op straat kreeg….
Met deze
terreurdaad* van de VS tegen een soeverein land, zijn ook de
ambassades van Venezuela in het buitenland niet veilig. Het
ambassadepersoneel in Washington mag niet meer worden voorzien van
voedsel, daarvoor zorgen politie, geheime dienst en gewelddadige
Venezolanen die in de VS wonen……. Met veel geweld worden mensen
belaagd en zelfs gearresteerd, mensen die het opnemen voor het zittende
ambassade personeel en hen voedsel proberen te geven…… Intussen heeft de VS de elektriciteit en het water voor de ambassade afgesloten; de terreur van de VS kent letterlijk geen grenzen……
Zo werd Gerry Condone (van Veterans for Peace >> VFP) met fiks geweld door meerdere agenten tegen de grond gewerkt, daar hij het ambassadepersoneel een komkommer toegooide…… Voor dit feit werd hij 24 uur vastgehouden in een politiecel……. Hoe is het gvd mogelijk??!!!
Ongelofelijk
dat de VN niet al lang de VS heeft opgeroepen de Venezolaanse
soevereiniteit te respecteren en het ambassade personeel ongemoeid te
laten, zeker nu blijkt dat de bevolking van Venezuela voor het
overgrote deel nog steeds achter haar democratisch gekozen president Maduro staat……
De
schrijver van het volgende artikel, Ray McGovern, ziet voorts een
opvallende gelijkenis tussen het VS van de 21ste en het nazi-Duitse terreurbewind in de 20ste eeuw. Hiervoor citeert hij o.a. Raimond Pretzel, die schreef onder de naam Sebastian Haffner. Opvallend in dit deel van het artikel het feit dat de sociaal democratische top zich bijzonder snel aansloot bij de nazi’s, nog voordat deze partij, de SPD, werd verboden…… Maart 1933 zouden een paar miljoen Duitsers klaar zijn geweest voor de strijd tegen het nazisme, echter hun leiders lieten het afweten en collaboreerden met het nazi-geteisem, anderen ontvluchtten het land….
Beste bezoeker, lees het hieronder opgenomen artikel, een uitstekende analyse en
een aanklacht tegen de omgang van de VS met landen waar het niets te
vertellen zou moeten hebben, plus de zojuist geschetste situatie op
de straten van Washington, waar zoals gezegd neonazi’s, gesteund door de politie en
geheime dienst, terreur uitoefenen tegen goedwillende mensen…….
We
are at the point Edward Snowden described as “turnkey tyranny.”
And on Wednesday night the key was turned a bit more dramatically.
Ray McGovern explains.
By
Ray McGovern
May
11, 2019 “Information
Clearing House” – Gerry
Condon, President of Veterans For Peace, was bloodied and “taken to
ground,” on Wednesday night for trying to get food to people inside
the Venezuelan Embassy in Washington. The activists inside, some of
whom have lived in the embassy for weeks with permission from the
Venezuelan government, are protecting the premises from protestors
who support the self-declared president Juan Guaido.
With
the acquiescence of Washington police and the Secret Service, the
protestors have been able to block food from entering the embassy.
On Wednesday night electricity was cut to the building. One
activist tossing a loaf of bread to a window was arrested earlier
this week for using a “missile.” Now Condon has been
manhandled and nabbed for throwing a cucumber.
We
are at the point Edward Snowden described as “turnkey tyranny.”
On Wednesday night the key was turned a bit more dramatically. Until
now it has been an almost imperceptibly gradual process, like the
proverbial frog in boiling water.
Photo
and video of Condon’s arrest (story continues below):
I am stunned. US @SecretService just slammed the head of the President of Veterans for Peace into the cement because he tried to deliver a cucumber to Embassy Protectors. They let him bleed on the ground and did not provide med. attention. @DrMFlowers had to call an ambulance.
(eerst iemand mishandelen en dan zogenaamd begaan met een medisch hulptasje op de rug, Jerry Condone hulp bieden, terwijl hij duidelijk zichtbaar pijnlijk is geboeid door dezelfde collega’s die hem mishandelden….)
BREAKING: Police violently arrest the president of @VFPNational, Jerry Condone, for trying to get food into the embassy. He is left with lacerations on his face. @UrsulaRozum also arrested. Opposition walks away with stolen food. pic.twitter.com/KhPvSAtC05
Hier een paar video’s van YouTube, waaronder een tweede video die in het origineel is opgenomen”
Of
course, this has happened before. I quoted these
words in this article I
wrote for Consortium
News on
December 27, 2007:
“There
are few things as odd as the calm, superior indifference with which I
and those like me watched the beginnings of the Nazi revolution in
Germany, as if from a box at the theater. … Perhaps the only
comparably odd thing is the way that now, years later….”
The
words are those of Sebastian Haffner (pen name for Raimund Pretzel),
who as a young lawyer in Berlin during the 1930s experienced the Nazi
takeover, and wrote a first-hand account.
His children found the manuscript when he died in 1999 and published
it the following year as “Geschichte eines Deutschen” (The Story
of a German).
The
book became an immediate bestseller and has been translated into 20
languages—in English as “Defying Hitler.”
I
recently learned from his daughter Sarah, an artist in Berlin,
that today is
the 100th anniversary of
Haffner’s birth. She had seen an earlier article in which I quoted
her father and e-mailed to ask me to “write some more about the
book and the comparison to Bush’s America. … This is almost
unbelievable.”
More
about Haffner below. Let’s set the stage first by recapping some of
what has been going on here in the U.S. that may have resonance for
readers familiar with the Nazi ascendancy, noting how “odd” it is
that the frontal attack on our Constitutional rights is met with such
“calm, superior indifference.”
After
suppressing for two and a half years the explosive story of the
Bush/Cheney surveillance of Americans in gross violation of the
Fourth Amendment, top New York Times officials decided to
let the rest of us in on the fact that the George W. Bush
administration had been eavesdropping on American citizens without
the court warrants required by the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance
Act (FISA) of 1978. Not to mention the U.S. Constitution.
The Times had
learned of this well before the election in 2004 and acquiesced to
White House entreaties to suppress the damaging information.
In
late fall 2005 when Times correspondent James Risen’s
book, “State of War: the Secret History of the CIA and the Bush
Administration,” revealing the warrantless eavesdropping was being
printed, Times publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, Jr.,
recognized that he could procrastinate no longer.
It
would simply be too embarrassing to have Risen’s book on the
street, with Sulzberger and his associates pretending that this
explosive eavesdropping story did not fit Adolph Ochs’s trademark
criterion: All The News That’s Fit To Print.
(The Times’
own ombudsman, Public Editor Byron Calame, branded the newspaper’s
explanation for the long delay in publishing this story “woefully
inadequate.”)
When
Sulzberger told his friends in the White House that he could no
longer hold off on publishing in the newspaper, he was summoned to
the Oval Office for a counseling session with the president on Dec.
5, 2005. Bush tried in vain to talk him out of putting the story in
the Times.
The
truth would out; part of it, at least.
Unnamed
Program
What
followed struck me as bizarre. The day after the Dec.
16 Times feature article exposing the
Fourth-Amendment-trashing program, the president of the United States
publicly admitted to a demonstrably impeachable offense.
Authorizing
illegal electronic surveillance was a key provision of the second
article of impeachment against President Richard Nixon. On July 27,
1974, this and two other articles of impeachment were approved by
bipartisan votes in the House Judiciary Committee.
Bush
took a frontal approach, Far from expressing regret, he bragged about
having authorized the surveillance “more than 30 times since the
September the 11th attacks,” and said he would continue to do so.
The president also said:
“Leaders
in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this
authorization and the activities conducted under it.”
On
Dec. 19, 2005, then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and then-NSA
Director Michael Hayden held a press conference to answer questions
about the as yet unnamed surveillance program.
Gonzales
was asked why the White House decided to flout FISA rather than
attempt to amend it, choosing instead a “backdoor approach.”
He answered:
“We
have had discussions with Congress…as to whether or not FISA could
be amended to allow us to adequately deal with this kind of threat,
and we were advised that that would be difficult, if not impossible.”
It
Had to Do With Us
It
was not difficult to
infer that the surveillance program must
have been of such scope and intrusiveness that, even amid highly
stoked fear, it didn’t have a prayer for passage.
It
turns out we didn’t know the half of it.
Bear
in mind that when this illegal surveillance program began, it had
nothing to do with terrorism, an issue that did not really appear on
the new administration’s radar screen until a week before 9/11. …
So this until-recently-unknown pre-9/11 facet of the “Terrorist
Surveillance Program” was not related to Osama bin Laden or to
whomever he and his associates might be speaking. It had to do with
us.
We
know that the Democrats briefed on the “Terrorist Surveillance
Program” include House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, (the one with
the longest tenure on the House Intelligence Committee), Rep. Jane
Harman, D-California, and former and current chairmen of the Senate
Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, D-FL, and Jay Rockefeller, D-WV,
respectively.
May
one interpret their lack of public comment on the news that the
snooping began well before 9/11 as a sign they were co-opted and then
sworn to secrecy?
It
is an important question. Were the appropriate leaders in Congress
informed that within days of George W. Bush’s first inauguration
the NSA electronic vacuum cleaner began to suck up information on you
and me, despite the FISA law and the Fourth Amendment?
Are
they all complicit? And are Democratic leaders about to cave in and
grant retroactive immunity to those telecommunications
corporations—AT&T and Verizon—which made millions by winking
at the law and the Constitution?
(Qwest,
to its credit, heeded the advice of its general counsel who said that
what NSA wanted done was clearly illegal.)
What’s
going on here? [December 2007] Have congressional leaders no
sense for what is at stake?
Lately
the adjective “spineless” has come into vogue in describing
congressional Democrats—no offense to invertebrates.
Nazis
and Their Enablers
You
don’t have to be a Nazi. You can just be, well, a sheep.
In
his journal, Sebastian Haffner decries what he calls the “sheepish
submissiveness” with which the German people reacted to a 9/11-like
event, the burning of the German Parliament (Reichstag) on Feb. 27,
1933.
Haffner
finds it quite telling that none of his acquaintances “saw anything
out of the ordinary in the fact that, from then on, one’s telephone
would be tapped, one’s letters opened, and one’s desk might be
broken into.”
But
it is for the cowardly politicians that Haffner reserves his most
vehement condemnation. Do you see any contemporary parallels here?
In
the elections of March 4, 1933, shortly after the Reichstag fire, the
Nazi party garnered only 44 percent of the vote. Only the “cowardly
treachery” of the Social Democrats and other parties to whom 56
percent of the German people had entrusted their votes made it
possible for the Nazis to seize full power. Haffner adds:
“It
is in the final analysis only that betrayal that explains the almost
inexplicable fact that a great nation, which cannot have consisted
entirely of cowards, fell into ignominy without a fight.”
The
Social Democratic leaders betrayed their followers—“for the most
part decent, unimportant individuals.” In May, the party leaders
sang the Nazi anthem; in June the Social Democratic party was
dissolved.
The
middle-class Catholic party Zentrum folded in less than a month, and
in the end supplied the votes necessary for the two-thirds majority
that “legalized” Hitler’s dictatorship.
As
for the right-wing conservatives and German nationalists: “Oh God,”
writes Haffner, “what an infinitely dishonorable and cowardly
spectacle their leaders made in 1933 and continued to make afterward.
… They went along with everything: the terror, the persecution of
Jews. … They were not even bothered when their own party was banned
and their own members arrested.”
In
sum: “There was not a single example of energetic defense, of
courage or principle. There was only panic, flight, and desertion. In
March 1933, millions were ready to fight the Nazis. Overnight they
found themselves without leaders. … At the moment of truth, when
other nations rise spontaneously to the occasion, the Germans
collectively and limply collapsed. They yielded and capitulated, and
suffered a nervous breakdown. … The result is today the nightmare
of the rest of the world.”
This
is what can happen when virtually all are intimidated.
Our
Founding Fathers were not oblivious to this; thus, James Madison
wrote:
“I
believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the
people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by
violent and sudden usurpations. … The means of defense against
foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at
home.”
We
cannot say we weren’t warned.
Ray
McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical
Church of the Saviour in inner city Washington. He was a CIA analyst
for 27 years and presidential briefer and is co-founder of Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
* De terreurdaad zich te mengen in de binnenlandpolitiek van een soeverein land, dit nog naast de eerst geheime economische oorlog tegen het Venezolaanse volk….. Een oorlog die intussen is veranderd in een officieel sanctiebeleid, waarmee de situatie voor de Venezolanen er nog beroerder uit is komen te zien….. Gelukkig krijgt het land veel steun, niet alleen van het Rode Kruis en de VN, maar ook van onder andere China, Rusland en Cuba…..
De tot nu toe meest belachelijke premier van dit land, is zonder meer de gemuteerde CDA kleiaardappel Balkenende. Als hij in het nauw kwam door de volkomen verkeerde beslissingen die hij en z’n afbraakkabinet namen, heeft Balkenende, ik dacht, een paar keer het meer dan lamme excuus gebruikt: “Met de kennis van nu…..” en dat in de bedoeling >> met die kennis had ik destijds anders gehandeld…..
Balkenende zei dit onder meer na het rapport van de Commissie-Davids over de door hem en de Hoop Scheffer (plus natuurlijk de rest van het waardeloze Balkenende kabinet) gesteunde illegale inval in Irak. Terwijl Balkenende en de Hoop Scheffer, destijds minister van BuZa, al vele malen waren gewaarschuwd dit niet te doen…… Ze werden o.a gewaarschuwd door het team van VN wapeninspecteurs o.l.v. Blix, die het vuur uit z’n sloffen liep met de mededeling dat Irak geen massavernietigingswapens had en ze zelfs niet verstopt kon hebben…..
Overigens zei CDA opperschoft de Hoop Scheffer later dat hij geen spijt had van het steunen van de oorlog tegen Irak, zowel politiek als militair…. Terwijl hij toen al wist (of had kunnen weten) dat meer dan 1,5 miljoen Irakezen waren omgekomen door die illegale oorlog…… Deze oorlogsmisdadiger mag (zoals oorlogsmisdadiger Balkenende) les geven aan hoge scholen en universiteiten…… Als beloning mocht de Hoop Scheffer van de VS (destijds onder lijpo G.W. Bush) een paar jaar secretaris-generaal van de NAVO spelen…….*
Het voorgaande schoot onlangs nog eens door m’n hoofd toen ik weer eens de dooddoener hoorde van Duitsers die na WOII werden gevraagd naar de concentratiekampen: “Wir haben es nicht gewusst….’ Inderdaad deze uitspraken hebben dezelfde strekking. Meen trouwens dat zowel de grijnzende VVD hufter Rutte als PvdA grofgraaier Bos (afzonderlijk) ook al eens hebben gewezen op ‘de kennis van nu’, i.v.m. één van de vele door hen gemaakte blunders, leugens en/of andere oplichterij….
* De Hoop Scheffer ontkent deze bewering, echter hij werd secretaris-generaal in 2003, hetzelfde jaar dat Balkenende 1 politieke steun uitsprak voor de illegale oorlog van de VS tegen Irak, dit besluit werd overgebracht middels een bezoek van hem en Balkenende aan het Witte Huis, om 7 uur ‘s morgens, met de pet in de hand, aan de dienstingang van het Witte Huis….
Het gore
lef wat sommigen hebben is niet zelden ten hemel schreiend, zoals de
perschef van president Bush (deze oorlogsmisdadiger en top-idioot mag zich president blijven noemen). Ari Fleischer (de perschef) nam het besluit e.e.a. via Twitter de wereld in
te helpen, waarschijnlijk als reactie op de dreigementen van de VS
tegen het Internationaal Strafhof dat men actie zal nemen tegen de
functionarissen, die zich bezig houden met onderzoek naar VS
oorlogsmisdaden…….
Ongelofelijk wat ploert Fleischer durft te zeggen, terwijl de hele wereld weet (of kan weten) dat de
VS heeft gelogen, leugens die meer dan 2 miljoen Irakezen het leven
heeft gekost, ofwel die mensen zijn in feite vermoord door de
VS……
Fleischer
doet net of de geheime diensten van de VS, Israël en nog een paar
landen zeker wisten dat er massavernietigingswapens lagen in Irak,
weliswaar klopte dit niet, maar dat is iets anders dan liegen, aldus de hufter….. ha!
ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
Alsof
die geheime diensten ook maar de neiging hebben om de waarheid te vertellen,
jezus!!
De
wapeninspecteurs van de VN, o.l.v. Blix, hebben uit en te na gewezen op
het feit dat Irak (onder Saddam Hoessein) geen
massavernietigingswapens had en deze zelfs niet voor hen verborgen kon
hebben…..
Overigens liet de Hoop Scheffer, oorlogsmisdadiger van het CDA, vorig jaar weten nog steeds achter de illegale oorlog tegen Irak te staan, ondanks het enorme aantal slachtoffers, een land dat voor een groot deel in puin ligt en waar de oorlog nog lang niet is afgelopen…… Irak, een land waarnaar Nederland vluchtelingen deporteert, rechtstreeks de oorlog in, dit op basis van ambtsberichten van Buitenlandse Zaken, terwijl hetzelfde ministerie nog steeds een negatief reisadvies voor Irak afgeeft….
Caitlin
Johnstone schreef op haar site een uiterst scherp artikel over
deze zaak en laat van Fleischer en anderen geen spaan heel, lezen
mensen, het gaat hier om geschiedvervalsing van de eerste orde, ook
de reguliere (massa-) media doen net of hun neus bloedt als het om de
illegale Irak oorlog gaat, terwijl zij deze oorlog op valse feiten
van A tot Z hebben gepropageerd, waar de kennis over het tegendeel voor het oprapen lag…….. (over het brengen van fake news gesproken….)
On
the Anniversary Of The Iraq Invasion, Bush Press Secretary Claims
Bush Didn’t Lie
On
the sixteenth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, as the US
government threatens
punitive action against International
Criminal Court investigators for attempting to look into US war
crimes, former George W Bush administration Press Secretary Ari
Fleischer has decided to publish
a Twitter thread claiming
that Bush did not lie to the world about Iraq.
Here
is a transcript of the full thread by Fleischer:
The
Iraq war began sixteen years ago tomorrow. There is a myth about the
war that I have been meaning to set straight for years. After no WMDs
were found, the left claimed “Bush lied. People died.” This
accusation itself is a lie. It’s time to put it to rest.
The
fact is that President Bush (and I as press secretary) faithfully and
accurately reported to the public what the intelligence community
concluded. The CIA, along with the intelligence services of
Egypt, France, Israel and others concluded that Saddam had WMD. We
all turned out to be wrong. That is very different from lying.
After
the war, a bipartisan group was created to determine what went wrong,
particularly why the intelligence community’s conclusions about Iraq
were so different from what was found on the ground after the
war. The group of experts was named the Robb-Silberman
commission. It’s report was issued in March 2005. It
can be found in full here.
Its key finding was that that a “major intelligence failure”
took place. It also stated that no intelligence service was pressured
by the Bush Administration to conclude that Saddam had WMDs.
Here
are the key quotes from their report:
“Overall
Commission Finding: The Intelligence Community’s performance in
assessing Iraq’s pre-war weapons of mass destruction programs was a
major intelligence failure.
Nuclear
Weapons Summary Finding: The Intelligence Community seriously
misjudged the status of Iraq’s alleged nuclear weapons program in the
2002 NIE* and other pre-Iraq war intelligence products. This
misjudgment stemmed chiefly from the Community’s failure to analyze
correctly Iraq’s reasons for attempting to procure high-strength
aluminum tubes.
Biological
Warfare Summary Finding: The Intelligence Community seriously
misjudged the status of Iraq’s biological weapons program in the 2002
NIE and other pre-war intelligence products. The primary reason
for this misjudgment was the Intelligence Community’s heavy reliance
on a human source–codenamed ‘Curveball’–whose information later
proved to be unreliable.
Chemical
Warfare Summary Finding: The Intelligence Community erred in its 2002
NIE assessment of Iraq’s alleged chemical warfare program. The
Community’s substantial overestimation of Iraq’s chemical warfare
program was due chiefly to flaws in analysis and the paucity of
quality information collected. In the case of Iraq, collectors of
intelligence absorbed the prevailing analytic consensus and tended to
reject or ignore contrary information. The result was ‘tunnel vision’
focusing on the Intelligence Community’s existing assumptions. The
Intelligence Community did not make or change any analytic judgments
in response to political pressure to reach a particular conclusion,
but the pervasive conventional wisdom that Saddam retained WMD
affected the analytic process. The CIA took too long to admit
error in Iraq, and its Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and
Arms Control Center actively discouraged analysts from investigating
errors.
Finally,
we closely examined the possibility that intelligence analysts were
pressured by policymakers to change their judgments about Iraq’s
nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs. The analysts
who worked Iraqi weapons issues universally agreed that in no
instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of
their analytical judgments.”
That
is what the investigators reported, after been given full access to
people throughout the intelligence community. Which leads me to
conclude that there was a liar and his name was Saddam Hussein. He
created an elaborate system of lies to fool western intelligence
services and he succeeded. He wanted us to believe he had WMDs.
The
allegaton that “Bush lied. People died” is a liberal myth
created to politically target President Bush. I understand the anger
that was felt after no WMDs were found. But that doesn’t justify
calling the President a liar. I can only hope that serious historians
and other experts do their homework and resist falling for this myth.
Ari Fleischer ✔@AriFleischer
The Iraq war began sixteen years ago tomorrow. There is a myth about the war that I have been meaning to set straight for years. After no WMDs were found, the left claimed “Bush lied. People died.” This accusation itself is a lie. It’s time to put it to rest.
Ari
Fleischer is lying. It is an absolute proven fact that George W Bush
and his administration lied
extensively about
the degree of certainty in intelligence regarding Saddam Hussein
possessing weapons of mass destruction, having ties to Al Qaeda, and
seeking nuclear weapons, all of which (along with Vice President
Cheney’s claim that the US invaders would be “greeted
as liberators“)
proved false. The Bush administration did not know the things they
claimed to know with any degree of certainty, but they claimed that
they were certain in order to manufacture support for war. Claiming
to know something you do not know is lying, especially when it’s to
advance an ulterior motive.
“Evidence
from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by
people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects
terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda,” Bush claimed
in January 2003.
“Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his
hiddenweapons
to terrorists, or help them develop their own.”
“Simply
stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass
destruction,” Cheney claimed
in August 2002.
“There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our
friends, against our allies, and against us.”
“The
United States knows that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction,”
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said
in December 2002.
“Any country on the face of the earth with an active
intelligence program knows that Iraq has weapons of mass
destruction.”
“We
are absolutely sure they have continued to develop weapons of mass
destruction, and we are sure they have in their possession weapons of
mass destruction,” Secretary of State Colin Powell said
in December 2002.
“My
colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources,
solid sources,” Powell told the United Nations Security Council
in his infamous Iraq
presentation in
February 2003. “These are not assertions. What we’re giving
you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.”
“People
will continue to debate this issue, but there is no doubt in my
mind,” Powell said in the same presentation. “These illicit
procurement efforts show that Saddam Hussein is very much focused on
putting in place the key missing piece from his nuclear weapons
program, the ability to produce fissile material.”
Powell was
not nearly as certain as
he claimed to be. None of them were. Facts revealed after the
invasion prove that for all their public claims of complete and total
certainty that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, was aiding and
abetting Al Qaida, and was developing nuclear weapons, behind the
veil of government secrecy there was nothing like certainty at all.
For
starters, Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, who was cited in Powell’s
presentation and who Fleischer refers to by the code name “Curveball”
in the above thread, was
known to have been lying about
bioweapons long before the invasion. Despite the confident assertions
made by the Bush administration about Janabi’s claims to the public,
no American personnel were present when he made those claims, and
he told
the Guardianin
2011 that
the BND (the German intelligence agency who interrogated him) had
known he was lying all along.
“The
BND [German intelligence] knew in 2000 that I was lying after they
talked to my former boss, Dr Bassil Latif, who told them there were
no mobile bioweapons factories,” Janabi said. “For 18
months after that they left me alone because they knew I was telling
lies even though I never admitted it.
Believe
me, back then, I thought the whole thing was over for me. Then all of
a sudden [in the run up to the 2003 invasion] they came back to me
and started asking for more details about what I had told them. I
still don’t know why the BND then passed on my information to the CIA
and it ended up in Powell’s speech.”
Colonel
Lawrence Wilkerson was Powell’s chief of staff and helped him prepare
his UN presentation on Iraq. When asked on MSNBC if he believed he
was lied to about Janabi following the 2011 revelation,
Wilkerson told
Cenk Uygur that
“I cannot come to any other conclusion, especially when I have
discovered that no US personnel were present when Curveball was
interrogated by the BND, the German intelligence service. That we
accepted that, that we even had a head of the European division for
the CIA, Tyler Drumheller, who at the last minute during Powell’s
preparation, during my preparation of the secretary, had told both
Tenet and McLaughlin that Curveball might not be reliable. That
information was never relayed to the Secretary of State, or to me. I
have some serious doubts about it now. I think there was some
manipulation of this material, and there was some outright lying.”
When asked
by Uygur who
he thought lied to him, Wilkerson said one of WINPAC’s two WMD
experts at the time may have been answering directly to Dick Cheney’s
office.
A declassified
report from 2002 titled Iraq:
Status of WMD Programs reveals
that while the Bush administration was making its claims of absolute
certainty regarding the dangers posed by the Iraqi government, behind
the scenes it was damn near the opposite. Some choice excerpts:
“Our
assessments rely heavily on analytic assumptions and judgment rather
than hard evidence.
The evidentiary base is particularly sparse for
Iraqi nuclear programs.”
“We
range from 0% to about 75% knowledge on various aspects of their
program.”
“Our
knowledge of the Iraqi (nuclear) weapons program is based
largely—perhaps 90%—on analysis of imprecise intelligence.”
“We
cannot confirm the identity of any Iraqi facilities that produce,
test, fill, or store biological weapons.”
“Our
knowledge of what biological weapons the Iraqis are able to
produce is nearly complete. Our knowledge of how and where they
are produced is nearly 90% incomplete.”
“We
do not know the status of enrichment capabilities. We do not know
with confidence the location of any nuclear-weapon-related
facilities.”
“Please
take a look at this material as to what we don’t know about WMD. It
is big.” (That one was from Rumsfeld.)
“We
don’t know with any precision how much we don’t know.”
This
is not the language of certainty. Yet certainty was presented to the
public to manufacture support for a war which murdered a million
Iraqis.
The
2002 Downing
Street memo,
made public in 2005, reveals a secret meeting between senior
officials of the British government, intelligence and defense
agencies discussing what they knew about America’s plans for war.
The text
of the document contains
an assertion by the head of MI6 that Bush had already determined that
the invasion of Iraq would take place, and it was only a matter of
fixing bits of intelligence around a narrative to make the case.
“Military
action was now seen as inevitable,” the document reads. “Bush
wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the
conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were
being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN
route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi
regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the
aftermath after military action.”
“It
seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action,
even if the timing was not yet decided,” the document quotes
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw as saying. “But the case was thin.”
In
a 2008
hearing before the House Judiciary Committee,
attorney and author Vincent Bugliosi pointed out that the fact
that Bush lied about Iraq could be proven by the difference between
the classified 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and its
declassified white paper which was made available to the public.The
classified version contained dissents from the consensus and language
which made it clear that the reader was reading assessments and
opinions by the CIA and other intelligence agencies, whereas the
unclassified version saw these things deleted, presenting the
assessments as absolute fact.
“The
evidence that he lied about weapons of mass destruction, by the way,
which is not the basis for this book, are right in front of
me,” Bugliosi
said.
“I have it right here. Here is the evidence. This document here
is the National Intelligence Estimate. I didn’t name it before. I
talked about a classified report. This is it right here. October 1st,
2002, classified NIE report. It is called Iraq’s ContinuingPrograms
of Weapons of Mass Destruction. In this document right here, the CIA
and 15 other U.S. intelligence agencies use words like this, ‘we
assess that’ or ‘we judge that’ Hussein has weapons of mass
destruction. This document here is the white paper that was given to
you folks here in Congress and the American people. And the words ‘we
assess that’ or ‘we judge that’ were removed, meaning that you folks
here heard a fact, and in fact, it was only an opinion.
“Number
two, on nuclear weapons, this document right here, the classified
report has several important dissents. This document right here, the
white paper that you folks were given and the American people, all of
those dissents were deleted.”
Over
and over and over again we saw the same thing: uncertainty presented
as certainty. Guesses presented as fact. Opinions presented as proof.
That’s a lie. Bush lied. We know this with as much certainty as his
administration was pretending to have in the lead-up to the Iraq
invasion. There was a pre-existing agenda to invade Iraq, and
justifications were advanced to provide an excuse for that invasion
with such extreme aggression that now-National Security Advisor John
Bolton literally threatened
to murder an international official’s children for
making diplomacy work with Saddam.
In
October 2002, Bush said that Saddam Hussein had a “massive
stockpile” of
biological weapons. But as CIA Director
George Tenet noted
in early 2004, the CIA had informed policymakers it had “no
specific information on the types or quantities of weapons agent or
stockpiles at Baghdad’s disposal.” The “massive stockpile”
was just literally made up.
In
December 2002, Bush declared, “We
do not know whether or not [Iraq] has a nuclear weapon.” That
was not what the National Intelligence Estimate said. As Tenet would
later testify, “We said that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon
and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009.”
Bush did know whether or not Iraq had a nuclear weapon — and lied
and said he didn’t know to hype the threat.
On
CNN in September 2002, Condoleezza Rice claimed that aluminum tubes
purchased by Iraq were “only really suited for nuclear weapons
programs.” This was precisely
the opposite of what nuclear experts at the Energy Department were
saying; they argue that not only was it very possible the tubes were
for nonnuclear purposes but that it was very likely they were too.
Even more dire assessments about the tubes from other agencies were
exaggerated by administration officials — and in any case, the
claim that they’re “only really suited” for nuclear weapons is
just false.
In
August 2002, Dick
Cheney declared,
“Simply stated, there’s no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has
weapons of mass destruction.” But as Corn
notes,
at that time there was “no confirmed intelligence at this point
establishing that Saddam had revived a major WMD operation.” Gen.
Anthony Zinni, who had heard the same intelligence and attended
Cheney’s speech, would later
say in a documentary,
“It was a total shock. I couldn’t believe the vice president was
saying this, you know? In doing work with the CIA on Iraq WMD,
through all the briefings I heard at Langley, I never saw one piece
of credible evidence that there was an ongoing program.”
In
2007 General Wesley Clark told Democracy
Now that
he’d actually been informed of the decision to invade Iraq
immediately after 9/11, while the crosshairs were turning on
Afghanistan and well before the public narrative was being amped up
in demand of an invasion of Iraq. His comments read as follows:
About
ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary
Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to
say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work
for me, and one of the generals called me in.
He
said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.”
I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.”
He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.”
This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going
to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He
said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said,
“Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to
al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s
nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with
Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do
about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down
governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you
have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”
So
I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were
bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with
Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He
reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said,
“I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the
Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said,
“This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven
countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon,
Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is
it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well,
don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I
said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t
show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”
Iraq,
Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. If you’ve been
following the behaviors of the US war machine, Iraq won’t be the only
painfully familiar name on that list.
Ari Fleischer ✔@AriFleischer
It remains important to learn what we’ve attacked and where. How widespread?
In addition to military targets, I hope we targeted Assad’s palace in Damascus. Leave him alive but destroy his prestige. Leave him without a home, as Assad has left millions of Syrians w/o theirs.
Iran’s Official Figures Indicate Alarming Unemployment Rate Later This Year
The official unemployment rate has reached 27 percent among young Iranians and over 40 percent among university graduates, says Omid Ali Parsai, chairman of the Iranian Statistical Center.
en.radiofarda.com
Ari
Fleischer is a liar. He was
in the thick of
the Bush administration’s campaign to sell the Iraq war to the
American public, and to this day he continues trying to
sell them
on new
acts of depraved
US interventionism.
He’s just as much a warmongering neocon inside as he was when he was
behind a podium defending Bush’s wars in the press room, so it’s no
wonder he wants to preserve the image of his insatiable death cult.
Fleischer wants to preserve his legacy, yes, but he also wants to
preserve support for the war machine whose feet he worships at, hence
his ham-fisted attempt at narrative manipulation regarding the
unforgivable Iraq invasion.
The
responses to Fleischer’s Twitter thread have been overwhelmingly
negative, though, so it doesn’t look like anyone’s buying it. In our
new political landscape, where the image of George W Bush is
being continually
rehabilitated,
that gives me a bit of hope.
These
monsters lied to start a war which snuffed out a million human lives
and destabilized an entire region, and they did it right in front of
our faces. The fact that they’re now trying to lie about the thing we
all watched them do is as insulting as it is infuriating. Never let
them pull the wool over your eyes, and never forget what they did.
Forgiveness is highly
overrated.
Thanks
for reading! My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you
enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me
onFacebook,
following my antics onTwitter, throwing
some money into my hat on Patreon orPaypal, purchasing
some of my sweet
merchandise, buying
my new book Rogue
Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone,
or my previous book Woke:
A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.
The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see
the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for
my website,
which will get you an email notification for everything I publish.
Voor meer berichten over de illegale oorlog tegen Irak, klik op het labels Irak, direct onder dit bericht. Let
wel: na een aantal berichten wordt het laatst gelezen bericht telkens
herhaald, dan onder het laatst gelezen bericht even opnieuw op het
gekozen label klikken, enz. enz.
Tijdens
de begrafenis van zijn vader, massamoordenaar en oorlogsmisdadiger
George H.W. Bush, gaf de nog grotere massamoordenaar en
oorlogsmisdadiger G.W. Bush, Michelle Obama een snoepje. Deze
handeling leidde tot een meer dan belachelijke en hysterische reactie
in de reguliere (massa-) media, waar men Bush als een geweldige en
gevoelige man afschilderde.
Deze
kontlikkerij van de reguliere media is niet alleen in het belang van
Bush, maar uiteraard ook van die media zelf, immers zij hebben
zonder enig onderzoek, laat staan kritiek de illegale oorlogen van die deze schoft begon van meet af aan gesteund (en zelfs nog daarvoor)……. Oorlogen tegen Afghanistan, Irak, Libië en Syrië, al
zijn de laatste 2 van die oorlogen aangegaan door de Obama administratie, zometeen meer
daarover. Oh nee, dom van mij, de
oorlogen in Afghanistan en Irak zijn in feite nog steeds gaande en
hebben intussen aan meer dan 2 miljoen mensen uit die 2 landen het leven
gekost (alleen in Irak al meer dan 1,5 miljoen doden…..)….
Diezelfde
massamedia hebben ‘uiteraard’ ook de illegale oorlogen van de Obama
administratie uitentreuren gesteund. Het gaat dan om de illegale oorlogen tegen Libië en Syrië, naast een groot aantal geheime militaire operaties in
andere delen van Afrika, plus de opstand in Oekraïne, die door
Hillary Clinton, destijds minister van BuZa, werd georganiseerd
(i.s.m. de CIA) en waar de VS 4 miljard dollar aan spendeerde……..
Gevolg
van de gelukte opzet van die opstand in Oekraïne, een staatsgreep tegen de
democratisch gekozen regering Janoekovytsj, heeft ervoor gezorgd dat
de neonazi-junta van Porosjenko een oorlog begon tegen de Oekraïners in het oosten van het land, daar deze mensen niet wensten te leven
onder de neonazi-junta van Porosjenko en terecht goed pissig waren over de coup
tegen een o.a. door hen gekozen regering en president……..
Alle
leugens gefabriceerd door de VS over Oekraïne werden en worden zonder
enig commentaar overgenomen door de reguliere media, op aangeven van de geheime diensten van de VS en die van haar westerse partners….. Ga maar eens
na wat diezelfde media te vertellen zouden hebben als er bijvoorbeeld
eenzelfde staatsgreep zou hebben plaatsgevonden in een land als België…… De rapen zouden gaar zijn geweest en diezelfde media
zouden moord en brand hebben geschreeuwd…… (hoewel, zouden ze dat
ook doen als de VS ook in België de antidemocratische agressor zou
zijn geweest?)
Voorts
zijn er nog de moorden die de VS pleegt op verdachten, dit middels
drones….. Dit terreurprogramma werd door Bush opgezet en in veel groter aantal door de Obama
administratie overgenomen, intussen heeft Trump deze terreuraanslagen nog verder uitgebreid…… Hoe is het mogelijk dat zogenaamd
onafhankelijke mediaorganen niet met hevige kritiek op deze
standrechtelijke executies zijn gekomen, zeker nadat een paar jaar
geleden al bekend werd gemaakt dat meer dan 90% van de slachtoffers van die
VS terreuraanslagen, niet eens werden verdacht, dus vooral vrouwen en
kinderen…???
Het
volgende artikel is van Caitlin Johnstone, vandaag gepubliceerd:
The
fact that George W Bush has given Michelle Obama two pieces of candy
is once again making headlines in mainstream outlets like Time, The
Hill,
and Newsweek.
He has not given her any new pieces of candy since the last time he
did so at his father’s funeral. He also has not ceased to be the
man who facilitated the murder of a million Iraqis and inflicted a
whole new level of military expansionism and Orwellian surveillance
upon our world. As near as I can tell, the only reason this story is
once again making headlines is because Michelle Obama and the
mainstream media have decided to bring it up again.
“He
has the presence of mind and the sense of humor to bring me a mint,
and he made it a point to give me that mint right then and there and
that’s the beauty of George Bush,” Obama said of the war criminal
in conversation at the SAP Center over the weekend, which we
apparently need to know about because the news is telling us about
it.
“We’re
all Americans. We all care about our family and our kids, and we’re
trying to get ahead,” Obama continued. “And that’s how I feel
about [Bush]. You know? He’s a beautiful, funny, kind, sweet man.”
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.
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 …
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.
Gisteren
publiceerde Caitlin Johnstone een artikel met een kop waarin ze stelt
dat de hysterische massamedia eindelijk openlijk erkennen dat propaganda werkt.
Ze legt dit verder uit met te zeggen dat de reguliere (massa-)
media hebben ontdekt dat propaganda werkt, dit door het dag in dag uit op de oorlogstrommel slaan met de leugen
dat Rusland de verkiezingen in de VS heeft gestolen van Hillary
Clinton…….
Ben
het in deze niet eens met Johnstone, daar die reguliere media al ver
voor de presidentsverkiezingen van 2016 volop propaganda maakten,
neem alleen al de leugens van die media over Afghanistan, Irak, Libië en Syrië, leugens die mede aan de wieg stonden van grootschalige VS terreur tegen die landen, dit in
de vorm van illegale oorlogen……
Ondanks dat voor een ieder en zeker voor journalisten van de massamedia, duidelijk zou moeten zijn dat men het publiek heeft voorgelogen (over de landen waartegen de VS illegale oorlogen begon), immers daar zijn stapels bewijzen voor, blijven die media (alsook het grootste deel van de westerse politici) dezelfde leugens herhalen……….
Syrië?
Vraag je je misschien af. Ja, in feite geldt dit ook voor Syrië,
immers de VS was al vanaf 2006, onder opperschoft G.W. Bush, bezig
met het opzetten van een opstand in Syrië, die tot de afzetting van
Assad had moeten leiden….. Met grote graagte herhaalden de massamedia de leugens van o.a. de CIA over Syrië en dat al ver voor ‘de opstand…..’
Eén en ander zegt jammer genoeg niets over het in puin bombarderen van Syrië, waarvoor de VS als hoofdverantwoordelijke kan worden aangewezen….. ‘Opstand’ (middels buitenlandse
agitatoren en de CIA) geslaagd, coup mislukt, hetzelfde recept werkte overigens
wel in Oekraïne en als gevolg van die geslaagde staatsgreep tegen de
democratisch gekozen regering Janoekovytsj, voert de door de VS
geparachuteerde neonazi-junta Porosjenko oorlog tegen burgers, die het
terecht niet pikten dat de door hen gekozen regering werd
afgezet….. Ofwel de VS is ook verantwoordelijk voor de oorlog die de Porosjenko junta voert tegen de burgerbevolking van Oost-Oekraïne….
De
media hebben met hun propaganda het grootste deel van de westerse
bevolkingen overtuigd van de Russische bemoeienis met de
presidentsverkiezingen, het Brexit referendum en het Catalaanse
onafhankelijkheidsreferendum. Waar de media in de EU lidstaten de
Russen beschuldigden van zo ongeveer alles wat fout ging op
politiek-maatschappelijk gebied…..
Uiteraard
beseft men bij die media dat men openlijk meewerkt aan anti-Russische
propaganda, immers waar zou men als eerste door moeten hebben dat
claims van Russische manipulaties je reinste kul zijn? Juist, bij die
reguliere media! Media die met een claim op nationale veiligheid
al lang zijn gestopt met het zetten van vraagtekens bij
beschuldigingen waarvoor zelfs na 2 jaar niet één steekhoudend
bewijs werd geleverd……..
Ondanks
mijn bedenkingen geeft het artikel van Johnstone een duidelijk
(sarcastisch en bij tijd en wijle humoristisch) beeld van waar het om
gaat als je spreekt over Russiagate en de verdere anti-Russische propaganda
in de reguliere media. Nogmaals wijst Johnstone (volkomen terecht) op de minimale bedragen waarmee Rusland zogenaamd de VS presidentsverkiezingen zou hebben beïnvloed, terwijl de bedragen waarmee deze verkiezingen wel worden beïnvloed, de ‘Russische bedragen voor eenzelfde invloed’ volkomen in de schaduw stellen…..
Om nog maar te zwijgen (niet dus) over het optreden van de Israëlische Palestijnenslachter en premier Netanyahu in de VS senaat, maanden voor de presidentsverkiezingen, waar deze massamoordenaar de democraten afmaakte en de republikeinen (onder Trump) voor Israël als enig aanvaardbare toekomstige regering afschilderde…… Geen hond in de reguliere (massa-) media die hier grote ophef over maakte, terwijl dit toch echt veel verder ging dan de leugens over het kwaadaardige sprookje dat men ‘Russiagate’ noemt…….
Mass
Media’s Russia Hysteria Is Openly Acknowledging the Power of
Propaganda
(CJ Opinion) — “So
now the question becomes: how did Russia know to target African
American voters, and especially in certain key states,” asked popular
#Resistance pundit Amy Siskind in response to a New
York Times article claiming
Russian social media trolls targeted Sanders supporters and Black
voters during the 2016 election.
“I
think we’ll get our answers in the coming months from the Mueller
probe,” Siskind speculated.
Well
that’s a mighty good question there, Amy, and I think the answer is
pretty obvious. Clearly Russia knew to target African American voters
because Donald Trump called his boss Vladimir Putin and told him
about America’s secret racial issues, which nobody in any foreign
country could ever know about on their own. Then it was a simple
matter of sending the trolls of St Petersburg’s Internet Research
Agency to trick black people into thinking that the American
political system hasn’t been working for them, thereby ensuring the
defeat of the rightful heir to the presidential throne, Hillary
Rodham Clinton. It’s not disenfranchised voters’ fault that
Hillary’s coronation failed to take place, it’s the fault of
Russian memes on social media which confused their silly heads about
who they wanted to vote for!
Or,
alternate theory: everything about that question is immensely stupid.
Russian 2016 Influence Operation Targeted African-Americans on Social Media
Two reports commissioned by the Senate Intelligence Committee take a deeper look at the fake social media accounts used by Russia in the American election.
nytimes.com
This
whole story is unbelievably idiotic. Not just because it’s based on
a report by a private cybersecurity company that was founded
by an NSA veteran,
a company which would have every incentive to bend its findings in
the most sensational way possible to attract clients with a viral new
“bombshell” story about Russian election meddling. Not just
because it infantilizes voters by implying that a smattering of
cutesy memes deprived them of independent agency and caused the
failure of Hillary Clinton’s historically awful presidential
campaign. Not just because of the sleazy gaslighting element inherent
in a narrative which insinuates that a populace meant to elect a
different candidate but got confused. By far the dumbest thing about
this story is the implicit suggestion that only Russian propaganda
was at play during the 2016 election, and no other propaganda.
It’s
often claimed that the dastardly Russians had a $1.2 million monthly
budget for US social media influence in the lead-up to the 2016
election, but that’s false. As Aaron Maté noted
back in February,
this figure actually covers the Russian troll farm’s total
operating budget, which was for “domestic audiences within the
Russian Federation and others targeting foreign audiences in various
countries, including the United States.” So the actual monthly
budget was some thousands of dollars, and most of the troll farm’s
posts weren’t
even about the election.
Contrast that with Hillary Clinton’s $1.2
billion campaign budget and
the untold billions of dollars worth of free mass media coverage she
received, and even if everything we’re being told about Russia’s
“influence campaign” is completely true, that’s a microscopic
drop in the bucket.
FiveThirtyEight
editor-in-chief Nate Silver, a fairly reliable establishment
loyalist, tweeted
today about
the new Russia report saying “If you wrote out a list of the most
important factors in the 2016 election, I’m not sure that Russian
social media memes would be among the top 100. The scale was quite
small and there’s not much evidence that they were effective.”
“For
instance, this story makes a big deal about a (post-election) Russian
social media disinformation campaign on Bob Mueller based on… 5,000
tweets? That’s **nothing**. Platform-wide, there are something like
500,000,000 tweets posted each day,” Silver continued.
What fraction of overall social media impressions on the 2016 election were generated by Russian troll farms? 0.1%? I’m not sure what the answer is, but suspect it’s low, and it says something that none of the reports that hype up the importance of them address that question.
For
all the fearmongering we see in the mass media about “Russian
propaganda”, propaganda from Russia actually constitutes an almost
nonexistent percentage of the media westerners consume which is
designed to influence the way they think, act and vote. You can go
your whole life without ever encountering any propaganda that was
cooked up by the Kremlin, yet every day you are surrounded
by screens,
billboards and literature aimed at manipulating you into supporting
the corporatist oligarchy that rules the nation you live in. The only
reason anyone thinks Russian psyops have any kind of meaningful
influence on people’s minds is because the mass media have been
shrieking about it day in and day out for two years without ever
contrasting it with the rest of the propaganda they consume.
But
within all the hysterical hand-wringing about Russian propaganda
there is an important admission: these mass media talking heads are
all openly acknowledging that there exists a science for manipulating
the minds of the public, and that it is very effective. Now if they
could only admit that they are the world’s greatest practitioners
of this science, they’d be telling the full story.
Of
course, that’s the part of the story they’ll never tell you. They
tell you their concern is that Russians are trying to manipulate your
mind with propaganda, but really their concern is that they want to
be the only ones manipulating your mind with propaganda. They tell
you Russian propaganda is so dangerous that it’s necessary to
censor the internet and hide all narratives which aren’t in line
with the ruling establishment in order to protect democracy, but
really all they want is to have full control of the narratives you
consume. This is evidenced in the
article by the Washington
Post which
kicked off this latest round of Russia panic, which reports the
following:
The
report expressed concern about the overall threat social media poses
to political discourse within nations and among them, warning that
companies once viewed as tools for liberation in the Arab world and
elsewhere are now threats to democracy.
“Social
media have gone from being the natural infrastructure for sharing
collective grievances and coordinating civic engagement to being a
computational tool for social control, manipulated by canny political
consultants and available to politicians in democracies and
dictatorships alike,” the report said.
Of all the absolute mountains of propaganda produced every election cycle, we’re supposed to believe the minuscule fraction of Russian stuff (probably .000001% of total propaganda produced) was somehow decisive. No one has *ever* explained how that even remotely makes sense.
There
does indeed exist a science for manipulating the minds of the people.
It is indeed very effective, and it has been developed, refined and
perfected for
over a century.
Propaganda works, and even establishment mouthpieces like the New
York Times and
the Washington
Post admit
it.
Think
powerful people in your own country aren’t using it on you? Think
again.
‘Campagne Clinton, smeriger dan gedacht…………‘ (met daarin daarin opgenomen de volgende twee artikelen: ‘Donna Brazile Bombshell: ‘Proof’ Hillary ‘Rigged’ Primary Against Bernie‘ en ‘Democrats in Denial After Donna Brazile Says Primary Was Rigged for Hillary‘)
Professor
Boyle geeft al 41 jaar lang onderwijs aan de Harvard Law School,
waar ook Obama studeerde. Volgens Boyle heeft Obama alle regels
aangaande de rechtsstaat geschonden, sterker nog: Obama heeft
zelfs de grondwet van de VS geschonden…….
Boyle
stelt dat e.e.a Obama veel zwaarder is aan te rekenen dan
bijvoorbeeld Bush en Trump, daar hij rechten heeft gestudeerd. Dit
alles terwijl Obama tijdens diens presidentschap letterlijk stelde
dat hij zeer goed is in het vermoorden van mensen…….
Niet
alleen vermoordde Obama een groot aantal mensen in de illegale
oorlogen die hij begon tegen Libië en Syrië*, maar ook de duizenden
mensen die hij vermoordde met zijn ‘drone programma’, waar meer dan
90% van de slachtoffers niet eens als verdacht te boek stond, dus
je raadt het al: vooral vrouwen en kinderen……
Daarnaast breidde Obama het aantal militairen in Afghanistan fiks uit en ook daar beging de VS, zoals overal waar deze grootste terreurentiteit oorlog voert, enorme oorlogsmisdaden…. Zoals het bombarderen van een Artsen zonder Grenzen (MSF) ziekenhuis en dat een uur lang, terwijl het VS oppercommando meermaals werd gevraagd te stoppen met bombarderen……..
Lees dit
helaas enigszins krom geschreven artikel dat wel een heel duidelijk
beeld geeft hoe Obama niet alleen wetten met voeten heeft getreden,
maar ook zijn verkiezingsbeloften heeft geschonden (al vanaf zijn
eerste termijn….)…
Ofwel: gezien het voorgaande had ook Obama levenslang gevangen moeten zitten in Den Haag……
Denouncing
Obama
By
Professor Francis A. Boyle
University
of Illinois College of Law, Before the Foellinger Auditorium,
September 7, 2018
(Transcript
revised)
September
14, 2018 “Information
Clearing House” – I
am Francis Boyle, Professor of Law here at the College of Law. I’m
the Senior Professor at the College of Law. I’ve taught here 41
years in a row without a break. I know Obama. He was behind me at
Harvard Law School. Obama abandoned and betrayed every Principle
about the Rule of Law that I learned at Harvard Law School including
the United States Constitution.
I
was fairly disposed towards Obama. When the Black Law Students
brought him over here to the Law School from Springfield to speak, I
went over there. I sat next to Obama. I introduced myself to Obama. I
told Obama I couldn’t stay. I had to go home for dinner with my
family. He said he understood. I wished him well and I shook his
hand. I was the only Law Professor there that day. I am here to
condemn Obama as a war criminal and worse.
The
University of Illinois is giving him an “ethics in government”
award. This is a sick joke and a demented fraud! The University of
Illinois, for its own typical bootlicking reasons, wants to whitewash
all of Obama’s international crimes. Obama should be sitting in a
jail cell in The Hague with the International Criminal Court and not
here getting some bogus “ethics in government” award from the
bootlickers of the University of Illinois campus bigwigs.
I’m
not the only one to say that. Obama and I had the same Jurisprudence
Teacher – Philosophy of Law – at Harvard Law School, Professor
Roberto Unger, the founder of the Critical Legal Studies Movement.
What did our Teacher say about Obama on BBC Hard Talk and elsewhere?:
“Obama is a disaster!” Again, Professor Unger, our teacher, said:
“Obama is a disaster!” I agree with Professor Unger, one of the
great philosophers of law in the post-World War 2 era. And I’ve
been teaching Jurisprudence since I came here in 1978.
Now
don’t just take Professor Unger’s words for it. What does
Professor Noam Chomsky have to say about Obama and his drone murder
extermination campaign against Muslims, Arabs, Asians of Color all
over the world? Here’s Professor Noam Chomsky: “…particularly
to the drone assassinations, the most extreme terrorist campaign of
modern times – which have killed more than 5,000 people, including
U.S. citizens and hundreds of children.” That is Noam Chomsky, one
of the great intellectuals in the world and a personal hero of mine
when he was leading the forces of opposition to the Vietnam War that
I was opposing as a young man. That’s how Chomsky referred to
Obama’s drone murder campaign: “…the most extreme terrorist
campaign of modern times…” That’s amazing to think of! That’s
the person here that the University of Illinois is whitewashing. That
figure today on his drone murder extermination campaign is up to at
least ten thousand. Trump is just continuing it.
Indeed,
Trump is just continuing across the board policies that Obama put in
place. The difference between Trump and Obama and Obama and Bush Jr.
is that Obama knows better. He’s a magna cum laude graduate of
Harvard Law School just like I am. Obama has abandoned and betrayed
every known Principle of the Rule of Law that I ever learned at
Harvard Law School including the United States Constitution which he
doesn’t give diddly-squat about. Indeed referring to his drone
murder extermination campaign Obama bragged: “…I’m really good
at killing people!” Those are Obama’s own words. That’s the man
the University of Illinois is whitewashing today with their “ethics
in government” award. Indeed Obama murdered four U.S. citizens at
least that we know of, including Mr. Awlaki and his 16 year old son
who was completely innocent of anything. Obama is a monster! He’s a
criminal! As I said he should be in jail, not getting some bogus
“ethics” award from the bootlickers at the University of Illinois
administration.
Let’s
review his record. The first thing Obama does when he comes into
office, Bush Jr. has about 26,000 troops in Afghanistan, and Obama
escalates that immediately by 100,000 troops. 100,000 extra troops
murdering, killing, exterminating Afghans all up and down. We don’t
even have a body count because the Pentagon won’t give us the
numbers. My estimate maybe a million people. Obama is like Genghis
Khan and His Mongol Horde, raping, robbing, pillaging and murdering
all over the world innocent men, women, and children. That’s the
guy they’re giving their “ethics in government” award to.
After
he had done his genocidal work in Afghanistan, Obama moved on to
Libya in order to steal their oil. Obama launched his war against
Libya and exterminated about 50,000 Libyans – needlessly for no
reason except Obama wanted to steal Libya’s oil. Indeed it was
outright genocide for Black Africans living in Libya that Obama
perpetrated upon them. Obama destroyed Libya as a State completely.
It no longer exists and we the have the massive refugee crisis coming
out of Libya with thousands of Africans – Blacks, and Arabs –
drowning in the Mediterranean all thanks to Obama this war criminal.
After
he was done with Libya, then Obama moved on to Syria and destroyed
Syria. He worked with his jihadi terrorists to overthrow the
government of Syria and create a total catastrophe. Maybe 500,000
Syrians have been murdered because of Obama, and that country is a
catastrophe today. The battles still go on. We have no idea what’s
going to happen over there.
Just like he did in Libya, Obama used
jihadi extremists to wage his wars for him. And America in Libya,
became the air force for Obama’s jihadi extremists. Then he turned
them on Syria and there the death and destruction by Obama goes on
today. A second state that Obama has pretty much destroyed all by
himself with his jihadi extremists – Genghis Khan and His Horde of
Mongols.
Now,
we come to Yemen started by Obama. Massive death and destruction in
Yemen right now as we speak today. Obama supported Saudi Arabia and
the UAE against Yemen and has killed close to 10,000 Houthis.
Outright genocide. All to steal their oil and set off a humanitarian
catastrophe in Yemen. Maybe 2 million Yemenis over there are
suffering from cholera. It’s the largest outbreak of cholera in the
world today. And they are starving. Obama starved them to death.
There’s an embargo on them right now. They can’t even eat. Obama
started this policy.
I
could go on here forever but I’m not going to because I teach
Obama’s atrocities to my law students. I think we could have no
better indication of where Obama really stands than the eulogy he
gave last weekend in honor of the war criminal and warmonger John
McCain. John McCain was a war criminal. He bombed Hanoi killing
innocent civilians when he was shot down. Outright war criminal. And
when he got home McCain mongered for every war the U.S. ever waged
since then including in Syria and supporting Obama’s Nazis in
Ukraine. Let us recall John McCain’s theme song: “Bomb, bomb,
bomb! Bomb, bomb, Iran!” Sixty million people and McCain did his
best to start a war against them and kill them. Obama then appeared
there to give a eulogy in support of this long-standing war criminal
and warmonger.
Who
else was there? Bush Jr. another Genghis Khan and His Horde of
Mongols. They’re best buddies – Bush Jr and Obama. Who else did
they trot out to honor McCain? Henry Kissinger! The three of them,
yes, they all spoke right after each other: Kissinger, Bush Jr., and
Obama. Kissinger of the genocidal Vietnam War. Murdering 58,000 young
men of my generation and exterminating 3 million Vietnamese. I call
him Hank Half-An-Eichmann Kissinger. I say that from personal
experience. I went through the exact same Ph.D. program at Harvard
that produced Kissinger before me. They gave me Kissinger’s Old
Office at Harvard’s Center for International Affairs.
“There but
for the grace of God go I!” So here we have three major warmongers
and war criminals honoring a fourth. You have Kissinger, Bush Jr. and
Obama honoring McCain. Well as I say: Warbirds of a feather flock
together!
I
have one message for Obama that I want to deliver him here today
personally as a lawyer and a law professor and a graduate of Harvard
Law School:
Hey!
Hey!
Obama say!
How many kids!
Did you kill today!
Hey!
Hey!Obama say!
How many kids!
Did you kill today!
Hey!
Hey!Obama say!
How many kids!
Did you kill today!
Thank
you.
Francis
Anthony Boyle is a professor of international law at the University
of Illinois College of Law. He has served as counsel for Bosnia and
Herzegovina and has been a staunch supporter of the rights of
indigenous peoples and Palestinians.
=============================================
* In feite begon Obama ook de oorlog tegen de bevolking van Oost-Oekraïne. Immers zijn minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, hare kwaadaardigheid Hillary Clinton, heeft de opstand op poten gezet, die tot het afzetten van de democratisch gekozen president Janoekovytsj leidde…… De neonazi-junta die na deze coup werd geïnstalleerd, met de uitermate corrupte Porosjenko aan het roer, was de keus van Obama en Clinton……….
Jonh
Bolton, een psychopathische massamoordenaar en grootlobbyist van het
militair-industrieel complex, die sinds april dit jaar nationaal veiligheidsadviseur is van Trump, heeft afgelopen tijd fiks afgegeven op
het Internationaal Strafhof (ICC) in Den Haag, daar het ICC aangaf VS
oorlogsmisdaden begaan in Afghanistan, te zullen onderzoeken…….
Brett
Wilkins, de schrijver van het hieronder opgenomen artikel (gisteren
gepubliceerd op Common Dreams, door mij overgenomen van Anti-Media) stelde op het verlangen van Bolton, het ICC in haar wieg te wurgen, dat hij eigenlijk bedoelt dat VS
militairen baby’s in hun wieg moeten kunnen vermoorden zonder daar
voor te worden vervolgd……..
Wilkins
geeft een paar voorbeelden van vreselijke VS terreur en wijst naar de
regering van George W. Bush en de verklaring van deze president over
het niet willen deelnemen aan het ICC, waar deze met een lam excuus
kwam van niet serieus te nemen onderzoeken, terwijl de werkelijke
angst van Bush, zijn psychopathische staf, zijn regering en het
Pentagon, was dat zijzelf vervolgd zouden worden, ofwel dat het ICC
haar taak juist te serieus zou nemen.
Het
voorgaande geldt trouwens ook voor de Obama en Trump administratie,
ook zij waren/zijn bang om zelf aangeklaagd te worden voor de enorme
oorlogsmisdaden die de VS jaar in jaar uit begaat en dat in feite al
meer dan dik 100 jaar…….
Het
meest schunnige van al (althans voor mij) is wel dat de westerse
regeringen nooit de VS verantwoordelijk houden voor haar
oorlogsmisdaden en andere misdaden tegen bijvoorbeeld democratieën…. Als Rusland wordt verdacht van oorlogsmisdaden
schreeuwt men bij wijze van spreken de volgende dag al moord en brand in de Kamer en
eist sancties, terwijl de VS zelfs op basis van feiten nog niet wordt
veroordeeld en er al helemaal geen sancties worden geëist….
Why
John Bolton Really Hates the International Criminal Court
When
Bolton expresses his desire to “strangle the ICC in its cradle,”
what he really means is he wants US troops to be able to murder
babies in their cradles with impunity.
(CD Op-ed) — On
February 12, 2010, US Army Rangers conducted a nighttime
raid on
a home in the village of Khataba, outside Gardez, Afghanistan. Dozens
of men, women and children, including the district prosecutor and
local police chief, had gathered at the house to celebrate the naming
of a newborn baby just before the raid occurred. The Rangers stormed
the home with guns blazing, killing the prosecutor, police chief, two
pregnant women and a teenage girl.
The
US military lied about the Khataba raid, initially making the
outrageous claim that the women and girl had been killed by their
relatives before the assault. But Afghan investigators soon
discovered that not only had the American troops killed the
civilians, they also dug the bullets out of their riddled bodies and
washed the wounds with alcohol in a failed attempt to conceal their
crime. When confronted with the evidence, the US-led coalition
admitted its forces had indeed killed the women. Despite the US
admission, none of the Rangers involved in the atrocity were ever
disciplined.
The
Khataba raid is but one of many US war crimes and atrocities in
Afghanistan. Other notable events include the 2010 serial murder of
unarmed Afghan civilians in Kandahar province by members of a
self-described Army “Kill
Team,” which
collected victims’ body parts as grisly souvenirs of their crimes,
the torture
and murder of
detainees at secret prisons including the notorious “Salt Pit”
near Kabul and air strikes like the intentional
bombing of
an international charity hospital in Kunduz that killed 42 patients
and staff in October 2015.
To
date, no senior US government, military or intelligence officials
have been held accountable for these and other incidents that, if
committed by America’s enemies, would inarguably be considered
— and prosecuted as — war crimes. The International
Criminal Court (ICC) was created two decades ago to address the
general impunity enjoyed by many war criminals. And while the court,
which has almost exclusively prosecuted Africans, has been widely
criticized as the “Infamous
Caucasian Court” and
an instrument of Western neocolonialism, it has in recent
years announced that
it would begin investigating US war crimes in Afghanistan, as
well as Israeli
crimes against Palestine, which became the 123rd ICC member nation in
2015.
Countries
with nothing to fear do not fear the ICC. The United States and
Israel are very afraid of the ICC. The murder of unarmed civilians is
a war crime. So is torture. Israel’s indiscriminate bombing of
densely-populated civilian areas, its half-century occupation of
Palestinian territory and its construction and expansion of Jews-only
settler colonies on Palestinian land are all also illegal under
international law. Neither Israel nor the United States has joined
the ICC. Other leading human rights violators, including North Korea,
China, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar and Ethiopia, have either never joined
or have withdrawn from the court.
The
United States, which was instrumental in forging the post-World War
II human rights framework embodied by the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and
admirably demonstrated at the Nuremberg trials, has sadly abrogated
its role and responsibility to promote and uphold human rights in
recent decades. After Nicaragua successfully
sued the
United States in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for waging
a war of terror against it while supporting the horrifically brutal
Contra rebellion, President Ronald Reagan ignored the ruling and
angrily withdrew the US from the court. Later, the George W. Bush
administration refused to
join the nascent ICC on the dubious grounds that the court might be
used to “frivolously” charge US troops with war crimes in
“politically-motivated” trials.
However,
the Bush administration’s concern wasn’t really that the ICC
would be used frivolously, but that it would be used seriously, and
not to prosecute low-ranking troops but rather officials in
Washington, DC, quite a few of whom would surely qualify for
prosecution. This was, after all, an administration that went
to great lengths to
“legalize” torture, and which argued that
the president had unlimited wartime powers to, among other crimes,
order the massacre of an entire village of civilians.
John
Bolton, currently President Donald Trump’s national security
adviser, was a key proponent of torture and illegal invasion and
occupation when he served in the Bush administration. Bolton has
consistently criticized the ICC as a threat to “US sovereignty.”
What he really means is that it is a threat to US impunity. When
Bolton expresses his desire to “strangle the ICC in its cradle,”
what he really means is he wants US troops to be able to murder
babies in their cradles with impunity.
That’s
what happened on March 11, 2012 when US Army Sgt. Robert Bales raged
from house to house in three villages in Panjwai district, Kandahar
province, Afghanistan and methodically
executed 16
civilians, nine of them children, before setting many of his victims’
bodies on fire.
Bales
was sentenced to life imprisonment, but such accountability is the
exception rather than the rule when it comes to US war crimes and
atrocities. And that’s exactly the way that Bolton and the other US
officials who fear the ICC want things to remain.
There
is much hand-wringing by those who fear President Trump fancies
himself above the law. But for too much of its existence and in too
many of its affairs, the United States has acted as if the law only
applies to itself when it stands to achieve a favorable outcome.
