Julian Assange is vandaag 50 jaar geworden, hem feliciteren en een prettige dag wensen is er niet bij, en ik kan het niet genoeg zeggen: deze gelauwerde onderzoeksjournalist zit gvd volkomen onterecht vast in isolatiefolter omdat hij zijn werk uitmuntend heeft gedaan: het aan de kaak stellen van oorlogsmisdaden door het land dat de grootste democratie ter wereld zou zijn: de VS…..
Een democratie maakt geen geheimen van de oorlogsmisdaden die het elders begaat, maar de VS durft daar zelfs een staatsgeheim van te maken, zodat de burgers niet weten wat hun leger elders uitvreet, terwijl een democratie in tegenstelling tot een dictatuur of politiestaat openheid hoort te geven aan haar burgers, maar niet de VS…… Trouwens de VS heeft wat mij betreft niets meer te maken met democratie, ga maar na: als je maar genoeg geld hebt en de grote bedrijven aan je kan binden, heb je de verkiezingen al zo goed als gewonnen……
Pas in 1965 kregen de gekleurden echt stemrecht, daar de destijds ‘dienende’ president Johnson (die de beloften van de vermoorde president Kennedy wel moest nakomen) toen de Voting Rights Act tekende, een wet die belemmeringen verbood waarmee het gekleurden onmogelijk werd gemaakt om te stemmen (vooral in de zuidelijke staten)…. Echter nog steeds wordt het gekleurden moeilijk, zo niet onmogelijk gemaakt om te stemmen, sterker nog: de republikeinen hebben nog dit jaar in de door hen bestuurde staten nieuwe belemmeringen ingevoerd die het aan het grootste deel van de gekleurden onmogelijk maakt om te stemmen…..
Het is een schande dat Julian nog steeds vastzit en niet de bewezen oorlogsmisdadigers Dick Cheney, Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump en nu weer Joe Biden (die al verantwoordelijk was voor talloze oorlogsmisdaden als vicepresident onder Obama), nee deze schoften sterven in bed, zoals afgelopen week opperploert Donald Rumsfeld…… Al de genoemde figuren (en ik heb ze niet allemaal genoemd) zijn verantwoordelijk voor de moord op meer dan 5 miljoen mensen en dat in de laatste 20 jaar…..
Vandaag mogen de ‘collega’s’ van Julian zich extra kapot schamen dat ze het niet voor hem hebben opgenomen, maar hem de grond in hebben geschreven, terwijl ze zich tegelijkertijd journalist durven te noemen…… Deze zogenaamde journalisten zijn dan ook laffe honden die het niet aandurven om klokkenluiders als Edward Snowden te helpen, daar ze bang zijn hun baan te verliezen…..
Een paar dagen terug werd bekend gemaakt dat de belangrijkste getuige van de VS tegen Assange heeft toegegeven zijn getuigenis te hebben verzonnen….* De aandacht voor deze zaak in de westerse reguliere media is niet bestaand….. Pas vandaag noemde men dit feit op WDR 5, daar in meerdere Duitse steden de mensen de straat opgingen om n.a.v. zijn verjaardag de vrijlating van Julian te eisen…..
Julian Assange moet onmiddellijk worden vrijgelaten!!
Julian congratulations on your birthday, I hope you will be set free ASAP!!
Weer is
de politie in de VS haar boek ver te buiten gegaan: ondanks dat zijn
moeder smeekte zijn leven te sparen, schoten 2 agenten Walter
Wallace jr. met 10 schoten dood (10 keer raak geschoten, daar ze van de 13 keer schieten ook nog eens
3 keer misten……)
De
Moeder van Walter bleef bij hem totdat ze werd gescheiden van haar
zoon, daarop schoten 2 agenten hem dood…… Alsof de Black Lives
Matter (BLM) protesten nooit hebben plaatsgevonden……
Walter
zou een mes bij zich hebben gehad, echter maar al te vaak voegt de
politie dergelijk bewijs materiaal toe nadat ze iemand hebben
vermoord(zie de film ‘Detroit’*) over rassenrellen die in 1967 plaatsvonden in die stad en waarbij zelfs tanks werden ingezet door L.B. Johnson, destijds president van de VS)……. Dan nog: een mes zou geen probleem moeten zijn voor met
pistool, taser en pepperspray bewapende agenten, als men
Walter bijvoorbeeld in diens been had geschoten had hij verder niets kunnen
doen (immobiliseren noemt men dit in politiekringen, waar men dit begrip maar al te vaak misbruikt om iemand dood te schieten, ofwel te vermoorden en ja dit gebeurt óók in Nederland, hoewel je hier volgens mij wel een vermindering kan zien in het aantal politiemoorden……
En dan vindt men het vreemd dat een deel van de gekleurde bevolking van de VS, niet meedoet aan gewone protesten, maar keer op keer agressief reageert op politiemoorden, waarbij ook plunderingen plaatsvinden….. Vergeet niet dat de overgrote meerderheid van deze mensen in armoede leeft en zelfs belangrijke medische ingrepen niet kunnen betalen waardoor ze komen te overlijden…… ( zo verdienen gekleurde werknemers voor het grootste deel minstens 30% minder dan hun witte collega’s…..)
Lees en
teken de petitie ajb, ook al gaat het om een VS burger, dergelijke
racistische zaken zouden niet mogen plaatsvinden op onze kleine
planeet (en zegt het voort!!)
Hier de
tekst van het Care2 team dat de petitie heeft opgesteld:
Cops killed this Black man right in front of his mother
(‘echt heldhaftig’ ook iemand in de rug schieten…….)
His
mother begged for his life, but then watched as police killed her
son. Justice for Walter Wallace Jr
Proving yet again that they are
completely incapable of helping someone experiencing a mental health
crisis, especially if that person is Black, police officers in West
Philadelphia shot and killed 27-year-old Walter Wallace Jr. while his
mother begged for his life. Walter had mental health issues and was
in crisis when cops arrived. Instead of de-escalating or using
non-lethal force like tazing, cops fired 13 bullets, 10 of which
struck Walter and killed him. Sign
the petition to demand justice for Walter Wallace Jr.!
Walter’s mother was trying to
protect him from the police by staying close to him, but as soon as
he was separated from her, the two officers killed him, even as she
begged them not to. He apparently had a knife at some point, though
it’s unclear whether we has holding it when murdered. But even so, a
knife is no match for a gun and they had other options than to kill
him. Nurses and social workers frequently have to deal with a person
in mental crisis and they do it without killing them.
It’s just another example of poorly trained, trigger-happy cops ready
to shoot first, ask questions later. Sign
the petition and demand that these officers be fired, without pay,
immediately, and that their gunning down of Walter Wallace Jr. be
investigated as a homicide.
Thank
you,
Kelsey
B.
The Care2 Petitions Team
P.S.
Walter Wallace Jr. needed help, and instead he was murdered. Sign
the petition.
———————————————————————-
Hier de meer uitgebreide tekst zoals die in de Care2 petitie is te lezen:
On
the afternoon of October 26, 2020, Walter Wallace Jr. was gunned
down by police officers in West Philadelphia. Video footage from
multiple witnesses’ show the excruciating series of events that led
to the 27-year-old’s murder.
Sign the petition if you want
the Philadelphia Police Department to immediately fire both officers
involved in the shooting. Then, District Attorney Larry Krasner needs
to investigate this as the crime that it is: a homicide.
Police
responded to a call of a man brandishing a knife, and when they
arrived witnesses say the officers immediately pulled out their
weapons. Brandishing their guns, weapons far deadlier than
knives, without first assessing the situation was far more dangerous
than a man standing on his own porchwith a
knife.
Walter
Wallace Jr. then moved into the street, which is where much of the
video footage starts. You can hear cries from his mother as she tries
to get between her beloved son and the officers who won’t listen to
her. She pleads with them to lower their guns as she chases Walter
Wallace Jr., grabbing and hugging him. Then, all of a
sudden, they are separated. A shower of gunshots is heard and Walter
Wallace Jr.’s body falls to the ground.
Witnesses
and police say that Walter Wallace Jr. was holding and brandishing a
knife, but the video footage is unclear and makes that hard to
verify. What is crystal clear, however, is how far police
were from Walter Wallace Jr. when they fired at least 13 times,
striking him with 10 bullets. He
was a good distance away, probably close to 10 feet. Police had
plenty of time and space to make a different call. They did not have
to shoot to kill. They did not have to shoot 13 times. They
did not have to shoot at all. Where
were their tasers? Where was their compassion as Wallace’s mother
screamed and begged, all caught on video, for them to put away their
weapons?
Walter
Wallace Jr.’s father, who he is named after, told reporters that his
son was dealing with mental health issues and deserved so much more
than immediate, excessive force. “Why didn’t they use
a Taser?” he asked. “His mother was trying to defuse the
situation.”
His
mother should not have had to try and defuse the situation. But when
she saw police cars pull up to her home, we can only guess the panic
she must have felt —the panic that too many Black parents
are stricken with every day living in the United States, where their
children could be the next victim of state-sanctioned violence and
murder.
Protests
rippled through the neighborhood of Philadelphia the night after the
murder. The city, which has the fourth largest police force in the
country, is outraged and heartbroken. Tell that police force and
District Attorney Krasner that people all over the country, and the
world, are watching.Sign the petition and demand that
these officers be fired, without pay, immediately, and that their
gunning down of Walter Wallace Jr. be investigated as a homicide.
====================================
* Zie ook de Engelse versie over dit verhaal op Wikileaks.
Vandaag
is het 55 jaar geleden dat de gekleurde mensenrechtenactivist Malcolm
X werd vermoord door de FBI……
Brasscheck
TV heeft 2 video’s geplaatst over Malcolm X, de eerste bevat een
beroemde speech van Malcolm X, ofwel El-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz, na
zijn terugkeer uit Mekka, de tweede bevat een verslag van de
begrafenis van el-Shabazz…….
Onlangs
heeft een aanklager besloten de moord op el-Shabazz opnieuw te
onderzoeken, ook al is dat minstens 50 jaar te laat, ‘maar goed’ het gebeurt nu daadwerkelijk en dan maar hopen dat de uitkomst niet nu al
bekend is bij de onderzoekers: Malcolm X opnieuw demoniseren als
staatsvijand, zoals ook Martin Luther King werd gezien door de FBI,
de rest van de geheime diensten in de VS en door een groot aantal
politici (er zijn zelfs politici die dat nog steeds vinden, al durft men dat nu niet
meer hardop te zeggen……)
Nog zo’n voorbeeld: pas in 2008 besloot de VS om Nelson
Mandela van de terreurlijst te halen….. (!!!), terwijl deze een
aantal jaren president was van Zuid-Afrika (en zelfs toen nog op de
terreurlijst van de VS stond!), laat staan hoe men dacht en nog denkt
over el-Shabazz en Martin Luther King, om deze 2
mensenrechtenstrijders nog een keer te noemen……..
Kortom
geen twijfel wie de opdracht voor de moord op al-Shabazz heeft gegeven: de regering van de vereniging van
terreurstaten die als de VS wordt aangeduid (destijds onder presidentschap van oorlogsmisdadiger L.B. Johnson) en uitgevoerd door de FBI……
Malcolm X Day
May
19, 1925 – February 21, 1965
On
this day in 1965, Malcom X was assassinated.
Police who were
surveilling talk about their cooperation with the FBI in keeping an
eye on Malcolm X.
“Whatever he’s going to do will
not be beneficial to the powers that be.”
“We don’t have an American
problem. We have a human problem.”
Gisteren
op The American Conservative een artikel van Robert W. Merry, waarin hij
schrijft over eerdere false flag operaties en andere manipulaties die
tot oorlog dan wel oorlogsdeelname van de VS hebben geleid.
Je had
al begrepen dat Merry dit artikel schreef n.a.v. de beschuldigingen
aan het adres van Iran over het aanvallen van olietankers en het
neerhalen van een VS drone.
Met 5
voorbeelden geeft Merry aan dat de VS in een aantal gevallen
onterecht in een oorlog verwikkelde raakte. Daarbij noemt Merry ook
WOII, echter het was bijna onmogelijk dat de VS uit deze oorlog kon
blijven, daar ook het beheersen van olievoorraden (in de grond) deel uitmaakte van
deze oorlog, echter de manier waarop e.e.a. gebeurde is welhaast ongelofelijk……
Lies
They Told Us: A Long History of Being Manipulated Into War
Before
we retaliate over drone and oil tanker attacks, take a look at all
the times we’ve been duped.
“It
is the assessment of the U.S. government that Iran is responsible for
today’s attacks in the Gulf of Oman” Credit: @SecPompeo
Secretary
of State Mike Pompeo says there’s no question that Iran initiated
the recent attacks on those two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman. The
evidence, he says, is “indisputable” and “unmistakable.”
President Donald Trump weighs in with the same degree of certainty.
“Well, Iran did do it,” he told Fox News.
Maybe.
But our past is screaming at us: don’t buy it; you can’t trust
your leaders when war fever sets in and war prospects are on the
rise. Consider the history surrounding the run-ups to the Mexican
War, World War I, World War II, Vietnam, and the Iraq war. Lies,
misrepresentations, and manipulations abound in all those episodes.
As
for those tankers, where’s the evidence? True, the U.S. Central
Command trotted out a video that appears to show unidentified people
in a small boat removing something from the side of a tanker—an
unexploded mine, we are told by U.S. officials, who assert this
constitutes proof of Iran’s complicity. As Trump puts it, “And
you know they did it because you saw the boat.”
But
that’s pretty thin stuff. The Germans and Japanese made that clear
when they requested stronger evidence than that grainy video released
by the Pentagon.
Now
comes Politico with a piece saying the Trump
administration has been making the case “in public and private”
that no new congressional authorization would be necessary to go to
war with Iran. They could simply rely on the 2001 authorization
against Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks on American soil.
Leave
aside for the moment the ominous threat this poses to the
constitutional precept that Congress is the repository of the
nation’s warmaking power. It also would preclude a congressional
debate on the matter, depriving the nation of an opportunity to
assess the facts before hostilities actually begin. The following
historical episodes reveal the importance of getting those facts
established before the country goes to war.
James
K. Polk and the Mexican War: Contrary to allegations that
have dogged the 11th president for nearly 180 years, it isn’t quite
true to say that he lied. But he did declare to the nation that
Mexico had “spilled American blood on the American soil.” The
problem is that it wasn’t, strictly speaking, American soil. That
territory had been under dispute between Mexico and Texas during the
time of Texas independence, and America inherited that dispute when
it acquired Texas through annexation in 1845. So it could be argued
that Polk was merely expressing his view that that disputed territory
actually belonged to the United States, just as Texas had always
insisted that it belonged to Texas.
But
such niceties of language shrouded the fact that, if there was no
other way for America to acquire what is now the Southwest and
California, then Polk wanted a war with Mexico. And he maneuvered
events with a clear intent to force the issue, much as Pompeo seems
to be doing now.
Polk
sent an army into the disputed territory and planted it directly
across the Rio Grande from the dusty little Mexican town of
Matamoros, where a large number of Mexican troops were stationed.
This was highly incendiary, and it inevitably led to a skirmish in
which 11 American soldiers were killed and another 50 or so captured.
Polk promptly sent a message to Congress saying the United States and
Mexico were in a state of war and calling for a congressional war
declaration.
South
Carolina’s Senator John C. Calhoun, among others, would have none
of it. This skirmish, he said, was a “mere local conflict, not
authorized by either government,” and it was “monstrous” to
blow it up into a doctrine that “every American is [now] an enemy
of every Mexican.” But American blood had been spilled, and the
country was riled. The final Senate vote was 40 to 2, with Calhoun
refusing to answer the roll call. The previous House vote was 173 to
14.
There
is plenty of documentary evidence, including Polk’s own diary, that
the president wanted that war and that, by maneuvering his troops in
such a way as to render bloodshed all but inevitable, he manipulated
public opinion. Indeed, even before the skirmish on the Rio Grande,
he was preparing to ask Congress for a war declaration.
Woodrow
Wilson and World War I: There can be no doubt that Wilson
was reelected president in 1916 (with just 49.2 percent of the vote)
on his stated resolve to keep America out of Europe’s Great War.
But it was all phony, as he’d always hankered to get America onto
the world stage. It wasn’t easy keeping the United States out of
the war through the election season, given delicate neutrality issues
forced upon the U.S. by both Britain and Germany. Britain imposed a
blockade designed to thwart all trade to Germany and the Central
Powers and to ”starve the whole population—men, women, and
children, old and young, wounded and sound—into submission,” as
Britain’s pugnacious First Sea Lord, Winston Churchill, brazenly
declared.
Wilson
initially sought to wend his way through this neutrality thicket,
rendered all the more difficult after Germany initiated submarine
attacks designed to stop munitions shipments to Britain and
counteract the blockade. But ultimately he favored the UK and took
actions he knew would draw America into the war. He not only observed
the British blockade but also allowed armed British merchant ships
entry to U.S. ports, which in turn fostered a flow of American
munitions to the Allied Powers. At the same time, Wilson declared
that Germany would be held to a “strict accountability” for any
American loss of life or property from German submarine attacks
designed to enforce the neutrality that Wilson was flouting. This
policy, he added, would apply even if affected Americans were
traveling or working on British or French ships. After all, he
declared, Americans had the “right” to travel on any vessels they
wanted, even in wartime.
Wilson’s
secretary of state, William Jennings Bryan, warned the president that
he faced a stark choice: either adopt a more evenhanded approach or
accept the inevitability of war. Bryan ultimately resigned over the
issue, and he turned out to be right. A desperate Germany, suffering
horrendously under Churchill’s starvation policy, initiated
unrestricted submarine warfare against ships carrying goods to
Britain or France. Wilson promptly asked for a congressional
declaration of war—and got it.
Franklin
Roosevelt and World War II: When Europe was once again
thrust into a dark conflict after Nazi Germany’s invasion of Poland
in September 1939, FDR almost desperately wished to take America in.
But the country, still stung by the bitter fruits of Wilson’s
previous intervention, didn’t want to enter the fray. “I am
almost literally walking on eggs,” Roosevelt wrote to a foreign
official, explaining the precarious perch between his own powerful
conviction and the public’s aversion to war. “I am at the moment
saying nothing, seeing nothing, and hearing nothing.”
But
this wasn’t quite true. He was applying his stealth and wiles in
every way possible to help Britain and nudge his country to war. He
passed diplomatic secrets to friendly reporters to help the cause. He
initiated secret depth charge attacks on German submarines in the
North Atlantic. As Robert Shjogan writes in his book Hard
Bargain, FDR almost certainly violated the prevailing Neutrality
Acts by making destroyers available to Britain—an action that in
another time and political climate could have been impeachable. And
he maneuvered Japan into a position of near desperation in an effort
to force a confrontation. That he knew what he was doing is evidenced
by the fact that he initiated planning for the removal of Japanese
Americans from the West Coast even before Pearl Harbor, as John
Toland reveals in his 1982 book Infamy. Shogan writes
that FDR didn’t hesitate “to twist the law, flout the
Constitution, hoodwink the public, and distort the political
process.”
Lyndon
Johnson and the Vietnam war: On August 2, 1964, North
Vietnamese PT boats attacked the U.S.S. Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin.
This could not have surprised those in the know inside the U.S.
government. The Maddox had been providing logistical and electronic
surveillance support to South Vietnamese forces engaged in raiding
parties on North Vietnamese soil. Two days later, when it seemed
another attack on the Maddox had ensued, President Johnson snapped
into action. He asked for a congressional resolution authorizing him
to counter such raids with military action as needed. This allowed
Johnson to prosecute what became America’s disastrous seven-year
Vietnam war.
But
that second attack on the Maddox never took place. It seems that rare
weather patterns distorted radar imaging and gave the impression of
multiple hostile ships when none had been in the vicinity.
When
this was ascertained by Navy Captain John Herrick, commander of the
Seventh Fleet destroyer division, he promptly sent a corrective
message to Washington: “Review of action makes many reported
contacts and torpedoes fired appear doubtful. Freak weather effects
on radar and overeager sonarmen may have accounted for many reports.
No actual visual sightings by Maddox. Suggest complete evaluation
before any further action taken.”
But
action already had been taken, and Johnson administration officials
weren’t about to turn around and let the opportunity slip. So they
lied. Within days, Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Defense Secretary
Robert McNamara traveled to Capitol Hill to assure lawmakers that the
August 4 “attacks” represented ”open aggression on the high
seas against the United States of America,” as Johnson put it.
In
response to expressions of skepticism by Oregon Senator Wayne Morse,
McNamara declared, “Our Navy played absolutely no part in, was not
associated with, was not aware of, any South Vietnamese actions, if
there were any…. The Maddox was operating in international waters,
was carrying out a routine patrol of the type we carry out all over
the world at all times.” As Robert Mann writes in a footnote in A
Grand Delusion: America’s Descent into Vietnam, “That
statement was, as McNamara knew, false.”
Arkansas
Senator William Fulbright agreed to manage the Tonkin Gulf resolution
on the Senate floor largely because he had faith in Johnson’s
veracity. As Fulbright’s staff chief, Lee Williams, later said, “He
had no reason to believe that he was used as a dupe, if you will, and
that this was a ruse on behalf of Johnson to get the authority that
he needed to conduct a wider war.”
George
W. Bush and the Iraq war: Did Bush lie to the American
people about those weapons of mass destruction that the U.S.
government expected to find in Iraq? Probably not. More likely, Bush
and his people lied to themselves in their zealous efforts to fashion
justifications for overthrowing Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, and
to ensure Middle East peace, protect the U.S. homeland, and preserve
America’s regional influence. But officials have a grave
responsibility to ensure extensive fact finding and sober
deliberation in matters of war and peace. Presidents shouldn’t take
America to war based on an oops. This was reckless behavior for which
the Bush people, including Bush himself, have never been brought to
account.
And
it’s undeniable that the president and many of his top officials
were bent on going to war against Saddam irrespective of the factual
intricacies involved. There’s the rub. That invasion arguably
constitutes the greatest American strategic blunder in at least half
a century, perhaps in the entire postwar period. Those kinds of
decisions require serious due diligence. So if Bush and his people
didn’t know that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,
they should have. If not malfeasance, it was abject nonfeasance.
The
lesson: beware when our leaders manifest a passion for war. That’s
when it’s time to demand honesty, sobriety, and restraint—and
answers. The burden of proof rests with the war advocates. It doesn’t
mean we shouldn’t go to war, just that when we do, it should be
with our eyes open.
Nog even het volgende: Merry noemt ook Pearl Harbor, waar intussen bekend is dat de VS op de hoogte was van de komende aanval, maar deze heeft laten gebeuren om zo mee te kunnen doen aan de oorlog in een fiks gebied van de Stille Oceaan.
Hier meer voorbeelden van VS terreur, gefundeerd op leugens, fake news en andere manipulaties:
‘VS vermoordde meer dan 20 miljoen mensen sinds het einde van WOII……..‘ Tot het jaar 2000, deze eeuw zijn er intussen meer dan 2,5 miljoen moorden aan toe te voegen, moorden begaan door de VS en de NAVO (waar deze terreurorganisatie onder opperbevel stond en staat van de VS…)….
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…)
Seymour
Hersh, de gelauwerde journalist die wereldwijd bekend werd door zijn
verslag over het My Lai-bloedbad tijdens de Vietnam oorlog en de
manier waarop de VS destijds deze enorme oorlogsmisdaad, zelfs een
misdaad tegen de menselijkheid, in de doofpot probeerde te
stoppen…..
Hersh
ligt onder vuur vanwege de vragen en kritiek die hij heeft over het officiële verhaal aangaande de gevangenneming en moord op Osama bin
Laden. Het bewuste artikel van Hersh over deze zaak vind je als
vierde link in het begin van het artikel dat Tyler Durden schreef
over Hersh (de link vind je onder de volgende woorden ‘Osama bin
Laden death narrative’ >> lezen mensen!!)
Hersh
schreef een biografie waarin hij tien onthullingen doet, o.a. -het
plan van de VS om hegemonie van de VS in het Midden-Oosten te vestigen, -de eerste plannen
voor een VS invasie van Syrië, -de zogenaamde manipulatie van de VS
presidentsverkiezingen door de Russen (waar de NSA zelfs toegeeft niets te weten >> lees het artikel bij onthulling nummer vier) en -de ‘vergiftiging van de Skripals’.
Ondanks
dat veel zaken al bekend waren is dit artikel en de biografie die
Hersh schreef, ‘Reporter: A Memoire’ (klik op de eerste rode link met
die titel in het Anti-Media artikel* hieronder voor de gegevens over dat boek)
uiterst verhelderend (en wat mij betreft zijn een paar feiten zelfs
schokkend), bovendien hoe meer bevestigingen voor de enorme terreur die de VS her en
der uitoefende en uitoefent, hoe beter!
10
Bombshell Revelations From Seymour Hersh’s New Autobiography
(ZHE) — Among
the more interesting revelations to surface as legendary
investigative journalist Seymour Hersh continues a book tour and
gives interviews discussing his newly published
autobiography, Reporter:
A Memoir,is
that he never set out to write it at all, but was actually deeply
engaged in writing a massive exposé of Dick Cheney — a
project he decided couldn’t
ultimately be published in the current climate of aggressive
persecution of whistleblowers which became especially intense
during the Obama years.
Hersh
has pointed out he worries his sources risk exposure while taking on
the Cheney book, which ultimately resulted in the famed reporter
opting to write an in-depth account of his storied career
instead — itself full
of previously hidden details connected with major historical
events and state secrets.
In
a recent wide-ranging interview with the
UK Independent, Hersh
is finally asked to discuss in-depth some of the controversial
investigative stories he’s written on Syria, Russia-US
intelligence sharing,
and the Osama
bin Laden death narrative, which
have gotten the Pulitzer Prize winner and five-time Polk Award
recipient essentially blacklisted from
his regular publication, TheNewYorker magazine,
for which he broke stories of monumental importance for decades.
Though
few would disagree that Hersh “has
single-handedly broken more stories of genuine world-historical
significance than any reporter alive (or dead, perhaps)”— as The
Nation put
it— the
man who exposed shocking cover-ups like the My Lai
Massacre, the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, and the truth
behind the
downing of Korean Air Flight 007,
has lately been shunned and even attacked by the American mainstream
media especially over his controversial coverage of Syria and the bin
Laden raid in 2011.
The Post story begins
by acknowledging,“But
Sy Hersh now has a problem: He thinks 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
lied about the death of Osama bin Laden, and it seems nearly everyone
is mad at him for saying so”— before
proceeding to take a sledgehammer to Hersh’s findings while
painting him as some kind of conspiracy theorist (Hersh
published the bin Laden story for the London
Review of Books after
his usual New
Yorker rejected
it).
Seymour
Hersh broke the story of CIA’s illegal domestic operations with a
front page story in the New York Times on December 22, 1974.
However,
the mainstream pundits piling on against his reporting of late ignore
the clearly establish historical pattern when it comes to Hersh:
nearly all of the biggest stories of his career were
initially met with incredulity and severe push back from both
government officials and even his fellow journalists,
and yet he’s managed to emerge proven right and ultimately
vindicated time and again.
* *
*
Here
are ten bombshell revelations and fascinating new details to lately
come out of both Sy Hersh’s new book, Reporter,
as well as interviews he’s
given since publication…
1)
On a leaked Bush-era intelligence memo outlining the neocon plan to
remake the Middle East
(Note:
though previously alluded to only anecdotally by General Wesley
Clark in
his memoir and in a 2007 speech,
the below passage from Seymour Hersh is to our
knowledge the
first time this highly classified memo has been quoted.
Hersh’s account appears to corroborate now retired Gen.
Clark’s assertion that days after 9/11 a classified memo outlining
plans to foster regime change in “7
countries in 5 years” was
being circulated among intelligence officials.)
From Reporter:
A Memoir pg.
306 — A
few months after the invasion of Iraq, during an interview overseas
with a general who was director of a foreign intelligence service, I
was provided with a copy of a Republican neocon plan for American
dominance in the Middle East. The general was an American ally, but
one who was very rattled by the Bush/Cheney aggression. I
was told that the document leaked to me initially had been obtained
by someone in the local CIA station. There
was reason to be rattled: The
document declared that the war to reshape the Middle East had to
begin “with the assault on Iraq. The fundamental reason for this…
is that the war will start making the U.S. the hegemon of the Middle
East. The correlative reason is to make the region feel in its bones,
as it were, the seriousness of American intent and
determination.” Victory
in Iraq would lead to an ultimatum to Damascus, the “defanging”
of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Arafat’s Palestine Liberation
Organization, and other anti-Israeli groups. America’s enemies must
understand that “they are fighting for their life: Pax Americana is
on its way, which implies their annihilation.” I and the foreign
general agreed that America’s neocons were a menace to
civilization.
* *
*
2)
On early regime change plans in Syria
From Reporter:
A Memoir pages 306-307 — Donald
Rumsfeld was also infected with neocon fantasy. Turkey had refused to
permit America’s Fourth Division to join the attack of Iraq from
its territory, and the division, with its twenty-five thousand men
and women, did not arrive in force inside Iraq until mid-April, when
the initial fighting was essentially over. I learned then that
Rumsfeld had asked the American military command in Stuttgart,
Germany, which had responsibility for monitoring Europe, including
Syria and Lebanon, to
begin drawing up an operational plan for an invasion of Syria.A
young general assigned to the task refused to do so, thereby winning
applause from my friends on the inside and risking his career.The
plan was seen by those I knew as especially bizarre because Bashar
Assad, the ruler of secular Syria, had responded to 9/11 by sharing
with the CIA hundreds of his country’s most sensitive intelligence
files on the Muslim Brotherhood in Hamburg, where much of the
planning for 9/11 was carried out… Rumsfeld eventually came to his
senses and back down, I was told…
3)
On the Neocon deep state which seized power after 9/11
From Reporter:
A Memoir pages 305-306 — I
began to comprehend that eight or nine neoconservatives who were
political outsiders in the Clinton years hadessentially
overthrown the government of the United States — with
ease.
It was stunning to realize how fragile our Constitution was. The
intellectual leaders of that group — Dick
Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle — had not hidden
their ideology and their belief in the power of the executive but
depicted themselves in public with a great calmness and a
self-assurance that masked their radicalism.
I had spent many hours after 9/11 in conversations with Perle that,
luckily for me, helped me understand what was coming. (Perle and I
had been chatting about policy since the early 1980s, but he broke
off relations in 1993 over an article I did for The New Yorker
linking him, a fervent supporter of Israel, to a
series of meetings with Saudi businessmen in an attempt to land a
multibillion-dollar contract from Saudi Arabia.
Perle responded by publicly threatening to sue me and characterizing
me as a newspaper terrorist. He did not sue.
Meanwhile,
Cheney had emerged as a leader of the neocon pack. From 9/11 on he
did all he could to undermine congressional oversight. I learned a
great deal from the inside about his
primacy in the White House,
but once again I was limited in what I would write for fear of
betraying my sources…
I
came to understand that Cheney’s goal was to run his most important
military and intelligence operations with as little congressional
knowledge, and interference, as possible. I was fascinating and
important to learn what I did about Cheney’s
constant accumulation of power and authority as vice president,
but it was impossible to even begin to verify the information without
running the risk that Cheney would learn of my questioning and have a
good idea from whom I was getting the information.
4)
On Russian meddling in the US election
From
the recent Independent
interview based
on his autobiography — Hersh
has vociferously strong opinions on the subject and smells a rat. He
states that there is “a
great deal of animosity towards Russia. All of that stuff about
Russia hacking the election appears to be preposterous.” He
has been researching the subject but is not ready to go public…
yet.
Hersh
quips that the last time he heard the US defense establishment have
high confidence, it was regarding weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq. He points out that the NSA only
has moderate confidence in Russian hacking. It is a point that has
been made before; there has been no national intelligence estimate in
which all 17 US intelligence agencies would have to sign off. “When
the intel community wants to say something they say it… High
confidenceeffectively
means that they don’t know.”
5)
On the Novichok poisoning
From
the recent Independent
interview — Hersh
is also on the record as stating that the official version of
the Skripal
poisoning does
not stand up to scrutiny. He tells me: “The
story of novichok poisoning has not held up very well. He
[Skripal] was most likely talking to British intelligence
services about Russian organised crime.” The
unfortunate turn of events with the contamination of other victims is
suggestive, according to Hersh, of organised crime elements
rather than state-sponsored actions –though this files in the face
of the UK government’s position.
Hersh
modestly points out that these are just his opinions. Opinions or
not, he is scathing on Obama – “a
trimmer … articulate [but] … far from a radical … a middleman”.
During his Goldsmiths talk, he remarks that liberal critics
underestimate Trump at their peril.
He
ends the Goldsmiths talk with an anecdote about having lunch with his
sources in the wake
of 9/11.
He vents his anger at the agencies for not sharing information. One
of his CIA sources fires back: “Sy
you still don’t get it after all these years – the FBI catches
bank robbers, the CIA robs banks.” It
is a delicious, if cryptic aphorism.
*
* *
6)
On the Bush-era ‘Redirection’ policy of arming Sunni radicals to
counter Shia Iran, which in a 2007 New
Yorker article Hersh
accurately predicted would
set off war in Syria
From
the Independent
interview: [Hersh]
tells me it is “amazing
how many times that story has been reprinted”.
I ask about his argument that US policy was designed to neutralize
the Shia sphere extending from Iran to Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon
and hence redraw the Sykes-Picot boundaries for the 21st century.
He
goes on to say that Bush and Cheney “had it in for
Iran”, although he denies the idea that Iran was heavily
involved in Iraq: “They were providing intel, collecting intel
… The US did many cross-border hunts to kill ops [with] much more
aggression than Iran”…
He
believes that the Trump administration has no memory of this
approach. I’m sure though that the military-industrial complex has
a longer memory…
I
press him on the RAND and Stratfor reports including one
authored by Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz in which they envisage
deliberate ethno-sectarian partitioning of Iraq.
Hersh ruefully states that: “The
day after 9/11 we should have gone to Russia. We did the one thing
that George Kennan warned us never to do – to expand NATO too far.”
From
the Independent
interview: We
end up ruminating about 9/11, perhaps because it is another narrative
ripe for deconstruction by skeptics. Polling shows that a significant
proportion of the American public believes there is more to the
truth. These doubts have been reinforced by the declassification of
the suppressed 28 pages of the 9/11 commission report last year
undermining the version that a group of terrorists acting
independently managed to pull off the attacks. The implication is
that they
may well have been state-sponsored with
the Saudis potentially involved.
Hersh
tells me: “I
don’t necessarily buy the story that Bin Laden was
responsible for 9/11. We really don’t have an ending to the story.
I’ve known people in the [intelligence] community. We don’t know
anything empirical about who did what”.
He continues: “The
guy was living in a cave. He really didn’t know much English. He
was pretty bright and he had a lot of hatred for the US. We respond
by attacking the Taliban. Eighteen years later… How’s it
going guys?”
8)
On the media and the morality of the powerful
From
a recent The
Intercept interview and book
review—If
Hersh were a superhero, this would be his origin story. Two hundred
and seventy-four pages after the Chicago anecdote, he describes
his coverage of
a massive slaughter of Iraqi troops and civilians by the U.S. in 1991
after a ceasefire had ended the Persian Gulf War. America’s
indifference to this massacre was, Hersh writes, “a reminder of the
Vietnam War’s MGR, for Mere Gook Rule: If it’s a murdered or
raped gook, there is no crime.” It was also, he adds, a reminder of
something else: “I had learned a domestic version of that rule
decades earlier” in Chicago.
“Reporter”
demonstrates that Hersh has derived three simple lessons from that
rule:
1.The
powerful prey mercilessly upon the powerless, up to and including
mass murder.
2.The
powerful lie constantly about their predations.
3.The
natural instinct of the media is to let the powerful get away with
it.
* *
*
9)On
the time President Lyndon B. Johnson expressed his displeasure
to a reporter over a Vietnam piece by defecating on the ground
in front of him
From Reporter:
A Memoir pages
201-202 — Tom
[Wicker] got into the car and the two of them sped off down a dusty
dirt road. No words were spoken. After a moment or two, Johnson once
again slammed on the brakes, wheeling to a halt near a stand of
trees.
Leaving
the motor running, he climbed out, walked a few dozen feet toward the
trees, stopped,
pulled down his pants, and defecated, in full view. The President
wiped himself with leaves and grass, pulled up his pants, climbed
into the car, turned in around, and sped back to the press
gathering. Once
there, again the brakes were slammed on, and Tom was motioned out.
All of this was done without a word being spoken.
…”I
knew then,” Tom told me, “that the son of a bitch was never going
to end the war.”
10)
On Sy’s “most troublesome article” for which his own
family received death threats
From Reporter:
A Memoir pages
263-264 — The
most troublesome article I did, as someone not on the staff of the
newspaper, came in June 1986 and dealt with American signals
intelligence showing that General Manuel Antonio Noriega, the
dictator who ran Panama, had
authorized the assassination of a popular political opponent.
At the time, Noriega was actively involved in supplying the Reagan
administration with what was said to be intelligence on the spread of
communism in Central America. Noriega also permitted American
military and intelligence units to operate with impunity, in secret,
from bases in Panama, and the Americans, in return, looked
the other way while the general dealt openly in drugs and arms. The
story was published just as Noriega was giving a speech at Harvard
University and created embarrassment for him, and for Harvard, along
with a very disturbing telephone threat at home, directed not at me
but at my family.
Het
volgende uitstekende artikel van Paul Street handelt over de lessen
van Martin Luther King (in de VS vaak aangeduid als MLK) waarover men in de VS en de rest van het westen
liever niet spreekt, dit daar in zijn visie o.a. alleen echte gelijkheid kan
ontstaan in een vorm van socialisme………
Het is op 4 april a.s. 50 jaar geleden dat de staat dr. Martin Luther King liet vermoorden….. Vandaar veel aandacht dit jaar voor deze vrijheid en gelijkheidsstrijder. In de VS is 15 januari, de geboortedag van MLK, een vrije dag: ‘Martin Luther King Day’. Een uiterst hypocriet gebeuren als je het Paul Street vraagt, daar men vooral niet spreekt over de ideeën die King had over de ideale maatschappij en de vorm van bestuur die alle burgers ten goede zou komen, niet alleen de witte midden en hoge inkomens. Een wereld waarin arbeiders niet langer uitgebuit worden door en voor de ondernemers en aandeelhouders (en welgestelden in het algemeen).
Zo is echt socialisme of communisme een oplossing voor veel van de huidige ellende in de wereld. Vergeet niet dat communisme tot nu toe nooit heeft bestaan in onze wereld. Wat betreft socialisme kan je het Chili van Allende, Cuba van Fidel Castro en Venezuela onder Chavez en Maduro aanwijzen als voorbeelden (ook al was en is dit nog niet zoals het zou moeten zijn, echter wel zo goed dat de arme bevolking een veel beter leven kreeg, inclusief gezondheidszorg, een fatsoenlijk dak boven het hoofd en alfabetisering. Vandaar ook dat de VS zo haar best doet daar een eind aan te maken, wat tot nu toe al een aantal keren is gelukt, neem de uiterst bloedige staatsgreep tegen de democratisch gekozen regering van president Salvador Allende op 11 september 1973 in Chili, waarbij Allende strijdend werd vermoord…….. (betaald door- en onder regie en mede verantwoording van de CIA…..)
Momenteel is de VS naast het voeren van illegale oorlogen bezig met een economische oorlog tegen Venezuela, helaas is een heel groot deel van de Venezolaanse bevolking op de hoogte van de smerige streken die de VS het land levert (stop op leveringen van medicijnen en levensmiddelen) dat ze aan de kant van Maduro blijven staan. (dit nog naast de door de CIA georganiseerde gewelddadige protesten in Venezuela….)
De kijk van MLK op de wereld was volgens de schrijver van het volgende artikel, Paul Street, de reden waarom de overheid in de VS King alleen wil herdenken als strijder voor gelijke rechten t.b.v. gekleurde burgers……. Men leidt willens en wetens de aandacht af van de visie die King had op de VS en de wereld in het groot. Street spreekt dan ook (terecht) van een voortdurende morele en intellectuele moord op Martin Luther Kung………. (‘vreemd genoeg’ is er ook in de EU amper of geen aandacht voor de linkse kant van King….)
Zijn visie op de wereld, gecombineerd met zijn charisma is dan ook de reden waarom Martin Luther King ‘een bedreiging was’ voor de overheid en ‘wel vermoord moest worden…..’
As
the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s violent death (on
April 4, 1968) grows closer, you can expect to hear more and more in
U.S. corporate media about the real and alleged details of his
immediate physical assassination (or perhaps execution). You
will not be told about King’s subsequent and ongoing moral,
intellectual, and ideological assassination.
I
am referring to the conventional, neo-McCarthyite, and whitewashed
narrative of King that is purveyed across the nation every year,
especially during and around the national holiday that bears his
name. This domesticated, bourgeois airbrushing portrays King as
a mild liberal reformist who wanted little more than a few basic
civil rights adjustments in a supposedly good and decent American
System – a loyal supplicant who was grateful to the nation’s
leaders for finally making noble alterations. This year was no
exception.
The
official commemorations never say anything about the Dr. King who
studied Marx sympathetically at a young age and who said in his last
years that “if we are to achieve real equality, the United States
will have to adopt a modified form of socialism.” They delete
the King who wrote that “the real issue to be faced” beyond
“superficial” matters was the need for a radical social
revolution.
It
deletes the King
who went on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) in late
1967 to
reflect on how little the Black freedom struggle had attained beyond
some fractional changes in the South. He deplored “the arresting of
the limited forward progress” Blacks and their allies had attained
“by [a] white resistance [that] revealed the latent racism that was
[still] deeply rooted in U.S. society.”
“As
elation and expectations died,” King explained on the CBC, “Negroes
became more sharply aware that the goal of freedom was still distant
and our immediate plight was substantially still an agony of
deprivation. In the past decade, little has been done for Northern
ghettoes. Al the legislation was to remedy Southern conditions –
and even these were only partially improved.”
Worse
than merely limited, King felt, the gains won by Black Americans
during what he considered just the “first phase” of their freedom
struggle (1955-1965) were dangerous in that they “brought whites a
sense of completion” – a preposterous impression that the
so-called “Negro problem” had been solved and that there was
therefore no more basis or justification for further black activism.
“When Negroes assertively moved on to ascend to the second rung of
the ladder,” King noted, “a firm resistance from the white
community developed…In some quarters it was a courteous rejection,
in others it was a singing white backlash. In all quarters
unmistakably, it was outright resistance.”
Explaining
to his CBC listeners the remarkable wave of race riots that washed
across U.S. cities in the summers of 1966 and 1967, King made no
apologies for Black violence. He blamed “the white power
structure…still seeking to keep the walls of segregation and
inequality intact” for the disturbances. He found the leading cause
of the riots in the reactionary posture of “the white society,
unprepared and unwilling to accept radical structural change,”
which” produc[ed] chaos” by telling Blacks (whose expectations
for substantive change had been aroused) “that they must expect to
remain permanently unequal and permanently poor.”
King
also blamed the riots in part on Washington’s imperialist and
mass-murderous war on Vietnam. Along with the misery it inflicted on
Indochina, King said, the United States’ savage military aggression
against Southeast Asia stole resources from Lyndon Johnson’s
briefly declared and barely fought “War on Poverty.” It sent poor
Blacks to the front killing lines to a disproportionate degree. It
advanced the notion that violence was a reasonable response and even
a solution to social and political problems.
Black
Americans and others sensed what King called “the cruel irony of
watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die
together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in
the same school. We watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts
of a poor village, but we realize that they would never live on the
same block in Detroit,” King said on the CBC, adding that he “could
not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.”
Racial
hypocrisy aside, King said that “a nation that continues year after
year to spend more money on military defense [here he might better
have said “military empire”] than on programs of social uplift is
approaching spiritual doom.”
Did
the rioters disrespect the law, as their liberal and conservative
critics alike charged? Yes, King said, but added that the rioters’
transgressions were “derivative crimes…born of the
greater crimes of the…policy-makers of the white society,”
who “created discrimination…created slums [and] perpetuate
unemployment, ignorance, and poverty… [T]he
white man,”
King elaborated, “does
not abide by law in
the ghetto. Day in and day out he violates welfare laws to deprive
the poor of their meager allotments; he flagrantly violates building
codes and regulations; his
police make a mockery of law;
he violates laws on equal employment and education and the provision
of public services. The slums are a handiwork of a
vicious system of
the white society.”
Did
the rioters engage in violence? Yes, King said, but noted that their
aggression was “to a startling degree…focused against property
rather than against people.” He observed that “property
represents the white power structure,
which [the rioters] were [quite understandably] attacking and trying
to destroy.” Against those who held property “sacred,” King
argued that “Property is intended to serve life, and no matter how
much we surround with rights and respect, it has no personal being.”
What
to do? King advanced radical changes that went against the grain of
the nation’s corporate state, reflecting his agreement with New
Left militants that “only
by structural change can current evils be eliminated, because the
roots are in the system rather in man or faulty operations.”
King advocated an emergency national program providing either
decent-paying jobs for all or a guaranteed national income “at
levels that sustain life in decent circumstances.” He also called
for the “demolition of slums and rebuilding by the population that
lives in them.”
His
proposals, he said, aimed for more than racial justice alone. Seeking
to abolish poverty for all, including poor whites, he felt that “the
Negro revolt” was properly challenging each of what he called “the
interrelated triple evils” of racism, economic injustice/poverty
(capitalism) and war (militarism and imperialism).
The Black struggle had thankfully “evolve[ed] into more than a
quest for [racial] desegregation and equality,” King said. It
had become “a challenge to a system that has created miracles of
production and technology” but had failed to “create justice.”
“If
humanism is locked outside the [capitalist] system,” King said
on CBC five months before his assassination (or execution), “Negroes
will have revealed its inner core of despotism and a far greater
struggle for liberation will unfold. The United States is
substantially challenged to demonstrate that it can abolish not only
the evils of racism but the scourge of poverty and the horrors of
war….”
No
careful listener to King’s CBC talks could have missed the
radicalism of his vision and tactics. “The dispossessed of this
nation – the poor, both White and Negro – live in a
cruelly unjust society,”
King said. “They must organize
a revolution against
that injustice,” he added.
Such
a revolution would require “more than a statement to the larger
society,” more than “street marches” King proclaimed. “There
must,” he added, “be a
force that interrupts [that society’s] functioning at some key
point.”
That force would use “mass civil disobedience” to “transmute
the deep rage of the ghetto into a constructive and creative force”
by “dislocate[ing]
the functioning of a society.”
“The
storm is rising against
the privileged minority of
the earth,” King added for good measure. “The storm will not
abate until [there is a] just
distribution of the fruits of the earth…”
The “massive,
active, nonviolent resistance to the evils of the modern system”
that King advocated was “international in scope,” reflecting the
fact that “the poor countries are poor primarily because [rich
Western nations] have exploited them through political or economic
colonialism. Americans in particular must help their nation repent of
her modern economic imperialism.”
King
was a democratic socialist mass-disobedience-advocating and
anti-imperialist world revolution advocate. The guardians of
national memory don’t want you to know about that when they purvey
the official, doctrinally imposed memory of King as an at most
liberal and milquetoast reformer. (In a similar vein, our ideological
overlords don’t want us to know that Albert Einstein
[Time magazine’s
“Person of the 20th Century”] wrote a
brilliant essay making the case for socialism in
the first issue of venerable U.S.-Marxist magazine Monthly Review
– or that Helen Keller was a fan of the Russian Revolution.)
The
threat posed to the official bourgeois memory by King’s CBC
lectures – and by much more that King said and wrote in the last
three years of his life – is not just that they show an officially
iconic gradualist reformer to have been a democratic socialist
opponent of the profits system and its empire. It is also about how
clearly King analyzed the incomplete and unfinished nature of the
nation’s progress against racial and class injustice, around which
all forward developments pretty much ceased in the 1970s, thanks to a
white backlash that was already well underway in the early and
mid-1960s (before the rise of the Black Panthers, who liberal
historians like to blame for the nation’s rightward racial drift
under Nixon and Reagan) and to a top-down corporate war on
working-class Americans that started under Jimmy Carter and then went
ballistic under Ronald Reagan.
The
“spiritual doom” imposed by U.S. militarism has lived on, with
Washington having directly and indirectly killed untold millions of
Central Americans, South Americans, Africans, Muslims, Arabs, and
Asians in many different ways over the years since Vietnam.
Accounting for roughly 40 percent of the world’s military
expenditure, the U.S. maintains Cold War-level “defense” (empire)
budgets to sustain an historically unmatched global empire (with at
least 800 military bases spread across more than 80 foreign
countries and
“troops or other military personnel in about 160 foreign
countries and territories”) even as a near-record 45 million
U.S.-Americans remain
stuck under
the federal government’s notoriously inadequate poverty level. A
very disproportionate number of the nation’s poor are Black and
Latino/a.
It
is obvious that the racist and white-supremacist real estate baron
Donald J. Trump spoke disingenuously in tongue when he mouthed nice
words about Dr. King last Monday. But what about his
predecessor, Barack Obama, the nation’s first technically Black
president? It was cruelly ironic that Obama kept a bust of King in
the Oval Office to watch over his regular betrayal of the martyred
peace and justice leader’s ideals. Consistent with Dr. Adolph Reed
Jr.’s early (1996) dead-on
description of
the future President as “a smooth Harvard lawyer with impeccable
credentials and vacuous to repressive neoliberal politics,” Obama
consistently backed top corporate and financial interests (whose
representatives filled and dominated his administrations, campaigns,
and campaign coffers) over and against those who would undertake
serious programs to end poverty, redistribute wealth (the savage
re-concentration of which since Dr. King’s time has produced a New
Gilded Age in the U.S.), grant free and universal health care,
constrain capital, and save livable ecology as it approached a number
of critical tipping points on the accelerating path to irreversible
catastrophe. Thus is that one of Obama’s supporters (Ezra
Klein)
was moved in late 2012 to complain that a president “whose platform
consists of Romney’s health care bill, Newt Gingrich’s
environmental policies, John McCain’s deficit-financed payroll tax
cuts, George W. Bush’s bailouts of filing banks and corporations,
and a mixture of the Bush and Clinton tax rate” was still being
denounced as a “leftist.”
Obama
opposed calls for any special programs or serious federal attention
to the nation’s savage racial inequalities, so vast now that the
median of white households was 20 times that of black households and
18 times that of Hispanic households near the end of his presidency.
He did this while the fact of his ascendency to the White House
deeply reinforced white America’s sense that racism was over as a
barrier to black advancement and generated its own significant white
backlash that only worsened the situation of less privileged black
Americans.
Obama
made it crystal clear in ways that no white president could that what
Dr. King in 1963 called America’s unpaid “promissory note” and
“bad check” to Black America would remain un-cashed. This was all
too sadly consistent with Obama’s preposterous 2007 campaign claim
(at a commemoration of the King-led 1965 Selma Voting Rights March)
to believe that Blacks had already come “90
percent” of
the way to equality in the U.S.
Completing
the “triple evils” hat trick, Obama – the self-appointed
chief-executioner atop the Special Forces Global War on (of) Terror
Kill List – embraced and expanded upon the vast criminal and
worldwide spying and killing operation he inherited from Dick Cheney,
Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and George W. Bush. He tamped down
Bush’s failed ground wars only to ramp up and inflate the role of
unaccountable special force and drone attacks in the spirit of his
dashing and reckless imperial role model John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
Obama’s drone program, Noam Chomsky noted in early
2015,
was “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times.” It
“target[ed] people suspected of perhaps intending to harm us some
day, and any unfortunates who happen to be nearby,” Chomsky wrote.
In
waging his deadly and disastrous, nation-wrecking and regionally
destabilizing air war on Libya, Obama (unlike Bush prior to the
invasion of Iraq) did not even bother with the pretense of seeking
Congressional approval. “It should be a scandal,”
Stansfield Smith wrote
on CounterPunch one
year ago,
“that left-liberals paint Trump as a special threat, a war mongerer
– [but] not Obama who is the first president to be at war every day
of his eight years, who is waging seven wars at present, who dropped
three bombs an hour, 24 hours a day, in 2016.” As Alan
Nairn told Democracy
Now’s
Amy Goodman in early 2010,
Obama kept the nation’s giant imperial machinery “set on kill.”
Meanwhile,
Obama far surpassed the Cheney-Bush regime when it came to repressing
antiwar dissenters, not to mention those who opposed the rule of the
1 percent – smashed by a coordinated federal campaign in the fall
of 2011. “As all kinds of journalists have continuously pointed
out,” Glenn
Greenwald noted in
early 2014, “the Obama administration is more aggressive and more
vindictive when it comes to punishing whistleblowers than any
administration in American history, including the Nixon
administration.”
Furthermore,
and to make matters far worse, Obama helped keep the planet set on
burn. As Stansfield Smith noted two days before the horrid
Trump’s inauguration:
Obama,
who says he recognizes the threat to humanity posed by climate
change, still invested at least $34 billion to promote fossil fuel
projects in other countries. That is three times as much as George W
Bush spent in his two terms, almost twice that of Ronald Reagan,
George HW Bush and Bill Clinton put together…Obama financed 70
foreign fossil fuel projects. When completed they will release 164
million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year
– about the same output as the 95 currently operating coal-fired
power plants in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Oklahoma. He financed two
natural gas plants on an island in the Great Barrier Reef, as well as
two of the largest coalmines on the planet… Moreover, under Obama,
the U.S. has reversed the steady drop in U.S. oil production
which had continued unchecked since 1971. The U.S. was pumping just
5.1 million barrels per day when Obama took office. By April 2016 it
was up to 8.9 million barrels per day. A 74% increase.
As
Obama proudly said in 2012, in the film This
Changes Everything:
‘Over
the last three years I’ve directed my administration to open up
millions of acres for gas and oil exploration across 23 different
states. We’re opening up more than 75% of our potential oil
resources offshore. We’ve quadrupled the number of operating rigs
to a record high. We’ve added enough oil and gas pipelines to
encircle the earth and then some. So, we are drilling all over the
place, right now.’
“Drill,
baby, drill!”
Perhaps
the dismal neoliberal Obama presidency – a key midwife to the Trump
atrocity – was at least an object lesson on how real progressive
and democratic change is about something bigger than a change in the
party or color of the people in nominal power. That is certainly
something King (who would be 88 today) would have understood very
well had he been able to witness the endless mendacity of the
nation’s first half-white president first-hand.
“The
black revolution,” King wrote in a
posthumously published 1969 essay titled
“A Testament of Hope” (embracing a very different, authentically
progressive sort of hope than that purveyed by Brand Obama in 2008)
“is much more than a struggle for the rights of Negroes. It is
forcing America to face all its interrelated flaws – racism,
poverty, militarism, and materialism. It is exposing evils that are
rooted deeply in the whole structure of our society. It reveals
systemic rather than superficial flaws and suggests that radical
reconstruction society of society itself is the real issue to be
faced.”
Those
words ring as true as ever today, with heightened urgency as it
becomes undeniable that the profits system is driving
humanity over an environmental cliff. They
are words we never hear during official King Day commemorations.
King,
it is worth recalling, was recruited by antiwar progressives to run
for the U.S. presidency in 1967. He politely declined, claiming that
he’d have little chance of winning and that he preferred to serve
as a force of moral conscience for all the nation’s political
parties.
The
deeper truth, clear from his late-life writing and speeches, is that
he had no interest in climbing into the power elite: his passion was
directed toward a “revolution” of “the dispossessed” and a
mass grassroots movement for the redistribution of wealth and power –
a “radical reconstruction of society itself” – from the bottom
up. Dr. King was interested in what the late radical U.S.
historian Howard
Zinn considered the
more urgent politics of “who’s
sitting in the streets,”
very different from what Zinn saw as the comparatively superficial
politics of “who’s
sitting in the White House.”
King’s
officially deleted radical record and Zinn’s clever and sage
dichotomy are worth bearing in mind in coming months and years as we
watch the nation’s “left” liberals try to call forth and herald
a new Obama (Oprah perhaps?) in 2020. That is certainly one of
the last things we need.
De avond voor de moord op J.F. Kennedy, vond er overleg plaats in Dallas, op een feest van oliebaron Clint Murchison. Aanwezig: Edgar Hoover (destijds hoofd FBI), L.B. Johnson (de democratische vicepresident, die door de dood van Kennedy werd benoemd tot president en die in tegenstelling tot Kennedy voor deelname was van de VS aan de oorlog in Vietnam), R. Nixon (de latere republikeinse president, ook al voorstander van de oorlog tegen Noord-Vietnam) en H.L. Hunt (een andere oliebaron).
De oliebaronnen vreesden grote verliezen, door een beslissing van Kennedy over olievoorraden. Het militair-industrieel complex had alle belang bij de VS deelname aan de oorlog tegen Noord-Vietnam, dit complex werd na de dood van Kennedy uiterst kundig bediend door eerst L.B. Johnson en later R. Nixon….. (Overigens is een oorlog altijd goed voor oliemaatschappijen, immers het verbruik van benzine, diesel en kerosine gaat als een pijl omhoog…)
Een aantal belangrijke punten, die ook in de film ‘JFK’ van Oliver Stone terug te vinden zijn: De CIA plus hun collega’s in de georganiseerde misdaad en de olie industrie vreesde te worden aangepakt door de regering Kennedy. Het Pentagon en de wapenindustrie zagen grote toekomstige winsten en steekgelden verdampen, als Kennedy de oorlog tegen Noord-Vietnam zou afblazen. Daarnaast hadden L.B. Johnson en E. Hoover de pest aan Kennedy en hadden persoonlijke belangen bij de dood van Kennedy, beiden waren afzonderlijk betrokken bij een aantal politieke moorden……
De broer van Kennedy, Robert en Martin Luther King werden vermoord onder het bewind van Johnson en Hoover, waarbij het opvallend is dat beiden fel gekant waren tegen de oorlog in Vietnam…….
Voor een totaaloverzicht en verdere details zie de volgende video en tekst daaronder, gepubliceerd door Brasscheck TV:
The
meeting in Dallas the night before the assassination of J.F. Kenedy
included:
H.L.
Hunt
J. Edgar Hoover
Richard Nixon
Lyndon B. Johnson
The
big party before the JFK assassination
…At
the home of Clint Murchison, the Texas oil tycoon.
Murchison
owned J. Edgar Hoover, Lyndon B. Johnson, and State of Texas law
enforcement and stood to lose a fortune if Kennedy changed the oil
depletion allowance and faced the very real possibility of jail time
should then-Vice President Johnson be indicted, which gave the
appearance of being a certainty.
Nixon
and others involved claimed not to remember where he was that night.
The
fingerprint found in the Book Depository sniper’s nest and
suppressed by the FBI belonged to LBJ’s henchman who was convicted
in at least one murder and was suspected of committing several others
on Johnson’s behalf.
But
it doesn’t matter who did what, what weapon they used, and what
position they fired from.
That’s
like asking which janitor they sent and whether he used a wire or
nylon brush.
The
mountains of minutia, endless conferences, books and assassination
experts including Oliver Stone’s artfully loopy movie all obscure
the basic points.
The
CIA was facing a thorough gutting at the hands of Kennedy as were
their close colleagues in organized crime and the oil industry
The
Pentagon and the scumbags who supply them were facing the loss of
billions upon billion of of dollars in profits and payoffs if
Kennedy turned off the Vietnam gravy train.
Hoover
and Johnson knew each other very well, hated Kennedy and had very
strong self-preservation reasons to want him dead. Both had been
involved in political murders separately – and were to collaborate
on future ones.
Recall
that Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were both assassinated
during the Johnson-Hoover regime and that Johnson was the president
during the infamous USS Liberty incident. Robert Kennedy, like his
brother, and Martin Luther King were murdered after they started
talking against war in Vietnam. Another too rarely mentioned
connection.)
These
people – the CIA, organized crime, the Pentagon, Hoover and Johnson
– were all murderers and they did what murderers do.
With
Hoover in charge of the FBI and Johnson in control of the Federal
government and Texas law enforcement, there was no investigation of
the crime and any evidence that contradicted the manufactured “lone
nut” theory was altered and in some cases outright destroyed.
Ongoing
media suppression was carried out by the CIA and the cooperative and
craven US news media.
It
didn’t matter how good or bad your evidence is if you don’t
control the process and it’s the new leader who controls the
process.
Attorney
Allen Dulles, the CIA head who supervised numerous coups and
assassinations in other countries and had a grudge against Kennedy
for firing him, understood this simple principle better than anyone.
That’s
it. The beginning, middle and end of the story.
Discussions
about the minutia of the specific mechanics of the operation are
nothing more than a distraction and far off the key points which are:
When
push comes to shove, the military-industrial complex is in control
of the US
2.
A criminally minded CIA and organized crime figures in the US and
abroad collaborate on projects of mutual interest (drug running,
assassination, the suppression of dissent) on a daily basis as they
have done since WW II.
3.
The US news media – as well as the vast majority of academia –
is an impotent joke.
These
are the three elements that have guided and controlled the US since
Kennedy’s assassination and they can, and continue to, get away
with just about anything.
Het is 70 jaar gelden dat de CIA met ‘haar heilzame werk’ begon. 70 jaar waarin de CIA:
staatsgrepen pleegde, o.a. tegen Iran (destijds Perzië), Congo, Chili en Brazilië.
‘false flag’ operaties leidde, operaties zogenaamd uitgevoerd door vijanden van de VS, zodat de VS ‘acties’ tegen haar onwelgevallige, veelal democratisch gekozen regimes kon beginnen……. (niet zelden door het voeren van illegale oorlogen)
honderden (wellicht nog veel meer) verdachten martelde (en martelt), dit vooral in het buitenland en buitenlandse regimes (veelal niet democratisch gekozen) leerde ‘hoe het best kan worden gemarteld…….
drugsoperaties leidde, zodat men met de opbrengsten geheime missies in het buitenland kon bekostigen……..
oud-nazi’s uit de gevangenis houden en hen zelfs naar de VS te brengen om daar hun werk voort te zetten. Voorts leidde de CIA een netwerk van 600 ex-nazi agenten in het door de Sovjet-Unie bezette deel van Duitsland, De dagelijkse leiding van deze nazi’s was in handen van Reinhard Gehlen, voormalig hoofd van de nazi-inlichtingendienst voor de Sovjet-Unie……
Er zijn nog veel meer zaken te noemen, waarvoor ik naar het onderstaande artikel van Anti-Media wil verwijzen
Happy
Birthday CIA: 7 Truly Terrible Things the Agency Has Done in 70 Years
(ANTIMEDIA) — On
Monday, President Trump tweetedbirthday
wishes to the Air Force and the CIA. Both
became officialorganizations
70 years ago on September 18, 1947, with the implementation of the
National Security Act of 1947.
After
spending years as a wartime intelligence agency called the Office of
Strategic Services, the agency was solidified as a key player in the
federal government’s operations with then-President Harry Truman’s
authorization.
In
the seventy years since, the CIA has committed a wide variety of
misdeeds, crimes, coups, and violence. Here are seven of the worst
programs they’ve carried out (that are known to the public):
1.
Toppling governments around the world —
The CIA is best known for its first coup, Operation Ajax, in 1953,
in which it ousted the democratically elected leader of Iran,
Mohammed Mossadegh, reinstating the autocratic Shah, who favored
western oil interests. That operation, which the CIA now admits to
waging with British intelligence, ultimately resulted in the 1979
revolution and
subsequent U.S. hostage crisis. Relations between the U.S. and Iran
remain strained to this day, aptly described by the CIA-coined term
“blowback.”
But
the CIA has had a hand in toppling a
number of other democratically elected governments, from Guatemala
(1954) and the Congo (1960) to the Dominican Republic (1961), South
Vietnam (1963), Brazil (1964), and Chile (1973). The CIA has aimed to
install leaders who appease American interests,
often empowering oppressive, violent
dictators.
This is only a partial list of countries where the CIA covertly
attempted to exploit and manipulate sovereign nations’ governments.
Operation
Paperclip —
In one of the more bizarre CIA plots, the agency and other
government departments employed Nazi scientists both within and
outside the United States to gain an advantage over the
Soviets. As summarized by NPR:
“The
aim [of Operation Paperclip] was to find and preserve German weapons,
including biological and chemical agents, but American scientific
intelligence officers quickly realized the weapons themselves were
not enough.
“They
decided the United States needed to bring the Nazi scientists
themselves to the U.S. Thus began a mission to recruit top Nazi
doctors, physicists and chemists — including Wernher von Braun, who
went on to design the rockets that took man to the moon.”
They
praised the book’s historical accuracy, noting “that the
Launch Operations Center at Cape Canaveral, Florida, was headed by
Kurt Debus, an ardent Nazi.” They acknowledged that “General
Reinhard Gehlen, former head of Nazi intelligence operations against
the Soviets, was hired by the US Army and later by the CIA to operate
600 ex-Nazi agents in the Soviet zone of occupied Germany.”
Remarkably,
they noted that Jacobsen “understandably questions the morality
of the decision to hire Nazi SS scientists,” but praise her for
pointing out that it was done to fight Soviets. They also made sure
to add that the Soviets hired Nazis, too, apparently justifying their
own questionable actions by citing their most loathed enemy.
Operation
CHAOS —
The FBI is widely known for its COINTELPRO schemes
to undermine communist
movements in the 1950s and anti-war, civil rights,
and black
power movements
in the 1960s, but the CIA has not been implicated nearly as deeply
because, technically, the CIA cannot legally engage in domestic
spying. But that was of little concern to President Lyndon B.
Johnson as opposition to the Vietnam war grew. According to
former New
York Times journalist
and Pulitzer Prize-winner Tim Weiner, as documented in his extensive
CIA history, Legacy
of Ashes,
Johnson instructed then-CIA Director Richard Helms to break the law:
“In
October 1967, a handful of CIA analysts joined in the first big
Washington march against the war. The president regarded protesters
as enemies of the state. He was convinced that the peace movement was
controlled and financed by Moscow and Beijing. He wanted proof. He
ordered Richard Helms to produce it.
“Helms
reminded the president that the CIA was barred from spying on
Americans. He says Johnson told him: ‘I’m quite aware of that.
What I want for you is to pursue this matter, and to do what is
necessary to track down the foreign communists who are behind this
intolerable interference in our domestic affairs…’”
Helms
obeyed. Weiner wrote:
“In
a blatant violation of his powers under the law, the director of
central intelligence became a part-time secret police chief. The CIA
undertook a domestic surveillance operation, code-named Chaos. It
went on for almost seven years… Eleven CIA officers grew long hair,
learned the jargon of the New Left, and went off to infiltrate peace
groups in the United States and Europe.”
According
to Weiner, “the agency compiled a computer index of 300,000
names of American people and organizations, and extensive files on
7,200 citizens. It began working in secret with police departments
all over America.” Because they could not draw a “clear
distinction” between the new far left and mainstream opposition to
the war, the CIA spied on every major peace organization in the
country. President Johnson also wanted them to prove a connection
between foreign communists and the black power movement. “The
agency tried its best,” Weiner noted, ultimately noting that
“the CIA never found a shred of evidence that linked the leaders
of the American left or the black-power movement to foreign
governments.”
Infiltrating
the media — Over the years, the CIA has successfully
gained influence in the news media, as well as popular media like
film and television. Its influence over the news began almost
immediately after the agency was formed. As Weiner explained, CIA
Director Allen Dulles established firm ties with newspapers:
“Dulles
kept in close touch with the men who ran the New York Times, The
Washington Post, and the nation’s leading weekly magazines. He
could pick up the phone and edit a breaking story, make sure an
irritating foreign correspondent was yanked from the field, or hire
the services of men such as Time’s Berlin bureau chief and
Newsweek’s man in Tokyo.”
He
continued:
“It
was second nature for Dulles to plant stories in the press. American
newsrooms were dominated by veterans of the government’s wartime
propaganda branch, the Office of War Information…The men who
responded to the CIA’s call included Henry Luce and his editors at
Time, Life, and Fortune; popular magazines such as Parade, the
Saturday Review, and Reader’s Digest; and the most powerful
executives at CBS News. Dulles built a public-relations and
propaganda machine that came to include more than fifty news
organizations, a dozen publishing houses, and personal pledges of
support from men such as Axel Springer, West Germany’s most
powerful press baron.”
The
CIA’s influence had not waned by 1977 when journalist Carl
Bernstein reported on
publications with CIA agents in their employ, as well as “more
than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty five years
have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence
Agency.”
The
CIA has also successfully advised
on and influenced numerous
television shows, such
asHomeland and 24 and films like Zero
Dark Thirty and Argo,
which push narratives that ultimately favor the agency. According to
Tricia Jenkins, author of The
CIA in Hollywood: How the Agency Shapes Film & Television, a
concerted agency effort began in the 1990s to counteract negative
public perceptions of the CIA, but their influence reaches back
decades. In the 1950s, filmmakers produced films for the
CIA,
including the 1954 film adaptation of George Orwell’s Animal
Farm.
Researchers
Tom Secker and Matthew Alford, whose work has been published in
the American
Journal of Economics and Sociology,
say their recent Freedom of Information Act requests have shown that
the CIA — along with the military — have influenced over
1,800 films and television shows, many of which have nothing to do
with CIA or military themes.
Drug-induced
Mind control –
In the 1950s, the CIA began experimenting with drugs to determine
whether they might be useful in extracting information.
As Smithsonian
Magazine has noted of
the MKUltra project:
“The
project, which continued for more than a decade, was originally
intended to make sure the United States government kept up with
presumed Soviet advances in mind-control technology. It ballooned in
scope and its ultimate result, among other things, was illegal drug
testing on thousands of Americans.”
Further:
“The
intent of the project was to study ‘the use of biological and
chemical materials in altering human behavior,’ according
tothe
official testimony of CIA director Stansfield Turner in 1977. The
project was conducted in extreme secrecy, Turner said, because of
ethical and legal questions surrounding the program and the negative
public response that the CIA anticipated if MKUltra should become
public.
“Under
MKUltra, the CIA gave itself the authority to research how drugs
could:’ ‘promote the intoxicating effects of alcohol;’ ‘render
the induction of hypnosis easier;’ ‘enhance the ability of
individuals to withstand privation, torture and coercion;’ produce
amnesia, shock and confusion; and much more. Many of these questions
were investigated using unwitting test subjects, like drug-addicted
prisoners, marginalized sex workers and terminal cancer patients–
‘people who could not fight back,’ in
the words ofSidney
Gottlieb, the chemist who introduced LSD to the CIA.”
Further,
as Weiner noted:
“Under
its auspices, seven prisoners at a federal penitentiary in Kentucky
were kept high on LSD for seventy-seven consecutive days. When the
CIA slipped the same drug to an army civilian employee, Frank Olson,
he leaped out of the window of a New York Hotel.”
Weiner
added that senior CIA officers destroyed “almost all of the
records” of the programs, but that while the “evidence that
remains is fragmentary…it strongly suggests that use of secret
prisons for the forcible drug-induced questioning of suspect agents
went on throughout the 1950s.”
Years
later, the CIA would be accused of distributing crack-cocaine into
poor black communities, though this is currently less substantiated
and supported mostly
by accounts of those who claim to have been involved.
Brutal
torture tactics —
More recently, the CIA was exposed for
sponsoring abusive, disturbing terror tactics against detainees at
prisons housing terror suspects. An extensive 2014 Senate report
documented agents committing sexual abuse, forcing detainees to
stand on broken legs, waterboarding them so severely it sometimes
led to convulsions, and imposing forced rectal feeding, to name a
few examples. Ultimately, the agency had very little actionable
intelligence to show for their torture tactics but lied to
suggest they did, according to the torture report. Their torture
tactics led the
International Criminal Court to suggest the CIA, along with the U.S.
armed forces, could be guilty of war crimes for their abuses.
7. Arming radicals — The CIA has a long habit of arming
radical, extremist groups that view the United States as enemies. In
1979, the CIA set out to support Afghan rebels in their bid to
defeat the Soviet occupation of the Middle Eastern country. As
Weiner wrote, in 1979, “Prompted by Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Carter signed a covert-action order for the CIA to provide
the Afghan rebels with medical aid, money, and propaganda.”
As
Weiner detailed later in his book:
“The
Pakistani intelligence chiefs who doled out the CIA’s guns and
money favored the Afghan factions who proved themselves most capable
in battle. Those factions also happened to be the most committed
Islamists. No one dreamed that the holy warriors could ever turn
their jihad against the United States.”
Though
some speculate the CIA directly armed Osama bin Laden, that is yet to
be fully proven or admitted. What is clear is that western
media revered him
as a valuable fighter against the Soviets, that he arrived to
fight in Afghanistan in1980, and that al-Qaeda emerged from the
mujahideen, who were beneficiaries of the CIA’s program. Stanford
University has noted that Bin
Laden and Abdullah Azzam, a prominent Palestinian cleric,
“established
Al Qaeda from the fighters, financial resources, and training and
recruiting structures left over from the anti-Soviet war.”
Much of those “structures” were provided by the agency.
Intentionally or not, the CIA helped fuel the rise of the terror
group.
Weiner
noted that as the CIA failed in other countries like Libya, by the
late 1980s “Only the mujahideen, the Afghan holy warriors, were
drawing blood and scenting victory. The CIA’s Afghan operation was
now a $700-million-dollar-a-year-program” and represented 80%
of the overseas budget of the clandestine services. “The CIA’s
briefing books never answered the question of what would happen when
a militant Islamic army defeated the godless invaders of
Afghanistan,” though Tom Twetten, “the number two man in
the clandestine service in the summer of 1988,” was tasked with
figuring out what would happen with the Afghan rebels. “We don’t
have any plan,” he concluded.
Apparently
failing to learn their lesson, the CIA adopted nearly the exact same
policy in Syria decades later, arming what they called “moderate
rebels” against the Assad regime. Those groups
ultimately aligned with
al-Qaeda groups. One CIA-backed faction made headlines last year
for beheading a
child (though President Trump cut off the CIA program in June, the
military continues to
align with “moderate” groups).
Unsurprisingly,
this list is far from complete. The CIA has engaged in a wide variety
of extrajudicial
practice,
and there are likely countless transgressions we have yet to learn
about.
As
Donald Trump cheers the birthday of an agency he himself
once criticized,
it should be abundantly clear that the nation’s covert spy agency
deserves scrutiny and skepticism — not celebration.
Moet u nagaan, dan durft men nog te spreken over ‘fake news’ en een land als Rusland de schuld voor veel internet ellende te geven en te beschuldigen van agressief gedrag………….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
Nederlands
English
Русский
Español
简体中文
Français
Deutsch
हिन्दी
Italiano
Português