Men wordt opgevoed in Nederland met de idee dat we in een open en transparante democratie leven. Een leugen van formaat als je ziet dat bijvoorbeeld de Eerste Kamer niet door het volk wordt gekozen, nee deze lobbyclub voor het bedrijfsleven wordt ‘gekozen’ door de winnaars van de Provinciale Statenverkiezingen…..
Bovendien: de meer dan belachelijke aanduiding dat ‘Nederland een constitutionele monarchie is met een parlementaire democratie’, laat al zien dat we worden belazerd vanaf het voortgezet onderwijs……
Moet je nagaan dan durft men in het kabinet en de Kamer nog te stellen dat we in ons land een open democratie hebben……
Het voorgaande is totaal ongeloofwaardig, zeker als je ziet dat kabinet na kabinet verkeerde beslissingen nemen, beslissingen die enorme kapitalen aan belastinggeld kosten, zoals bijvoorbeeld t.b.v. illegale oorlogsvoering, waarbij ook nog eens enorme oorlogsmisdaden worden begaan en die alleen deze eeuw al aan meer dan 2,5 miljoen mensen het leven hebben gekost……..
Veel zaken die met het voorgaande te maken hebben worden afgedaan als staatsgeheim en die geheimen mogen in onze ‘open democratie’ alleen gelezen worden door partijvoorzitters die geheimhouding hebben beloofd, zij vormen de ‘Commissie Stiekem…..’
Telkens weer komt men met de dooddoener dat meer openheid over militaire zaken mensen elders het leven kunnen kosten……. Zonder meer schunnig, daar het kabinet daarmee aangeeft dat mensen die Nederland hebben geholpen met het moorddadig werk elders, gevaar lopen na vertrek van het Nederlandse leger……
Nederland moet zich dan ook de oren van de kop schamen dat deze mensen niet al voor het vertrek van de Nederlanders een permanente verblijfsvergunning voor ons land hebben gekregen…… Zo blijkt keer op keer dat mensen die voor de Nederlandse missies als tolken dienden, het wel kunnen vergeten >> zij noch hun familie krijgen een verblijfsvergunning, terwijl deze mensen grote kans lopen te worden vermoord, samen met hun eventuele gezin dan wel andere familieleden……
De Commissie Stiekem is een anti-democratisch orgaan dat ze snel mogelijk op de fles moet!! Het is bepaald geen kunst om bijvoorbeeld werkwijzen niet weer te geven in rapporten die nu alleen de Commissie Stiekem mag lezen en waarop geen controle door de volksvertegenwoordiging kan worden uitgeoefend, zelfs niet achteraf…… Voorts is het na een bepaalde militaire actie voor de vijand wel duidelijk welke werkwijze is gevolgd, ofwel: alle argumenten voor het geheim houden van zelfs moorden, zijn totaal belachelijk en kunnen na evaluatie niet worden herzien en als ongewenst worden bestempeld voor toekomstige geheime militaire acties……
En ja ook Nederland voert geheime militaire operaties uit, waarbij ‘de vijand’ (verdachten) doelbewust wordt vermoord, zelfs als de oorlog die tot deze stap leidde, totaal illegaal was/is, zoals de oorlog tegen Irak…….. Psychopaat Marco Kroon, de cocewitte ridder, werd zelfs gelauwerd voor begane moorden, anders gezegd: standrechtelijke executies van mensen die werden verdacht van bijvoorbeeld terreur…. Hoe is het mogelijk??!!!
Een democratisch geregeerd land laat geen verdachten vermoorden, maar brengt hen voor het gerecht, we leven gvd niet meer in de tijd van de Romeinen, of een heel stuk dichterbij in tijd: het Derde Rijk van nazi-Duitsland!!
Er wordt al wekenlang reclame gemaakt voor uitzending van de Britser film: ‘Brexit: The Uncivil War’. Een film waarin men de achtergrond van de Brexit schetst…..
Uiteraard zal men weer met het cliché komen dat de Brexit een product is van fascisten en oude seniele mensen….. (terwijl het maar de vraag is of een nieuw Brexit-referendum niet dezelfde uitslag zal geven…..)
Beter had men een film gemaakt over de echte onbeschaafde oorlogen waar Groot-Brittannië keer op keer aan meedoet, zoals de illegale oorlogen tegen Afghanistan, Irak, Libië en Syrië, waarbij intussen meer dan 2,5 miljoen mensen werden vermoord en waarvoor de opvolgende Britse regeringen wegens oorlogsmisdaden al lang hadden moeten vastzitten……
Illegale en uitermate onbeschaafde oorlogen die de Britse belastingbetaler ook nog eens een enorm kapitaal aan belastinggeld hebben gekost, terwijl er ‘zeer beschaafd’ 4 miljoen kinderen dagelijks met honger naar school gaan, waar ze dan hun ontbijt krijgen……. De opvolgende Britse regeringen, ook Labour, hebben voor deze hulp gekozen en niet de ouders meer geld gegeven zodat ze zelf hun kinderen te eten kunnen geven voor ze naar school gaan, ‘uitermate beschaafd’, zoals je begrijpt…..
Het laatste geldt al helemaal als je nagaat dat die opvolgende ‘beschaafde regeringen’ door wanbeleid een enorm aantal werklozen hebben gecreëerd, waaronder de ouders die hun kinderen zelfs geen ontbijt kunnen geven……..
Ongelofelijk als je ziet wat de reacties zijn op het rapport van Mueller over de verbintenis tussen Trump en de Russen en daarmee de manipulatie van de presidentsverkiezingen in 2016. Geen rectificaties in de reguliere westerse media, nee men liegt ‘gewoon’ door over de rol van Rusland…..
Het eerste dat men in de reguliere media meldt na het bericht dat Mueller weliswaar geen bewijzen heeft gevonden voor de samenwerking met Rusland, maar dat dit niet zegt dat Trump en Rusland onschuldig zijn…… Gevolgd door de opmerking dat Trump nog steeds wordt verdacht van frauduleus handelen voor en tijdens zijn presidentschap…… Ongelofelijk, terwijl dezelfde media al bijna 2,5 jaar lang, dag in dag uit lieten weten dat Rusland de presidentsverkiezingen heeft gemanipuleerd ten gunste van Trump……
Eén zaak hebben de reguliere westerse massamedia wel voor elkaar gekregen met de Russiagate leugens: de alternatieve media zijn door het hele Russiagate verhaal gebombardeerd tot de brengers van ‘fake news’ (nepnieuws) en desinformatie, waar men deze media steeds meer weert van het internet….. Zo hebben platforms als Twitter en Facebook voor hun site al een aantal van deze alternatieve media geblokkeerd………………
Als de reguliere (massa-) media hun werk als nieuwsbrenger serieus hadden genomen, had men al lang kunnen concluderen dat er geen flinter aan bewijs was voor het kwaadaardige Russiagate sprookje….. Uiteraard was dit niet de bedoeling van de eigenaren van die media, plutocraten die een enorme berg geld hebben geïnvesteerd in het militair-industrieel complex en dus baat hebben bij zoveel mogelijk spanningen over de wereld, het liefst met zoveel mogelijk oorlogsvoering >> goed voor de aandelenkoers en uitgekeerde dividenden…….
De publieke omroepen verdedigen eenvoudig het zieke buitenlandbeleid van de zittende regeringen, zij worden dan ook door deze regeringen betaald….. (neem de publieke omroep hier en in Groot-Brittannië….)
Vanmorgen op BNR de wekelijkse column van Bernard Hammelburg, deze durfde anderen de maat te nemen over de mislukte Russiagate haatcampagne…… Deze enorme hansworst (beter: tot levend gewekte rollade) heeft in zijn programma tot vervelens toe laten weten dat Rusland de VS presidentsverkiezingen van 2016 heeft gemanipuleerd, sterker nog: Hammelburg twijfelde niet eens aan het Russiagate verhaal en bracht het als gepasseerde geschiedenis……
Moet je nagaan: dezelfde Hammelburg durft over zijn programma op BNR, ‘De Wereld’ te zeggen dat dit het beste binnenlandse programma over het buitenland is en dat daar alleen objectief en onpartijdig wordt bericht…… ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Terugkerende gasten bij Hammelburgs De Wereld: oorlogshitser en leugenaar Rob de Wijk, de uit de politiek verdwenen VVD opperhufter en Rusland vreter ten Broeke, VVD EU grofgraaier en oorlogshitser van Baalen en plork Hubert Smeets, die het tot zijn taak heeft gemaakt Rusland zwart te maken, zelfs als er niets aan de hand is…… Objectief en onpartijdig……
Al de hiervoor genoemde figuren zijn bovendien grootlobbysten van de NAVO, de VS en het militair-industrieel complex….. (er zijn meer van deze figuren, die De Wereld bezoeken met hun valse praatjes waarmee zij de waarheid zwaar geweld aandoen…) Nogmaals: objectief en onpartijdig…..
Morgen heeft Hammelburg een ‘special’ over het 5 jarig jubileum van de annexatie van De Krim door Rusland, ‘objectieve en onpartijdige gasten’: opperhufter en oorlogshitser Hubert Smeets en Irak oorlogsmisdadiger de Hoop Scheffer* van het CDA……
In tegenstelling tot wat deze figuren durven te liegen over De Krim >> een Russische annexatie: heeft dit schiereiland in een door internationale waarnemers eerlijk en goed verlopen referendum massaal gekozen voor aansluiting bij Rusland, ‘niets annexatie…..’
Ter herinnering: één en ander nadat de democratisch gekozen president van Oekraïne, Janoekovytsj werd afgezet, daarvoor in de plaats werd de enorm corrupte neonazi-juntaleider Porosjenko geparachuteerd door de VS…… De neonazi-junta Porosjenko, waartegen de bewoners van De Krim volkomen terecht nee hebben gezegd….. Ofwel: niet Rusland is De Krim binnengevallen om dit schiereiland te annexeren, maar de bewoners, inclusief de overgrote meerderheid van de oorspronkelijke bewoners, kozen voor aansluiting bij Rusland…..
De VS heeft de opstand en coup in Oekraïne georganiseerd en geregisseerd, Hillary Clinton betaalde dit als minister van BuZa onder ‘vredesduif’ Obama, met maar liefst 4 miljard dollar aan belastinggeld……. Het was zelfs de opzet van de VS Rusland te verleiden De Krim binnen te vallen, daar haar belangrijkste marinehavens op De Krim liggen, zo had men Rusland verder kunnen demoniseren…..
Helaas voor de VS, maar een groot deel van de Oekraïense bevolking (ook in het oosten van Oekraïne stemde men massaal op Janoekovytsj), moest niets hebben van de neonazi-junta in Kiev…… Overigens ook de terechte opstand in het oosten van Oekraïne zou door Rusland gesteund worden, een beschuldiging waarvoor tot op heden niet één steekhoudend bewijs werd geleverd……. Wel heeft Rusland een enorm aantal vluchtelingen uit Oekraïne opgenomen, mensen die door het westen werden geweigerd, hoewel de kans levensgroot was (en is) dat deze Oekraïners zouden worden vermoord door de kliek in Kiev met haar paramilitaire neonazi eskaders,……
* CDA opperploert de Hoop Scheffer liet een paar jaar geleden nog weten dat hij geen spijt heeft van het steunen en meedoen aan de VS oorlog tegen Irak in 2003, deze illegale oorlog (immers gebaseerd op doelbewuste leugens) heeft intussen aan meer dan 2 miljoen Irakezen het leven gekost…… Ongelofelijk en onverteerbaar dat de liegende oorlogsmisdadiger de Hoop Scheffer les mag geven aan hoge scholen en universiteiten……
‘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‘)
Vanmorgen hoorde ik op Radio1 na 9.00 u., in het megasuffe programma ‘MAX Weekend’ een audiofragment met Rutte.
Hierin stelde deze VVD oplichter dat de VVD in het begin van deze eeuw te links was….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Benieuwd wat Rutte dan onder extreem rechts verstaat! Volgens Rutte is de PVV in dat gat gestapt, waar hij de LPF uiteraard als eerste had moeten noemen.
Volgens Rutte dekte VVD oorlogsmisdadiger Frits ‘gifgas’ Bolkestein dit gat eerder, het gat dat zich tussen centrum en ‘fatsoenlijk rechts’ bevindt…… ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Bolkestein, de hufter die tegen de adviezen van deskundigen in, als minister in de 80er jaren, een exportvergunning afgaf voor enorme hoeveelheden kunstmest* aan Irak, waarmee het regime Hoessein gifgas maakte en een groot aantal Koerden ‘uiterst fatsoenlijk’ uitmoordde…… Let wel: juist daarvoor werd Bolkestein gewaarschuwd…… Van Anraat die het spul aan Irak leverde kreeg daarvoor een gevangenisstraf opgelegd, echter Bolkestein werd niet eens terecht gewezen…….
Dezelfde Bolkestein van de ‘fatsoenlijke’ Bolkestein richtlijn, een richtlijn waarmee jarenlang Oost-Europese werknemers werden uitgebuit en EU vakkrachten uit het westen hun baan verloren door het onbeschofte lage salaris dat men aan Oost-Europeanen mocht uitbetalen…..
De VVD is nooit een fatsoenlijke partij geweest, sterker nog: de VVD is een misdadigers partij, zo blijkt keer op keer uit berichten in de media en uit de rechtszaken die werden gevoerd tegen politici van deze smeerpijpenpartij….. (moet zeggen dat het me meevalt dat er de laatste maanden niet nieuwe VVD politici aan de paal zijn genageld voor corruptie en/of andere soorten van fraude)
Wat de grijnzende hufter Rutte eigenlijk bedoelde is het feit dat zijn partij niet fascistoïde genoeg was en dat met dit gegeven partijen als LPF, PVV en FVD in dat gat stapten…….
Rutte liet nog even weten dat hij nooit met de PVV zal samenwerken….. ha! ha! ha! ha! De volksverlakker! Hij zei dit alleen daar de PVV fiks heeft moeten inleveren met de Statenverkiezingen…… Het is gezien het pleidooi van Rutte dan ook duidelijk dat hij met Baudet van Forum voor Democratie (FVD) wil samenwerken, het FVD, de jongste fascistische partij van Nederland……
Het FVD, een partij die bovendien tegen maatregelen is, die de klimaatverandering nog enigszins afremmen, liever laten de VVD en FVD mensen sterven door de luchtvervuiling geproduceerd door autoverkeer…… (jaarlijks overlijden rond de 18.000 mensen aan de gevolgen van langdurige auto-uitstoot inademing, daarnaast loopt een groot aantal kinderen long- en/of luchtwegklachten op door die uitstoot)
Logisch dus dat Rutte wel met het FVD wil regeren, immers in woord is hij voor maatregelen tegen de verdere temperatuurstijging van het klimaat, maar voor echt handelen laat hij dit onderwerp keer op keer liggen…… Zijn belofte de uitstoot van bedrijven te gaan belasten, zijn nu al ver over de datum, immers de verkiezingen zijn voorbij en nu kan hij dat bedrijfsleven ‘verstandig belasten…’, ofwel het bedrijven zo min mogelijk laten betalen en daarna het betaalde geld terugsluizen naar dat bedrijfsleven; moet je als particulier voor komen…..
‘Fatsoenlijk rechts’, lees: ijskoud, inhumaan neoliberalisme, dat qua voorkomen meer lijkt op fascisme en waarmee men het volk keer op keer belazert!!
* Het ging destijds om veel meer kunstmest dan Irak in vele jaren voor haar landbouw zou kunnen gebruiken, zelfs al zou die landbouw toentertijd 3 keer zo groot zijn geweest en ondanks dat feit tekende Bolkestein de exportvergunning toch……. Een oorlogsmisdaad van formaat!!!
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.
Terecht veel ophef in de media over de aanslag op twee moskeeën in het Nieuw-Zeelandse Christchurch, waar in een fascistische terreuraanslag 49 mensen werden vermoord (al zouden er nog zwaargewonden op de IC liggen, die wellicht zullen overlijden…..)…..
‘Vreemd genoeg’ noemden de Nederlandse, Duitse, Belgische en Britse landelijke radiozenders het wel een aanslag, maar het woord ‘terreur’ werd gemeden, terwijl daar geen enkele twijfel over kan bestaan….. Ach ja, het gaat om witte (fascistische) figuren en dan mijden die media het woord terreur meestal……
Het fascisme groeit wereldwijd met de dag en daarvoor kan je de reguliere westerse media verantwoordelijk houden….. De berichtgeving over de ‘vluchtelingencrisis’ was ronduit ontluisterend in die media en daarmee werd de fascisten een grote dient bewezen, hetzelfde geldt voor de berichten over terreuraanslagen die in Europa werden gepleegd…..
Zonder dat de reguliere westerse media en politiek hebben gewezen op de grootschalige westerse terreur, o.l.v. de VS in veelal islamitische landen, westerse terreur die ‘islamitische terreur’ op de straten van de EU heeft uitgelokt (je behoefde bepaald niet de intelligentie van Einstein te bezitten om te bedenken dat er wraakacties zouden volgen voor de westerse slachtingen in landen waar dat westen helemaal niets te zoeken heeft….)…..
Ook in Nederland hebben de media fiks meegedaan aan het belazeren van het volk over westerse terreur, die godbetert werd en wordt verkocht als het brengen van democratie en hulp aan de volkeren, die deze terreur NB over zich heen hebben gekregen middels bombardementen enz…..
Het demoniseren van minderheidsgroepen in Nederland, wordt al jaren gepropageerd in de zogenaamde onafhankelijke media….
Neem Marokkanen die als uitvreters werden en worden weggezet, terwijl zij in dezelfde positie verkeren als de witte bevolking in de achterstandswijken van de 60er en 70er jaren van de vorige eeuw, mensen die destijds ook werden gedemoniseerd, terwijl de kinderen van die mensen, als de jonge Marokkanen van nu, amper of geen kansen hadden op de arbeidsmarkt…….
Terug naar Christchurch: de Australische premier heeft zoals gebruikelijk is in deze gevallen, zijn afschuw over de aanslagen uitgesproken. Onder de daders zou zich een rechts-extremistische (ofwel: fascistische) Australiër bevinden, ene Brenton Tarrant, hij zou de aanslagen ook hebben gepland…. De Australische premier Scott Morrison kan beter eens kijken hoe het mogelijk is dat er uitermate gewelddadige fascisten in Australië leven. Het fascisme in Australië werd en wordt gevoed door de Liberal Party of Australia*, waar deze partij, gesteund door de reguliere media, vluchtelingen afschildert als gelukzoekers die banen van Australische burgers komen inpikken…….
Verder is de behandeling van vluchtelingen door Australië ronduit schandalig….. Waar men ook nog eens fiks angstzaait tegen moslims als potentiële aanslagplegers, zonder (als in de EU) te wijzen op westerse terreur elders, terreur die altijd door Australië wordt gesteund, ook militair……
Laten we hopen dat de politiek en de reguliere media nu eindelijk eens echt actie onderneemt tegen fascisten en welhaast fascistisch geregeerde landen als Hongarije, Polen, Roemenië, Oostenrijk en Italië…… In plaats van zich druk te maken over ‘fake news’ (nepnieuws, dat die media NB zelf brengen), zouden de reguliere westerse media eens de waarheid moeten vertellen over de illegale westerse oorlogen en het groeiende fascisme….. Wat dat laatste betreft: bij elke verkiezing waarin fascisten niet de grootste partij zijn geworden, zijn die media in hosanna stemming, vergetend dat de fascistische partijen bij elke verkiezing groeien, met één uitzondering, Ukip in Groot-Brittannië…… Lullig genoeg moet ik dan nogmaals wijzen op de berichtgeving in de reguliere westerse media, die het fascisme alleen maar voeden…….
* De Liberal Party of Australia is al jaren de regerende rechtse partij en zoals je begrijpt de partij van Morrison en de voormalige premier Turnbull.
De show
van Stephen Colbert is een propaganda orgaan voor de rechtse
democraten en is dat in feite al heel lang. Daarmee staat Colbert ook achter de
illegale oorlogen die onder de democratische ‘vredesduif’ Obama werden aangegaan, dit onder regie van zijn rechterhand destijds Hillary Clinton
(minister van BuZa), een oorlogsmisdadiger van formaat…..
Colbert
had onlangs de democraat Tulsi Gabbard in zijn show en in
tegenstelling tot de omgang met andere politici van de Democratische Partij,
was dit geen gesprek met opgeklopte ‘humor’.
Colbert
probeerde Gabbard zelfs in het kamp te duwen van fascist David Duke
(voormalig Ku Klux Klan top), en dat van rechtse rotzakken als Steve Bannon en Matt
Gaetz……
Wat
betreft de illegale oorlogen van de VS, liet Colbert ten overvloede in zijn gesprek
met Gabbard blijken dat hij die volledig steunt, ondanks het enorme
aantal doden en landen die in puin achterblijven als de VS klaar is
met haar grootschalige terreur tegen in feite de bevolking van de
landen die het illegaal aanvalt…..
Ook de illegale oorlog van de VS tegen het bewind van Assad kwam ter sprake, waar Gabbard Colbert fijntjes liet weten dat de CIA in 2011 de ‘opstand’ tegen Assad heeft georganiseerd en geregisseerd en dat de oorlog van de VS in dat land niet gericht was tegen IS, maar tegen het bewind van Assad, waar ze ook de wapenleveringen aan terreurgroepen als IS en militaire training door de VS aan die terreurgroepen noemde…..
Jammer dat ze Assad wel een dictator noemt, terwijl hij met grote meerderheid democratisch tot president werd verkozen in 2014, een verkiezing die door internationale waarnemers als eerlijk en goed werd beoordeeld……
Vergeet voorts niet dat onder Assad alle geloven hand in hand naast elkaar leefden, een zaak die door handelingen van de VS bijna de nek werd omgedraaid…. Gelukkig leven de teruggekeerde vluchtelingen, in de gebieden die door het reguliere Syrische leger worden gecontroleerd, weer vreedzaam naast elkaar, ongeacht het geloof dat men aanhangt……
Helaas
voor Colbert, maar hij is geen partij voor Gabbard die hem flink bij
de lurven had >> lezen en zien mensen!!
Hawaii
Congresswoman and Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi
Gabbard recently
appeared on The
Late Show with Stephen Colbert,
where instead of the light, jokey banter about politics and who she
is as a person that Democratic presidential candidates normally
encounter on late night comedy programs, the show’s host solemnly ran
down a list of textbook beltway smears against Gabbard and made her
defend them in front of his audience.
Normally
when a Democratic Party-aligned politician appears on such a show,
you can expect jokes about how stupid Trump is and how badly they’re
going to beat the Republicans, how they’re going to help ordinary
Americans, and maybe some friendly back-and-forth about where they
grew up or something. Colbert had no time to waste on such things,
however, because this was not an interview with a normal Democratic
Party-aligned politician: this was a politician who has been loudly
and consistently criticizing US foreign policy.
After
briefly asking his guest who she is and why she’s running for
president, Colbert jumped
right into it by
immediately bringing up Syria and Assad, the primary line of attack
employed against Gabbard by establishment propagandists in American
mainstream media.
Colbert:
Do you think the Iraq war was worth it?
Gabbard:
No.
Colbert:
Do you think that our involvement in Syria has been worth it?
Gabbard:
No.
Colbert:
Do you think that ISIS could have been defeated without our
involvement and without our support of the local troops there?
Gabbard:
There are two things we need to address in Syria. One is a regime
change war that was first launched by the United States in 2011,
covertly, led by the CIA. That is a regime change war that has
continued over the years, that has increased the suffering of the
Syrian people, and strengthened groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS,
because the CIA was using American taxpayer dollars to provide arms
and training and equipment to these terrorist groups to get them to
overthrow the government. So that is a regime change war that we
should not have been engaging.
Colbert:
So, but if it is someone like Bashar al-Assad, who gasses his own
people, or who engages in war crimes against his own people, should
the United States not be involved?
Gabbard:
The United States should not be intervening to overthrow these
dictators and these regimes that we don’t like, like Assad, like
Saddam Hussein, like Gaddafi, and like Kim Jong Un. There are bad
people in the world, but history has shown us that every time the
United States goes in and topples these dictators we don’t like,
trying to end up like the world’s police, we end up increasing the
suffering of the people in these countries. We end up increasing the
loss of life, but American lives and the lives of people in these
countries. We end up undermining our own security, what to speak of
the trillions of dollars of taxpayer money that’s spent on these wars
that we need to be using right here at home.
Like
I said, this is not a normal presidential candidate. How often do you
see a guest appear on a network late night talk show and talk about
the CIA arming terrorists in Syria and the fact that US military
interventionism is completely disastrous? It just doesn’t happen. You
can understand, then, why empire propagandist Stephen Colbert spent
the rest of the interview informing
his TV audience that Tulsi Gabbard is dangerous and poisonous.
This was unwatchable. Colbert just went down the list of scripted Gabbard smears (Assad, David Duke) then sermonized about how US military intervention is a force for good in this world. All without telling a single joke. Late night “comedy” shows are propaganda for livestock.
Caitlin Johnstone ⏳added,
Suzann@cmputrwiz
Colbert twice interjected the State Dept.’s line about the alleged Assad chemical attack on his own people; Tulsi then corrected him saying several of the groups, including al Qaeda & ISIS, had been trained by the US and had been reported as being a part of those alleged chemical https://twitter.com/DraftTulsi/status/1105323025489121280…
3:33 PM – 12 Mar 2019
Colbert:
You got some heat for meeting with Bashar al-Assad. Do you not
consider him a war criminal? Why did you meet with that man?
Gabbard:
In the pursuit of peace and security. If we are not willing to meet
with adversaries, potential adversaries, in the pursuit of peace and
security, the only alternative is more war. That’s why I took that
meeting with Assad. In pursuit of peace and security.
Colbert:
Do you believe he is a war criminal? Do you believe he gassed his own
people or committed atrocities against his own people?
Gabbard:
Yes. Reports have shown that that’s a fact.
Colbert:
So you believe the intelligence agencies on that. Because I head that
you did not necessarily believe those reports.
The
reason I call Colbert a propagandist and not simply a liberal empire
loyalist who happens to have been elevated by billionaire media is
because these are carefully constructed narratives that he is
reciting, and they weren’t constructed by him.
Trying
to make it look to the audience as though Gabbard is in some way
loyal to Assad has been a high-priority agenda of the mainstream
media ever since she announced her presidential candidacy.
We
saw it in her
recent appearance on The
View,
where John McCain’s sociopathic daughter called her an “Assad
apologist” and demanded that Gabbard call Assad an enemy of the
United States. We saw it in her recent CNN
town hall,
where a consultant who
worked on Obama’s 2008 campaign was
presented as an ordinary audience member to help CNN’s Dana Bash
paint Gabbard’s skepticism of intelligence reports about an alleged
chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government as something that is
weird and suspicious, instead of the only sane position in a
post-Iraq invasion world. We saw it in her
appearance on
MSNBC’s Morning
Joe last
month, where the entire panel piled on her in outrage that she
wouldn’t call Assad an enemy of the United States. It’s such a common
propaganda talking point that the New
York Times‘
Bari Weiss famously made
a laughingstock of herself by
repeating it as self-evident truth on The
Joe Rogan Experience without
having the faintest clue what specific facts it was meant to refer
to, just because she’d heard establishment pundits saying it so much.
This
is an organized smear by the mass media attempting to marry Gabbard
in the eyes of the public to a Middle Eastern leader whom the
propagandists have already sold as a child-murdering monster, and
Colbert is participating in it here just as much as the serious news
media talking heads are. It’s been frustrating to watch Gabbard fold
to this smear campaign by
acting like it’s an established fact that Assad “gases his own
people” and not the hotly contested empire-serving narrative she
knows it is.
Gabbard
is being targeted by this smear because she challenges US political
orthodoxy on military violence (the glue which holds the empire
together), so no amount of capitulation will keep them from trying to
prevent the public from trusting her words.
(de video in het volgende Twitterbericht kan ik niet overnemen, zie hiervoor het origineel)
The journalist interrogating Tulsi seems to believe that US forces in Syria are fighting Assad. Tulsi corrects her, says those troops were deployed there to fight ISIS. These people don’t even know what’s happening in the places they want the US to occupy
“I
don’t know whether America should be the policemen of the world,”
Colbert said after
Gabard defended her position.
“It
is my opinion that we should not be,” Gabbard replied, causing
Colbert to launch into a stuffy, embarrassing sermon on the virtues
of interventionism and US hegemony that would make Bill Kristol
blush.
“If
we are not, though, nature abhors a vacuum, and if we are not
involved in international conflicts, or trying to quell international
conflicts, certainly the Russians and the Chinese will fill that
vacuum. And we will step away from the world stage in a significant
way that might destabilize the world, because the United States,
however flawed, is a force for good in the world in my opinion. Would
you agree with that?”
Again,
this is a comedy show.
Gabbard
explained that in order to be a force for good in the world the
United States has to actually do good, which means not raining fire
upon every nation it dislikes all the time. Colbert
responded by
reading off his blue index card to repeat yet another tired
anti-Gabbard smear.
“You’ve
gotten some fans in the Trump supporter world: David Duke, Steve
Bannon, and, uh, Matt, uh, Gaetz, is that his name? Matt Gaetz? What
do you make of how much they like you?”
This
one is particularly vile, partly because Gabbard
has repeatedly and unequivocally
denounced David Duke, who has a long-established
and well-known history of
injecting himself into the drama of high-profile conversations in
order to maintain the illusion of relevance, and partly because it’s
a completely irrelevant point that is brought up solely for the
purpose of marrying Tulsi Gabbard’s name to a former Ku Klux Klan
leader. Colbert only brought
this up (and made Newsweek totally
squee)
because he wanted to assist in that marrying. The fact that there are
distasteful ideologies which also happen to oppose US interventionism
for their own reasons does not change the undeniable fact that US
military interventionism is consistently disastrous and never helpful
and robs the US public of resources that are rightfully theirs.
This
interview was easily Colbert’s most blatant establishment rim job
I’ve ever seen, surpassing even the time he
corrected his own audience when
they cheered at James Comey’s firing to explain to them that Comey is
a good guy now and they’re meant to like him. Colbert’s show is
blatant propaganda for human livestock, and the fact that this is
what American “comedy” shows look like now is nauseating.
When
Tulsi Gabbard first announced her candidacy I
predicted that
she’d have the narrative control engineers scrambling all over
themselves to kill her message, and it’s been even more spectacular
than I imagined. I don’t agree with everything she says and does, but
by damn this woman is shaking up the establishment narrative matrix
more than anybody else right now. She’s certainly keeping it
interesting.
__________________________
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.
Lee
Camp de schrijver van het hieronder opgenomen artikel, eerder
gepubliceerd op Truthdig en door mij overgenomen van Information Clearing House, stelt in zijn openingszin dat het
niet de eerste keer is dat de VS regering en de massamedia het volk
van de VS een oorlog in sleept, dan wel een staatsgreep organiseert die
onherroepelijk desastreuze gevolgen zal hebben….. Die uitspraak
gaat wel op voor het eufemisme van het jaar, immers de VS
geschiedenis vanaf 1945 staat er bol van!*
Met
een terugkijk op zijn leve ten tijde van de tweede illegale oorlog
van de VS tegen Irak in 2003 en hoe hij toen de zaken bekeek, waar
hij het gevoel kreeg dat de argumenten voor die oorlog niet klopten,
ontleedt Camp 4 illegale oorlogen van de VS die op valse gronden
werden gevoerd.
Camp
begint met de Spaans-Amerikaanse oorlog, waar de reden voor een VS aanval het zinken was van oorlogsschip USS Maine in de
haven van Havanna. Daarna haalt hij de Vietnam oorlog aan en het
conflict in de Golf van Tonkin, waar VS oorlogsschepen ‘schoten op
weersverschijnselen die ze op de radar zagen……’ Oorlogsmisdadiger Robert McNamara wist op grond van deze in feite
false flag operatie**, president Johnson te bewegen de strijd
tegen Noord-Vietnam te intensiveren tot een ‘totale oorlog……’ Later gaf McNamara toe dat het Golf van Tonkin incident nooit
plaatsvond…… Let wel: deze oorlog kostte miljoenen het leven, deze slachtoffers werden niet alleen in Vietnam vermoord (3,8 miljoenmensen), maar ook in buurlanden Laos en Cambodja……
Vervolgens
komt de oorlog tegen Irak aan bod, een illegale oorlog waarvan
iedereen kan weten dat deze op basis van leugens werd aangegaan door
de VS, een oorlog die intussen aan meer dan 2 miljoen Irakezen het
leven heeft gekost (Camp noemt overigens een aantal van 1 miljoen
Irakese slachtoffers, nogal een verschil met schattingen die in Irak
werden gemaakt door deskundigen, al blijft een aantal van 1 miljoen
doden, een verschrikking waar je je amper iets bij voor kan
stellen….)
Camp
komt als eerste (hij begint vanaf het vierde voorbeeld) met het
bombarderen van Syrië. Jammer dat hij niet wijst op het feit dat de
VS al in 2006 heeft besloten dat Assad weg moest, niet in de laatste
plaats daar hij pijpleidingen over de grond van Syrië weigerde,
gaspijpleidingen van de Golfstaten richting Zuid-Europa…… (waarmee 2 vliegen in 1 klap worden
geveld, immers met dat gas zou Rusland een afzet probleem krijgen in
Europa…..). De VS heeft de opstand in Syrië georganiseerd en geregisseerd, waar deze terreurentiteit gewapende figuren van buiten Syrië als provocateurs heeft ingezet tijdens
die ‘opstand…’ Helaas voor de VS, maar deze keer mislukte de
opzet……
Camp
noemt veel meer feiten en zaken die de reguliere (massa-) media niet
brengen. Het verhaal eindigt tenslotte bij Venezuela, waarover Camp
o.a. vertelt dat oorlogsmisdadiger Bolton zonder blikken of blozen
stelde dat de VS uit is op de enorme olievoorraad van Venezuela (de
op 1 na grootste voorraad ter wereld, volgens Camp de grootste maar dat klopt m.i. niet). Deze bekentenis van Bolton werd niet eens gebracht door de massamedia, nee zij houden vol dat de arme
Venezolanen geholpen moeten worden, daar het hen aan alles ontbreekt,
‘zelfs aan tandpasta…’ (zie daarvoor ook de video van Lee Camp, die onder het artikel is weergegeven, waar hij ook op de ‘honger’ in Venezuela ingaat)
Niet
genoemd door Camp, maar de VN en het Rode Kruis hebben de VS terecht
gewezen met haar poging humanitaire hulp te politiseren,
daar deze organisaties al lang humanitaire hulp verstrekken in
Venezuela, er zijn zelfs 20 keer meer humanitaire hulpgoederen in
Venezuela (waaronder medicijnen) dan de VS heeft klaarstaan…..
Humanitaire hulpgoederen die zoals gezegd wel medicijnen bevatten, in
tegenstelling tot de humanitaire hulp uit de VS, terwijl de westerse massamedia en het grootste deel van de westerse politici in navolging van hun collega’s in de VS, dat keer op keer wel
stellen……. Nota bene USAID, de organisatie die de VS zendingen gereed maakt, heeft zelf toegegeven
dat zich geen medicijnen tussen die VS hulpgoederen bevinden….. Alweer een feit dat de westerse reguliere media niet hebben gemeld……
Lees
het volgende artikel en zegt het ajb voort, tijd dat de massamedia ook in
ons land eindelijk de waarheid brengen over Venezuela…..
We
Are Being Lied Into War Again
This
is not the first time our government and our media have conspired to
drag the American people into war with another country—or helped
create a coup that will inevitably have disastrous results
By
Lee Camp
March
08, 2019 “Information
Clearing House” – I was 23 when we invaded Iraq,
and I wasn’t sure it was based on lies, but something deep down in
me—just behind the spleen—told me it was based on lies. Kinda
like if your blind date shows up and you notice he has a 2004 flip
phone. It seems vaguely worrisome, and no explanation he can
haltingly supply will put you at ease. Plus, anyone else who acts
like it’s normal also becomes suspect.
The
invasion of Iraq just felt like it was a lie to me. And it turned out
that I was right, that it was a lie, and that the entirety of the
mainstream media and our government were either wrong or lying and,
most of the time, both.
Now
our government and our media are trying their damnedest to lie us
into another war, this one with Venezuela. They tell us the
Venezuelan people are desperate for necessities like toothpaste,
while independent journalists show
piles of affordable toothpaste in
Caracas.
And
even if they didn’t have toothpaste, that hardly seems like a good
reason for America to be dropping our long-range bad decisions on the
heads of innocent people. Turning a town into an impact crater for
the sake of a battle to stop gingivitis seems a bit extreme.
The
mainstream media and nearly the entirety of the U.S. government tell
us Juan Guaido is the “interim president,” even though he was
never elected to that position and the current president is still
leading the Venezuelan government and military. So I guess this
“interim” is the time between Guaido being a nobody and the time
when he goes back to being nobody but now gets to tell women at
parties, “You know, I used to be interim president.”
The
mainstream media also inform us that the Venezuelan military set U.S.
aid trucks on fire, when video shows opposition
forces doing it.
Furthermore, the idea of Venezuela taking “aid” from the country
whose sanctions are crushing them would be like the Standing Rock
Sioux accepting gift packages from the construction crews
swiss-cheesing their land to lay down the Dakota Access pipeline (DAPL).
Unless the boxes are filled with industrial paper towels to help
clean up oil spills, I fail to see how it would be beneficial.
Sometimes you do indeed have to look a gift horse in the mouth (or
should I say “gift
dog”).
This
is not the first time our government and our media have conspired to
drag the American people into war with another country—or helped
create a coup that will inevitably have disastrous results. So I
thought this would be a prime moment to go through the top four
greatest hits.
Number
4: The Spanish-American War
This
is widely considered to be the birth of modern media propaganda,
because it was the first war actually started
by the media.
Newspapers fabricated atrocities in the never-ending quest for more
readers.
And
as The
New York Times noted,
“[T]he sensationalistic reporting of the sinking of the American
battleship Maine in Havana harbor on Feb. 15, 1898 … and all the
other egregious reporting leading up to the Spanish-American War
might have been considered merely cartoonish if it hadn’t led to a
major international conflict.”
I
think maybe The New York Times got that quote confused with its
mission statement: “Cartoonishly dragging America into major
international conflict since 1851!”
Number
3: The Vietnam War
Sure,
most everyone knows the catastrophic Vietnam War was precipitated by
the Gulf of Tonkin incident, in which U.S. naval vessels were fired
upon by villainous North Vietnamese torpedo boats. Following that
skirmish, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara recommended that
President Johnson retaliate, and the full-force Vietnam War had
begun. But most Americans still don’t know that there was no Gulf
of Tonkin incident—unless you count U.S. naval ships literally
firing their weapons at weather events they saw
on the radar.
The 2003 documentary “The Fog of War” finally revealed the truth.
Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara confessed that the Gulf
of Tonkin attack did
not actually happen.
That’s
right. It never happened. Much like leprechauns or dragons or Simon
Cowell’s talent, it was a figment of our national imagination.
The
lies of our government, followed by the fawning, credulous reporting
from our media, led to the death of 58,000 U.S. service members and
as many as 3.8 million Vietnamese.
The
United States government has one of the most powerful Departments of
Fabrication and Falsification ever assembled. It’s a modern marvel
on par with the Great Pyramid of Giza and Rafael Nadal’s
down-the-line running forehand.
Number
2: The Iraq War
Of
course, there’s the most obvious lie about Iraq, i.e., that Saddam
Hussein had so many weapons of mass destruction that he would often
use one to scrub hard-to-reach places while in the tub. But that
wasn’t the only falsehood manifested to bring about our complete
annihilation of the sovereign nation Saddam ruled over. There were
others, such as the idea that Saddam was connected to al-Qaida and
perhaps played a role in the 9/11 attacks. William Safire at The New
York Times, in May
2002, wrote,
“Mohamed Atta, destined to be the leading Sept. 11 suicide
hijacker, was reported last fall by Czech intelligence to have met at
least once with Saddam Hussein’s espionage chief in the Iraqi
Embassy.”
Yes,
Safire was able to polish a load of bullshit so thoroughly it would
sparkle like a sapphire. And that column is still up on the Times’
website, without a correction or retraction. I would say the Times is
only useful for covering the bottom of a birdcage, but I’d fear the
paper would lie your pet cockatoo into an ill-advised invasion,
killing millions.
But
the propaganda didn’t even stop there. There was also the anthrax
attacks following 9/11. Anthrax was mailed to press outlets and the
offices of politicians. To this day, many people still believe it had
something to do with Iraq or al-Qaida because of award-winning
national embarrassments like
Brian Ross.
“Brian
Ross at ABC News wrote ‘the anthrax in the tainted letter sent to
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle was laced with bentonite’ and
‘bentonite is a trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s
biological weapons program.’ ” As Salon so clearly put it,
“All of those factual claims … were completely false,
demonstrably and unquestionably so. … Yet neither ABC nor Ross have
ever retracted, corrected, clarified, or explained these fraudulent
reports.”
And,
as you would expect, following that blatantly false reporting, Brian
Ross did not lose his job. In fact, he wasn’t put out to pasture
from ABC News until
last year,
when he “reported that fired national security adviser Michael
Flynn was ready to testify that Trump told him to contact the
Russians during the campaign.”
That
report—much like the rumors of Brian Ross’s journalistic
integrity—turned out to be absolutely false.
(In
my professional opinion, anyone who had anything to do with the
selling, perpetrating or planning of the Iraq War should never again
hold a position higher than assistant trainee to the guy who picks up
the shit of a dog that does not belong to anyone of any particular
importance. If that position does not exist, we as a nation should
create it just for this moment. Yet, despite my objections, Robert
Mueller (head of the FBI at the time of the invasion and a big
supporter of it) is leading the biggest investigation in the country.
John Bolton, who advocated for the Iraq invasion as far back as the
1990s, is now national security adviser. Bill Kristol, who pushed for
the war and said it would last two months, is now a regular panelist
on MSNBC. And the list goes on.)
Unlike
Defense Secretary McNamara, who admitted the Gulf of Tonkin incident
never happened, we don’t have a smoking gun showing that the Bush
administration created these lies to get us into Iraq. … Oh, wait!
Turns out the paper shredder at the Bush Oval Office was on strike
for a higher minimum wage in 2002, and in fact, we do have a memo
written by Bush’s defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, a year before
U.S. forces unleashed a reign of terror on the Iraqi people. His memo
about warwith
Iraq stated, “How
start? US discovers Saddam connection to Sept 11 or to anthrax
attacks? Or maybe a dispute over WMD inspections?”
I’m
not sure what’s more striking—that this memo exists, or that it
sounds like the Bush boys planned a massive international battle the
same way a broke 35-year-old maps out his bad novel that he’s sure
is the ticket out of his mom’s basement.
“How
start horrible bloody war? Maybe Saddam found to moonlight as porn
star?”
Point
is, multiple completely false stories laid the groundwork for an
invasion of Iraq that left well
over 1 million people
dead.
Number
1: The Bombing of Syria
President
Bashar Assad gassed his own people, thereby guaranteeing more
American involvement—and he did it just days after Donald Trump had
told the Pentagon to begin withdrawing troops from Syria. At least,
that’s the story the corporate media repeated on-loop for at least
a month, only pausing every 10 minutes to try desperately to get us
all to buy more things with “baconator” in the name or to seek
out a harder penis.
So
we are expected to believe Assad did the one thing that would ensure
more U.S. involvement just as he was about to win his war? It’s
kinda like how, when I’m about to win a fistfight, I often poke
myself repeatedly in the eye. You know—just to keep it exciting.
Famed
journalists Seymour
Hersh and Robert
Fisk have
done great work showing that the chemical attacks never happened, but
there’s a new update. Just two weeks ago, a BBC producer came
forward and said the Douma, Syria, chemical attack footage
was staged.
His
tweet said that after six months of investigations, he can prove that
no fatalities occurred in the hospital. Yet our breathlessly inept
mainstream American media, with little to no evidence, ran around
saying, “There was a chemical attack! Those poor people! And they
don’t have toothpaste, either! We must bomb them to help them!”
The
overarching point here is that we’ve replaced our media with
stenographers to the ruling elite long ago. The ruling class comes up
with a lie to manufacture American consent for its all-American war
crimes, and that lie is then sprayed like laminate all over average
American citizens. This goes on until such time as any average
citizens who question said lie is looked at like they have two heads,
and one of them is covered in rat shit.
For
the “journalists” who hose the lies across the country the best,
awards and private jets and rooftop drinks with midlevel celebrities
like Chuck Norris await them. Now we’re getting to the point where
the actual rulers—the Trump administration, etc.—are not even
hiding their corruption. John Bolton stated
on Fox News that
the ultimate goal is to steal Venezuela’s oil. But our media
continue to tout the propaganda line. Even after Bolton said that,
you won’t see Anderson Cooper or one of Fox News’ grand wizards
saying, “Venezuela is undergoing a U.S.-backed coup because we’d
like to steal their oil.” It’s truly dizzying that the corporate
media preserve the propaganda even after the “leaders” have
revealed their true sinister intentions.
On
the inside of Wolf Blitzer’s eyelids, the phrase, “Must Defend
the Matrix” blinks in red.
The
propaganda line for Venezuela right now is, “We want to help the
poor Venezuelans.” Well, if you want to help them, then keep
America out of their face. Don’t force them to have anything to do
with the country that came up with drive-through fried food served in
a bucket and opioid nasal sprays. At no point does anyone look at the
Donald Trump presidency and think, “Wow, that country really has
things figured out. I hope they bring some of their great
decision-making to our doorstep.”
Lee
Camp is an American stand-up comedian, writer, actor and activist.
Camp is the host of the weekly comedy news TV show “Redacted
Tonight With Lee Camp” on RT America.
(de opgeblazen oorlogshitser en oorlogsmisdadiger Pompeo beweert dat Hezbollah werkzaam is in Venezuela en daar een leger heeft dat gezien zijn woorden amper onder doet voor de gezamenlijke NAVO troepen… ha! ha! ha! Ook voor deze belachelijke beschuldiging is totaal geen bewijs…)
Een
rapport van de OPCW maakt korte metten met de westerse beschuldiging
aan het adres Syrië voor een aanval met chemische wapens, dit keer de gifgasaanval op Douma van 7 april 2018….. Ondanks dat de reguliere
westerse media, inclusief het grootste deel van de westerse politici Syrië hebben aangewezen als de dader……
Het OPCW
rapport kan ook geen link vinden tussen de 43 doden en gevonden
sporen van chlorine op de ‘plaats delict’. Ofwel die 43 doden
zijn niet omgekomen door chlorine, zoals medisch hulpverleners
destijds al aangaven…… De zogenaamd onafhankelijke zendgemachtigde NOS berichtte 5 dagen geleden dat de inspecteurs wel degelijk stellen dat er
chloorgas is gebruikt bij de aanval, daar er sporen zijn gevonden van
‘giftige chemicaliën met chloor’. Echter dat is niet
wat de OPCW stelt, immers het rapport kan geen link vinden tussen de
slachtoffers en de gevonden sporen chlorine….. Zo worden feiten
door de reguliere media verdraait om barbertje Assad te laten hangen……
Er zijn
overblijfselen op de plek van de aanval gevonden van 2 cilinders (canisters) die met geel gas gevuld zijn geweest, eenzelfde cilinder werd in Douma aangetroffen in de werkplaats van ‘gematigde rebellen…..’
Als er
bij de aanval chemische wapens zijn gevonden, hoe vreemd is het dan
dat in de overblijfselen van de 43 doden geen sporen van een
chemische substantie zijn gevonden, die duiden op een aanval met
chemische wapens……. En toch stelt de NOS dat deze mensen werden aangevallen met gifgas (‘door het reguliere Syrische leger’, zoals je begrijpt)
Eén
ding is zeker: volgens wapeninspecteurs van de VN had en heeft Syrië al jaren niet meer de beschikking over chemische wapens, terwijl
algemeen bekend kan worden geacht dat de zogenaamde gematigde
rebellen* de beschikking hadden en hebben over
chemische wapens als chlorine en sarin………
Syrië had totaal geen belang bij een aanval met chemische wapens daar ze de
stad al voor een groot deel hadden ingenomen, bovendien was een
aanval met conventionele wapens veel effectiever geweest…..
Daarentegen hadden de ‘gematigde rebellen’ alle belang bij een
chemische aanval, daar zij aan de verliezende hand waren en een
aanval met chemische wapens zou het offensief van het Syrische leger waarschijnlijk hebben gestopt dan wel vertraagd, vanwege de grote
verontwaardiging die dit voor de zoveelste keer teweeg zou hebben gebracht in de wereld…..
Zoals uit het direct voorafgaande al blijkt, in Syrië een vaker toegepaste tactiek van deze terreurgroepen, een tactiek die onder de noemer ‘false flag operatie’** valt……
De
medisch hulpverleners die de mensen vanwege deze ‘gifgasaanval’ behandelden op de eerste hulp, verklaarden dat deze mensen geen
symptomen vertoonden van blootstelling aan een chemisch wapen, maar alle tekenen
vertoonden van rookvergiftiging gecombineerd met grote hoeveelheden stof in de luchtwegen en longen, dit daar ze
in kelders een veilig heenkomen hadden gezocht, echter door de
bombardementen vulden deze ruimten zich zoals gezegd met rook en
stof……
Kortom:
Douma is een mislukte false flag operatie, waar de gematigde
terreurgroepen vergeten waren burgers te vermoorden met chemische
wapens……
Het volgende artikel nam ik over van NEO (NEW EASTERN OUTLOOK) en werd geschreven door Tony Cartalucci.
The
OPCW (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) has
presented its final report regarding an alleged chemical weapons
attack on Douma, Syria on April 7, 2018. Despite attempts by the
Western media to hail it as “proof” that the Syrian government
used chemical weapons in Douma – the report says nothing of the
sort.
In
fact, the report fails to link any of the alleged 43 deaths to
apparent chlorine found at the scene of the alleged attack.
Claims
of the attack were made by US-backed militants on the eve of their
defeat – with the Syrian military retaking Douma the following day.
Initial reports claimed sarin or chlorine chemical weapons were
deployed through the use of two yellow gas canisters modified as
bombs.
No
sarin of any kind was found by OPCW inspectors.
While
the report suggests two modified yellow gas canisters were used in
the attack and that they appeared to have been dropped onto two
buildings (locations 2 and 4), the report also mentions that OPCW
inspectors found a nearly identical canister in a workshop used by
militants to construct weapons.
The
alleged “chemical weapons” attack prompted the United States, UK,
and France to launch missiles strikes against Syrian military targets
on April 14, 2018, long before the first OPCW inspectors even arrived
at the sites of the alleged attack on April 21.
No
Link Between Chlorine and Casualties
The
OPCW report would note video and photographic evidence of alleged
victims of chemical exposure could not be linked to any specific
chemical including traces of chlorine OPCW inspectors found. The
report would specifically claim (emphasis added):
Many
of the signs and symptoms reported by the medical personnel,
witnesses and casualties (as well as those seen in multiple videos
provided by witnesses), their rapid onset, and the large number of
those reportedly affected, indicate exposure to an inhalational
irritant or toxic substance. However, based on the information
reviewed and with the absence of biomedical samples from the dead
bodies or any autopsy records, it is not currently possible
to precisely link the cause of the signs and symptoms to a specific
chemical.
In
other instances, the OPCW report would cite witnesses – including
medical staff who allegedly treated victims of the supposed attack –
who expressed doubts of the presence of any chemicals at all.
The
report would state (emphasis added):
A
number of the interviewed medical staff who were purportedly present
in the emergency department on 7 April emphasised that the
presentation of the casualties was not consistent with that expected
from a chemical attack. They also reported not having
experience in the treatment of casualties of chemical weapons. Some
interviewees stated that no odour emanated from the patients, while
other witnesses declared that they perceived a smell of smoke on the
patients’ clothes.
Other
accounts reviewed by the OPCW suggest a large number of casualties
were owed to smoke and dust inhalation from conventional bombardment.
The
report would specifically state (emphasis added):
Some
witnesses stated that many people died in the hospital on 7 April as
result of the heavy shelling and/or suffocation due to inhalation of
smoke and dust. As many as 50 bodies were lying on the floor
of the emergency department awaiting burial. Others stated that there
were no fatalities in Douma Hospital on 7 April and that no bodies
were brought to the hospital that day.
The
conflicting witness reports, the lack of any evidence linking
chlorine to even a single death on April 7, and other inconsistencies
and contradictions make it impossible to use the report’s
conclusions as “proof” that the Syrian government carried out a
deadly chemical attack on the eve of its victory in Douma.
Similar
Canisters Found in Militant Workshop
While
the Western media has focused on the report’s conclusion that
chlorine was present and possibly emanated from the two canisters
that appear to have been dropped onto two buildings in the area,
another crucial finding has been predictably glossed over.
A
militant-run weapons workshop investigated by OPCW inspectors
revealed a large number of resources for working with chemicals to
make explosives. Among an array of chemicals and equipment associated
with making explosives, a yellow gas canister was found.
The
report would admit:
Although
the team confirmed the presence of a yellow cylinder in the
warehouse, reported in Note Verbale of the Syrian Arab Republic
(Annex 10, point 2) as a chlorine cylinder, due to safety reasons
(risk involved in manipulating the valve of the cylinder, see Figure
A.8.2) it was not feasible to verify or sample the contents. There
were differences in this cylinder compared to those witnessed at
Locations 2 and 4. It should be noted that the cylinder was present
in its original state and had not been altered.
The
lack of interest by the OPCW in the canister despite the obvious
implications of its presence in a weapons workshop controlled by
militants calls into question the inspectors’ diligence and agenda.
The
canister’s “differences” are owed to the fact
that those at locations 2 and 4 were modified to appear as bombs,
while – admittedly – the canister in the militant workshop
remained unaltered.
The
obvious implications of a nearly identical canister turning up in a
militant workshop making weapons is that the militants may likely
have also made the two converted canisters found at locations 2 and
4. OPCW inspectors found other improvised ordnance in the workshop
including, “a number of 20-litre metallic drums, some
fitted with crude cord-type fuses, which appeared to have been filled
with plastic explosives to serve as improvised explosive devices.”
Western
media organizations have tried to dismiss the presence of the
canister at the workshop by suggesting it was a “setup”
orchestrated by the Syrian Arab Army. Huffington Post UK senior
editor Chris York would go as far as
referring to the workshop as:
…the
rebel explosives lab that had been captured by the SAA days before
and which they were desperately trying to make look like a chemical
weapons lab.
In
reality, the OPCW itself would suggest nothing of the sort, and noted
that all of the equipment present was consistent with a weapons
workshop. Nowhere does the OPCW suggest anything was altered –
including the canister – which the OPCW specifically noted “had
not been altered.”
The
presence of a canister nearly identical to those found at locations 2
and 4 in a militant weapons workshop provides at least as much
evidence that militants staged the supposed chemical attack as the
Western media claims the canisters at locations 2 and 4 suggest it
was the Syrian government.
In
the absence of definitive evidence regarding who created and deployed
the canisters found at locations 2 and 4, or how they truly ended up
there, a better question to ask is “why” they
would have ended up there.
Chemical
Weapon Attack in Douma… Cui Bono?
Why
would the Syrian government – in the middle of a major military
offensive it was on the literal eve of concluding in complete
victory, drop only 2 canisters filled with a limited amount chemicals
to kill – at most – 43 people? A simple artillery barrage could
kill just as many people – or very likely – many more.
Despite
claims otherwise, the Syrian government has
derived no benefit whatsoever had
it been behind any of the chemical attacks it has been accused of by
militants and their Western sponsors over the course of the Syrian
conflict.
The
Douma attack – were it the Syrian military – would have served no
tactical, strategic, or political purpose.
Conversely, it would
serve as one of the very few actions the Syrian government could take
to jeopardize its victory by justifying a large scale Western-led
military attack on Syrian forces.
In
fact, just one week after the alleged attack, the US, UK, and France
would indeed launch as many as 100 missiles into Syria in
retaliation, the
Guardian would report.
On
the other hand, militants who had been occupying Douma had every
reason to stage the attack.
By
staging the attack on the eve of their defeat and producing graphic
scenes of human suffering – particularly among children – the
militants would have a propaganda tool readily able to invoke global
public concern, sympathy, and outcry in defense of their cause – a
propaganda tool their Western sponsors eagerly amplified through
their global-spanning media platforms.
With
the United States having previously launched entire wars based on
false accusations of merely possessing chemical weapons, the
militants correctly assumed the US would use the staged attack as a
pretext for further direct military aggression against the
Syrian state – possibly saving them.
The
US still to this day cites “chemical weapons” and the Douma
incident on April 7, 2018 specifically – as part of its pretext to
maintain its illegal occupation of Syrian territory and its continued
support of militants attempting to overthrow the Syrian government.
The
alleged us of “chemical weapons” by the Syrian government also
regularly serves as a primary talking point used by the Western media
when attacking anti-war politicians, pundits, and commentators.
The
OPCW report’s conclusions are too ambiguous to draw a conclusion
one way or the other.
The presence of a nearly identical canister in
a militant workshop raises serious questions and associated
implications suggesting the attack was staged – questions that must
be adequately investigated and answered.
That
the Syrian government gained nothing from the attack and was only
further jeopardized politically and strategically by it – raises
questions about motivations that likewise need to be answered before
drawing conclusions.
But
as the Western media has proven many times before – it is fully
capable of producing entirely irrational lies based on tenuous
evidence or no evidence at all – and even repeating those lies
after being blatantly caught telling them previously.
That
the Western media is still attempting to sell WMD lies regarding
Syria after being caught fabricating them to justify war in
neighboring Iraq should be at the forefront of the global public’s
mind when considering their “interpretations” of this latest OPCW
report regarding Douma, Syria.
Tony
Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer,
especially for the online magazine“New
Eastern Outlook”.
PS: ook voor de grote gifgasaanval in 2013 werd Syrië vrijgesproken van schuld, dit door de VN….. De westerse massamedia en politici houden tot op de dag van vandaag vol dat Syrië wel degelijk de dader was……
* ‘Gematigde rebellen’: je weet
wel psychopathische moordenaars, verkrachters en martelbeulen, die
o.a. met ons belastinggeld zijn gesteund………
Alexander
Rubinstein publiceerde een artikel over de verbintenis van de
Verenigde Arabische Emiraten (VAE) en IS, waar hij in de kop de vraag
stelt of de door de VS gesteunde VAE leiders van IS naar Jemen heeft
getransporteerd. De vraag stellen is haar beantwoorden: ja dus.
Opvallend dat Rubinstein daar zo verbaasd over is, immers de
opgestapte president Al-Hadi (onder druk van S-A is hij nu
juntaleider) werd gedwongen af te treden daar hij IS en Al Qaida
onderdak had gegeven in Jemen……
Deze
twee soennitische terreurgroepen begingen daarna moorden en ander
barbaarsheden tegen de voornamelijk sjiitische bevolking van Jemen,
de mensen waren zelfs in moskeeën niet veilig voor de terreur van
deze groepen……. Daarop bonden de Houthi rebellen, gesteund door
een deel van het Jemenitisch leger, de strijd aan met IS, Al Qaida en
de al-Hadi getrouwe militaire macht…… Samen met de Koerden in Syrië waren de Houthi rebellen in Jemen de eersten die succesvol IS
bestreden.
Dat
succes stak het soennitische Saoedi-Arabië en zij zetten de gevluchte
al-Hadi onder druk het presidentschap weer op te nemen zodat hij S-A te
hulp kon roepen om de haar getrouwe terroristen van IS en Al Qaida bij te staan in de strijd tegen de Houthi-rebellen……
De VS
heeft overigens aan de wieg van IS gestaan, samen met Egypte, Turkije en
Saoedi-Arabië (en naar het schijnt zou Israël ook een rol hebben
gespeeld), niet voor niets dat deze landen het vervoer regelden voor
IS leden uit Libië, die werden getransporteerd naar Irak waar ze over
de grens met Syrië werden gebracht, inclusief wapens, munitie en
pickup trucks…….
Voordat
Rusland begon met de steun voor het reguliere Syrische leger in de strijd tegen de zogenaamde
gematigde rebellen, is de VS meermaals betrapt op het bombarderen van
woestijngebied, zonder dat daar een strijder te bekennen was, echter
volgens de VS waren dat bombardementen tegen IS……. Vandaar ook
dat het jaar voordat Rusland ingreep er praktisch geen successen
werden geboekt door de VS coalitie tegen IS, een coalitie die zogenaamd IS bestreed……
Rusland was duidelijk het kantelpunt voor IS, dat de ene na de
andere klap te verduren kreeg…. Na de successen van het reguliere
Syrische leger en de Russen tegen groepen als IS kon ook de VS-NAVO
coalitie niet anders doen dan af en toe terreurgroepen
raken…….
Onlangs
gaf de VS nota bene toe dat IS ook vocht in het Syrische Aleppo, terwijl men dat
destijds glashard ontkende, er zouden alleen ‘gematigde
terreurgroepen’ (die niet bestaan en niet bestonden) aanwezig zijn
geweest in Aleppo……..
Voorts blijkt keer op keer dat wapens uit de VS in handen zijn van terreurgroepen o.a. in Jemen, hier een link naar een YouTube pagina met meerdere video’s over terreurgroepen met VS wapens. (het Pentagon zijn de laatste jaren miljarden verdwenen, daarmee is de vraag deels beantwoord waar dat geld heenging…… (naar terreurgroepen!)
Lees het
volgende artikel van Rubinstein en zie het smerige spel van de
grootste terreurentiteit op aarde, de VS:
The
de facto alliance between the U.S. with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, AQAP,
and now allegedly ISIS in Yemen has led to one of the worst
humanitarian disasters in modern history,
ADEN,
YEMEN — Ali Abdullah al-Bujairi — a Yemeni politician
who served as a senior member on the failed UN-brokered transitional
government and as Yemen’s ambassador to Iraq under former president
Ali Abdullah Saleh — is accusing the United Arab Emirates of
facilitating a transfer of ISIS officials into Yemen.
“The
UAE has recently transferred an ISIL commander namely Abu Bakr
al-Zokhri (with Sudanese nationality) — nom de guerre, Khaibar
al-Sumali — from Iraq to Aden in Yemen to recruit and strengthen
the ISIL in Yemen,” al-Bujairi told Qatari
media.
Since
the toppling of ISIS’ so-called caliphate — with Raqqa, Syria as
its capital — the terrorist organization has gained a foothold in a
number of other countries. In Afghanistan, Russia and Iran have
accused the U.S. of helping to facilitate the group’s spread.
Despite
its loss of territory in Iraq and Syria, “ISIL is still active in
ten countries in 2017,” according to the 2018 Global Terrorism
Index report from
the Institute for Economics & Peace, which further states:
The
collapse of ISIL in Iraq and Syria has moved the group’s activities
elsewhere, in particular to the Maghreb and Sahel regions, most
notably in Libya, Niger, and Mali, and Southeast Asia, most notably
the Philippines.”
In
2017, the terror group’s reach was felt in many corners of the
world. The report states: “ISIL committed attacks in 286 cities
around the world in four different regions: Asia-Pacific,
Europe, MENA [Middle East and North Africa], and the Russia and
Eurasia region.” However, those hit hardest by the group’s terror
have mostly been in the Middle East and North Africa. The report
concludes:
Of
all ISIL attacks, 98 percent of incidents and 98 percent of deaths
occurred within the MENA region. Ninety percent of all terror attacks
and 81 percent of terror-related deaths from ISIL occurred in Iraq
alone.”
These
figures, however, do not include the Islamic State’s chapter in
Afghanistan, referred to as the Khorasan Group (ISIS-K), nor does it
include ISIS affiliates in Egypt.
The
campaign by the U.S. with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, AQAP, and now
allegedly ISIS in Yemen has led to one of the worst humanitarian
disasters in modern history, with large portions of the population at
risk for starvation, millions displaced, and scores of civilians and
children killed, MintPress
News has
reported.
While
the Saudi-led coalition’s dealings with the Yemen affiliate of ISIS
remain largely unexplored, the main partners have their own ties to
al-Qaeda in the country. This unholy alliance meant to depose the
Houthis, has seen the coalition, of which the supposedly democratic
government of the U.S. became a member without prior authorization
from Congress, work hand-in-glove with al-Qaeda.
Running
with cynical circles
Little
is known about the presence of ISIS in Yemen, with the numbers of
fighters believed to be in the low- to mid-hundreds, according to
the UN Security Council. The U.S. conducted a grand total of 36
airstrikes against terrorist groups in the country in 2018, but the
overwhelming majority targeted the much larger Al-Qaeda affiliate,
Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), and the U.S. has not
struck ISIS
in Yemen since January 2018.
While
ISIS has attacked Houthi and Shia Muslim targets in Yemen, it has no
territory. AQAP, on the other hand, controls large swaths of the
southeast. According to the Global Terrorism Index, “Adan-Abyan
Province of the Islamic State is primarily active in the southern
coastal province of Adan, while AQAP in active in the provinces of
Abyan and Lahij, and Ansar Allahin Taizz and Marib.” Other ISIS
affiliates once existed in Yemen but have since dwindled out.
While
the extent and nature of U.S. relations with ISIS in Yemen is
unclear, its relationship with its regional rival AQAP, which is best
described as that of “frenemies,” is more widely known.
(Op deze plek stond in het origineel een video die is echter verwijderd)
In
December, the U.S. Congress voted to end support for Saudi Arabia’s
war on Yemen, but the U.S. remains authorized to fight on Yemeni soil
because of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).
This document also provided the U.S. cover for its war in Syria. The
bill allows for the use of force against groups associated with
attacks on 9/11, and ISIS was tenuously linked to al-Qaeda.
However,
the U.S. was a member of the Saudi-led coalition for years. This
partnership became unpalatable to mainstream media pundits and
audiences over the summer when a U.S.-made bomb was used by Saudi
Arabia on a bus in an airstrike that left 40 children dead.
While
AQAP is the ostensible enemy of the United States, they appear to be
a friend of a friend in the very least. In February, it
was revealed that
Saudi Arabia and the UAE gave U.S.-made weapons to al-Qaeda fighters
in the country. CNN reports:
Saudi
Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, its main partner in the war,
have used the U.S.-manufactured weapons as a form of currency to buy
the loyalties of militias or tribes, bolster chosen armed actors, and
influence the complex political landscape.
One
of those militias linked to AQAP, the Abu Abbas brigade, now
possesses U.S.-made Oshkosh armored vehicles, paraded in a 2015 show
of force through the city.
Abu
Abbas, the founder, was declared a terrorist by the U.S. in 2017, but
the group still enjoys support from the Saudi coalition and was
absorbed into the coalition-supported 35th Brigade of the Yemeni
army.
In
October 2015, military forces loyal to the government boasted on
Saudi- and UAE-backed media that the Saudis had airdropped
American-made TOW anti-tank missiles on the same frontline where AQAP
had been known to operate at the time.”
Speculation
that the Saudi-led coalition was working with terrorists was finally
legitimized in the mainstream media over the summer, when
the Associated Press revealed that “the coalition
cut secret deals with al-Qaeda fighters, paying some to leave key
cities and towns and letting others retreat with weapons, equipment
and wads of looted cash, [while] hundreds more were recruited to join
the coalition itself.”
Key
participants in the pacts said the U.S. was aware of the arrangements
and held off on any drone strikes…
Coalition-backed
militias actively recruit al-Qaida militants, or those who were
recently members, because they’re considered exceptional fighters…
In
one case, a tribal mediator who brokered a deal between the Emiratis
and al-Qaeda even gave the extremists a farewell dinner.”
The
U.S. had been fighting on two fronts in Yemen: one against Al-Qaeda,
in closer partnership with the UAE; and another alongside the
Saudi-led coalition, which includes the UAE, against the Houthi
government. The latter was, of course, the priority. In contrast to
the 36 bombing missions the U.S. conducted against AQAP and the ISIS
affiliate in Yemen in 2018, the U.S. refueled coalition fighter
jets more
than 9,000
times between March 2015 and July 2017.
This
dynamic has fostered an alliance of convenience between the U.S. and
AQAP, materialized by the flow of U.S.-made weapons from the U.S. to
gulf monarchies, which, in violation of U.S. rules, use them as
bargaining chips with jihadists.
In
fact, the U.S. was “aware of an al-Qaeda presence among the
anti-Houthi ranks,” AP said, citing a “senior
American official.” Even the Saudi-backed former president of
Yemen, Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, “tapped” Adnan Rouzek to be a “top
military commander.” Rouzek was a senior al-Qaeda official who
escaped from prison in 2008 with other members and continues to be
photographed with known al-Qaeda operatives. His militia under Hadi
“became notorious for kidnappings and street killings, with one
online video showing its masked members shooting a kneeling,
blindfolded man.”
In
November 2017, Hadi picked Rouzek to coordinate the military campaign
and serve as a top commander of a new fighting force, and gave him
$12 million for a new offensive.
Another
“coalition-backed warlord is on the U.S. list of designated
terrorists due to his ties to al-Qaeda.” That warlord is Sheikh
Aboul Abbas.
One
security official told AP that “Aboul Abbas’
forces attacked security headquarters in 2017 and freed a number of
al-Qaeda suspects.” He said he reported the attack to the
coalition, but the perpetrators were rewarded with “40 more pickup
trucks.” “The more we warn, the more they are rewarded,” he
told AP. “Al-Qaeda leaders have armored vehicles given
to them by the coalition while security commanders don’t have such
vehicles.”
“Elements
of the U.S. military are clearly aware that much of what the U.S. is
doing in Yemen is aiding AQAP and there is much angst about that,”
terrorism expert Michael Horton told AP at
the time. Horton called parts of the U.S.-UAE campaign against AQAP a
“farce.”
While
Saudi Arabia has been roundly denounced for its attacks on civilians
and infrastructure in Yemen, particularly since the unrelated slaying
of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, less attention has been paid to
allegations of UAE war crimes in the country. NGOs and reporters have
accused the country of running a network of secret prisons in the
south that use torture as a feature of detention.
Degrading
an enemy whose presence is “exaggerated”
While
the UAE is now being accused of helping to spread ISIS into new
theaters of conflict, the U.S. was accused of doing the same in
Afghanistan last year.
The
Afghanistan-based affiliate “was responsible for 14 percent of
terrorism deaths, or 658 people, in 2017, a 26 percent increase from
the prior year,” according to the Global Terrorism Index report. In
neighboring Pakistan, ISIS affiliates were “responsible for 233
deaths.”
Meanwhile,
the “two deadliest attacks in South Asia” in 2017 “were
committed by the Khorasan Chapter of the Islamic State in Afghanistan
and Pakistan, killing 93 and 91 persons respectively.”
Share
of responsibility for terrorism-related deaths by Afghanistan’s
ISIS affiliate in 2017. Source | Institute
for Economics & Peace
On
repeated occasions last year, Moscow and Tehran accused Washington of
using unmarked helicopters to transfer Daesh fighters into the Haska
Meyna region in Afghanistan where ISIS is active.
In
March of 2018, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif told a
congregation of diplomats, academics and journalists in Pakistan:
We
see intelligence, as well as eyewitness accounts, that Daesh
fighters, terrorists, were airlifted from battle zones, rescued from
battle zones, including recently from the prison of Haska [Meyna].”
This
time, it wasn’t unmarked helicopters. They were American
helicopters, taking Daesh out of Haska prison. Where did they take
them? Now, we don’t know where they took them, but we see the
outcome. We see more and more violence in Pakistan, more and more
violence in Afghanistan, taking a sectarian flavor.”
After
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made a big deal out of ISIS’s
presence in an April press conference in Pakistan, U.S. officials
went into defense mode, with General John Nicholson, NATO’s
Afghanistan commander, and the mission’s public-affairs director
swearing that the Russian claims were exaggerated and arguing that
there was “little
evidence” that ISIS was expanding in the country.
Yet,
according to an earlier report from
the U.S. government-funded Voice of America, U.S. troops “routinely
accompany the Afghan forces into battle against [ISIS].”
Flash
forward to August, when NATO confirmed that it had killed ISIS’
leader in Afghanistan, Abu Sayeed Orakzai, as well as 10 other
fighters. As NBC Newsnoted at the time the U.S. estimated
that there were about 2,000 ISIS fighters in the country, while local
Afghan leaders claim that Orakzai was the “fourth” ISIS leader to
be killed in less than a year.
Top
Photo | A Yemeni militant holds an ISIS banner as he stands
behind bars during a court hearing in Sanaa, Yemen. Hani Mohammed |
AP
Alexander
Rubinstein is
a staff writer for MintPress News based in Washington, DC. He reports
on police, prisons andprotests
in the United States and the United States’ policing of the world.
He previously reported for RT and Sputnik News.
Republish
our stories! MintPress
News is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.
Zie ook de volgende berichten aangaande de strijd in Jemen (voor meer berichten over de oorlog in Irak en Afghanistan, klik op de betreffende labels, direct onder dit bericht. Let wel, na een aantal berichten wordt het laatst getoonde telkens herhaald, dan even opnieuw op het gekozen label klikken onder het laatst gelezen bericht):
Tom Elliott
