Het
opperhoofd van de Teheraanse politie, Hossein Rahimi, je weet wel: die met de koperen fluit van verdienste, maakte bekend dat de
politie van Teheran niet langer zal surveilleren op de islamitische
‘kledingscode’. Een en ander is volkomen in tegenspraak met een eerder
aangekondigde uitbreiding van het politiepersoneel, juist om die code
beter af te kunnen dwingen.
Heb je
dat gehoord of gelezen Henk Krol? Jij moest zo nodig ondoordacht de
Iraanse ambassade schofferen door godbetert een gekregen bakje
pistachenoten hééééél dapper voor de camera in de prullenbak om
te kieperen* (‘Henk, gelukkig is honger ook helemaal uitgebannen op aarde,
anders zou dit een wel extra schandalig gebaar zijn geweest….’)
Als jij Henk nu juist op basis van dat bakje pistachenoten toenadering tot de Iraniërs had gezocht, zeker gezien de winst
van de gematigde krachten bij de laatste verkiezingen, had je
misschien wat voor Iraanse vrouwen en homo’s kunnen betekenen, maar
nee Henk, jij wist wel beter…..
Uitermate
belachelijk Henk dat je niet eens de moed hebt om je excuses aan te bieden, daarmee heb jij Henk, tevens een lange neus getrokken naar Iraanse homo’s
en vrouwen (die uiteraard ook onder de homo’s te vinden zijn, zoals je wellicht weet Henk) en dat met het lamme excuus dat vrouwen en homo’s worden vervolgd in Iran…… Man, schaam je ogen uit je kop!
Gelukkig
kan Iran ook verder hervormen zonder de bemoeienis van de pedante
sjoemelaar Krol, zo blijkt eens te meer uit het volgende bericht:
Iran’s
Capital City Will No Longer Arrest Those Who Don’t Follow Islamic
Dress Code
Violators
are reportedly to be made to attend education classes (althans dat was het geval in Teheran voor kort)
(MEE) — Women
in Tehran will no longer be arrested if they do not wear proper
Islamic dress, according to the city’s police chief.
General
Hossein Rahimi announced the changes on Thursday, in a move that
marks a loosening of the rules implemented following the 1979 Islamic
Revolution.
“Those
who do not observe the Islamic dress code will no longer be taken to
detention centres, nor will judicial cases be filed against them,”
he said, according to the reformist daily Sharq.
The
semi-official Tasnim news agency said violators will instead be made
to attend education classes given by police, while repeat offenders
could still be subject to legal action.
It
is still possible to be arrested outside the capital, and there is
likely to be pushback from more conservative elements in the Iranian
establishment.
The
law on dress forces women to cover their hair in public and wear
long, loose garments. Men are also expected not to wear shorts or
appear shirtless in public.
In
recent years, however, younger women in Tehran have pushed against
the limits imposed by the law, often wearing headscarves far back on
their heads, revealing a lot of hair.
Rahimi
said that 100 advisory centres have been set up in the capital and
that 62,000 cases were resolved before ever going to court in the
last nine months.
“In
addition to promoting security, the police will also be taking social
measures to reform the behaviour of citizens and reduce infractions
and crimes,” Rahimi added.
The
move by the police chiefs marks a fulfilment of President Hassan
Rouhani’s reformist agenda, which was widely voted for in the
presidential elections in 2013 and 2017.
Despite
the apparent move to liberalisation, police in Tehran last year
announced plans to deploy 7,000 male and female officers for a new
plainclothes division to enforce the dress code.
PS: vanmorgen in de TROS Nieuwsshow ene Eefje Blankevoort, zij schreef het boek: ‘Stiekem kan hier alles’, over Iran en de religieuze regelgeving. Zij stelde dat de bevolking van Iran ontevreden is vanwege de slechte economische omstandigheden, terwijl er tegelijkertijd Iraanse milities vechten in Syrië en….. Jemen…… ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Er is geen flinter bewijs voor het aanwezig zijn van Iraanse milities in Jemen, sterker nog zelfs niet voor het leveren van wapens aan de sjiitische Houthi rebellen!!
Ik wed dat een heel groot deel van de Iraniërs zonder meer achter het meevechten van Iraanse milities in Syrië staat. Alsof men niet begrijpt dat wanneer Assad afgezet zou worden en daar een VS marionet wordt gestationeerd, Iran geconfronteerd zal worden met nog een soennitische vijand aan een deel van haar grens…..
Alsof de Iraanse bevolking niet weet dat de slechte economische omstandigheden alles te maken hebben met de volkomen onterechte economische boycot, waar het land jarenlang onder gebukt ging, een boycot ingegeven en in feite afgedwongen door de VS…….. Dezelfde VS die al eens een democratisch gekozen Iraanse president (Mossadegh) middels een coup heeft afgezet om de corrupte VS vriendelijke dictator en sjah weer aan het bewind te brengen……..
Volgens Blankevoort doen Iran en Saoedi-Arabië (de grote soennitische vijand van het sjiitische Iran) aan een wedstrijdje ver pissen als het gaat om vrouwenrechten…….. Iran vanwege het hierboven beschreven versoepelen van de kledingcode voor vrouwen in Teheran en S-A door het verbod op autorijden voor vrouwen op te heffen……..
In de grote Iraanse steden is al meer dan 20 jaar een roep om versoepeling van de kledingcode (even later vertelde Blankevoort dat zelfs mannen uit protest een hoofddoek dragen), dat opgeteld bij het aan de macht komen van de meer gematigde krachten en het steeds groter aantal vrouwen dat zich in de Iraanse steden verzet tegen de kledingcode (zoveel dat de politie het aantal overtredingen niet meer aankan), heeft de versoepeling van deze code veroorzaakt en niet het mogen autorijden van vrouwen in S-A, dat men zelfs in Iran belachelijk vond en vindt.
Van Blankevoort sprak zich een aantal keren tegen, ook toen ze stelde dat de vrouwen in Iran veel meer vrijheden hebben dan hun seksegenoten in Saoedi-Arabië…… Waar na deze vaststelling de rivaliteit tussen S-A en Iran op het gebied van vrouwenrechten is gebleven, is me een raadsel……
Hetzelfde geldt voor het verbod op autorijden door vrouwen in Saoedi-Arabië: ook hier is al meer dan 20 jaar voor gestreden door vrouwen en een fiks aantal mannen. Deze regel werd niet geschrapt in rivaliteit met Iran, maar puur en alleen om het dictatoriale fascistische bewind wat meer populariteit te geven, daar deze gedaald was tot vlak boven nul…….
Bespaar je de centen en laat het boek van Blankevoort maar in de winkel of webwinkel liggen. En stemmen op Krol? Je begrijpt vast wel wat mijn mening daarover is.
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!
De VS minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, Rex Tillerson, heeft toegegeven dat de VS uit is op ‘regime change’ in Iran (ofwel een staatsgreep). Dat het Iraanse volk onlangs nog heeft gekozen voor meer vrijheid en uiteindelijk een echte democratie zal de VS aan de reet roesten, men wil simpelweg een Iraanse regering die onderhorig is aan de VS en daarmee aan Saoedi-Arabië en Israël. De enige mogelijkheid daartoe is het installeren van een dictatoriaal regime, een specialiteit van de VS, dat altijd stelt democratie te willen brengen……….. Overigens voerde de VS (CIA) in 1953 al een staatsgreep uit tegen de democratisch gekozen Iraanse regering van Mossadegh
Tussen de regels door gaf Tillerson toe, dat de CIA al werkzaam is in Iran, toen hij stelde: “Our policy towards Iran is to push back on this hegemony, contain their ability to develop obviously nuclear weapons, and to work toward support of those elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that government. Those elements are there, certainly as we know.”
In dit zelfde citaat staat te lezen dat Tillerson ondanks alle bewijzen van het tegendeel, stelt dat Iran bezig is een atoomwapen te ontwikkelen……… Een uitspraak die duidelijk een opmaat is naar militair ingrijpen, niet voor niets is de VS bijna continu bezig de Iraanse marine uit te dagen, met manoeuvres voor de Iraanse kust….. Daarnaast is er Israël dat keer op keer stelt, dat Iran een gevaar is voor de regio en dat het land moet worden aangevallen…… Netanyahu, de premier van de fascistische apartheidsstaat Israël, heeft meermaals laten weten, dat Israël zich het recht voorbehoudt Iran aan te vallen.
Onder Obama werd Israël nog enigszins onder controle gehouden, met het beest Trump aan de macht in de VS is de vrees dan ook, dat Israël daadwerkelijk Iran zal aanvallen. Als dit gebeurt zal de VS deze immense terreurdaad verdedigen, als het al niet zal deelnemen aan die Israëlische aanval.
Stuitend dat Tillerson keihard durft te zeggen, dat Iran een destabiliserende factor is in het Midden-Oosten……. Als er één destabiliserende factor is in het Midden-Oosten, is het wel de grootste terreurentiteit op aarde: de VS…… Met haar illegale oorlogen (de ultieme vorm van terreur) tegen Afghanistan, Irak (met intussen meer dan 1,5 miljoen vermoordde Irakezen), Libië (dat wordt door de VS tot het Midden-Oosten gerekend) en nu weer Syrië, heeft de VS het Midden-Oosten in totale chaos gestort. Daarbij moet niet vergeten worden dat de VS verantwoordelijk is voor het ontstaan van IS (dat het zelfs jarenlang heeft gesteund en bovendien van wapens en voertuigen heeft voorzien, al dan niet via een andere grote terreurentiteit in het Midden-Oosten: Saoedi-Arabië…)…..
De VS heeft intussen zelfs toegegeven het chemisch wapen witte fosfor te hebben gebruikt in de strijd om Raqqa…….. Ofwel: hoeveel bewijs heb je nog nodig, om in te zien , dat de VS grootschalige terreur uitoefent
Afgelopen week spraken veel politici in de VS over de aanslagen in Iran, als was het een zegen. De republikeinse vertegenwoordiger voor Californië, Dana Rohrabacher stelde zelfs dat de VS terreuraanslagen tegen Iran moet steunen, waarbij ze zelfs steun wil geven aan IS, als die Iran nog eens aanvalt……. Voor Syrië heeft de VS Al Qaida van de terreurlijst gehaald, waarbij de VS represailles neemt, als het reguliere Syrische leger deze of andere terreurorganisaties (‘gematigde rebellen’) NB op eigen bodem aanvalt…….. (waar de VS volkomen illegaal op Syrische bodem strijd voert…….)
Eén ding is nu wel duidelijk: Iran staat als volgende op de lijst om te worden teruggebombardeerd in de tijd en in chaos te worden gestort door (ingrijpen van) de VS met hulp van Israël, Saoedi-Arabië en een paar van de Golfstaten……
Sec.
of State Tillerson Admits US Policy of Regime Change for Iran
(ANTIMEDIA) — In
case there was any doubt, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has
just confirmed that official U.S. policy towards Iran includes regime
change, Think
Progress reports.
During
a Wednesday hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee
regarding the 2018 State Department budget, Tillerson was asked
whether or not the U.S. supports regime change in Iran. He replied
affirmatively, stating that U.S. policy is driven by relying on
“elements inside of Iran” to bring about a “peaceful
transition of that government.”
Rep.
Ted Poe (R-TX) also asked Tillerson if the government would sanction
the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – a powerful
entity inside
Iran.
“They
are doing bad things throughout the world, on behalf of terrorism and
destroying human rights of many people,” Poe
said, referring to the IRGC.
“I’d
like to know what the policy is of the U.S. toward Iran. Do we
support the current regime? Do we support a philosophy of regime
change, peaceful regime change? There are Iranians in exile all over
the world. Some are here. And then there’s Iranians in Iran who
don’t support the totalitarian state. So is the U.S. position to
leave things as they are or set up a peaceful long-term regime
change?”
“Well
our Iranian policy is under development,” Tillerson
replied.
“It’s
not yet been delivered to the president, but I would tell you that we
certainly recognize Iran’s continued destabilizing presence in the
region, their payment of foreign fighters, their export of militia
forces in Syria, in Iraq, in Yemen, their support for Hezbollah. And
we are taking action to respond to Iran’s hegemony. Additional
sanctions actions have been put in place against individuals and
others.”
Tillerson
also added:
“We
continually review the merits both from the standpoint of diplomatic
but also international consequences of designating the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard in its entirety as a terrorist organization. As
you know, we have designated the Quds [Force]. Our policy towards
Iran is to push back on this hegemony, contain their ability to
develop obviously nuclear weapons, and to work toward support of
those elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful
transition of that government. Those elements are there, certainly as
we know.”
Tillerson’s
reference to Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons above
directly contradicts a letter he
sent to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan in April of this year. The New
York Times explained:
“The
letter certified that Iran was complying with the
agreement,negotiated
by five world powers in addition to the United States and Iran. The
International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors the agreement with
on-site inspectors and advanced technology, reached
the same conclusion in
its most recent report.” [emphasis
added]
This
comes just over a week after Iran suffered an ISIS-inspired terror
attack of its own, after which American
lawmakers immediately proposed
sanctions against the Islamic Republic, further demonstrating that
the U.S. seeks to undermine Iran as much as possible. The sanctions
were approved by
the Senate on Thursday. Further, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.)
appeared to praise
the ISIS attack on
Iran, even suggesting the U.S. should support terrorists who commit
attacks against the Iranian state.
Unsurprisingly,
Iran was quick to respond to Tillerson’s aggressive statements. On
Thursday, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram
Qassemi called Tillerson’s
comments “interventionist,
in gross violation of the compelling rules of international law,
unacceptable and strongly condemned.”
“Since
the 1950s, the United States tried to meddle in Iranian affairs by
different strategies such as coup d’état, regime change, and
military intervention,” Qassemi
also stated.
These
efforts have all failed, Qassemi said, adding that
the new U.S. government is “confused”
and could be “easily
manipulated by wrong information.”
As Anti-Media has
previously explained, Iran is one of the most
heavily engaged entities fighting
ISIS (and has been extremely
effective in
doing so). Even if Iran were supporting Houthi rebels in Yemen (the
hard evidence for this claim to date has been woefully
lacking),
the Houthis are the sworn
enemy of
al-Qaeda and ISIS – two terror groups the U.S. is currently
fighting.
Clearly,
the U.S.’ infatuation
with Iran has
nothing to do with human rights concerns, and apparently, it must be
reiterated that regime change without any official direction from the
U.N. is completely
illegal.
Iran
just elected a reformist for the second time (with a higher
voter turnout than
the U.S. elections in 2016). This reformist, Hassan
Rouhani,
is more than capable of cutting deals with the U.S and its allies.
According
to Tillerson himself, as explained above, the 2015 nuclear deal with
Iran is clearly working effectively,
further reducing any concerns regarding Iran’s capacity to pose a
nuclear threat to anyone.
Why
seek to topple a government elected by its own people? For
“democracy” and “freedom?” Or because Iran sells its
oil in Yuan,
a direct attack on America’s control over the financial markets?
The
U.S. has previously interfered in Iran’s political structure. In
1953, the CIA overthrew Iran’s democratically
elected leader,
Mohammed Mossadegh, and replaced him with a brutal dictator, Shah
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. As explained by the Guardian,
this interference clearly had little to do with democracy-building or
human rights — and everything to do with oil:
“Britain,
and in particular Sir Anthony Eden, the foreign secretary, regarded
Mosaddeq as a serious threat to its strategic and economic interests
after the Iranian leader nationalised the British Anglo-Iranian Oil
Company, latterly known as BP. But the UK needed US support. The
Eisenhower administration in Washington was easily persuaded.”
As
far as we know, only one country has purposely used
nuclear weapons against
civilian populations and has continually used its stockpile of deadly
weapons to topple a
number of governments across
the globe without facing legal ramifications.
That
country is not Iran. As explained by
intellectual Noam Chomsky:
“Why
is Iran regarded here as the greatest threat to world peace? … They
[the intelligence community] say Iran has very low military spending,
even by the standards of the region, much lower than Saudi Arabia,
Israel, [and] others. Its strategy is defensive. They want to deter
attacks long enough for diplomacy to be entertained. The conclusion,
intelligence conclusion—this is a couple years ago—is: If they
are developing nuclear weapons, which we don’t know, but if they
are, it would be part of their deterrent strategy.”
“Now,
why is the United States and Israel even more so concerned about a
deterrent? Who’s concerned about a deterrent? Those who want to use
force. Those who want to be free to use force are deeply concerned
about a potential deterrent.”
Stan van Houcke bracht gisteren op zijn blog een artikel over Pechtold, beter gezegd over ‘de held’ die Pechtold vereert: massamoordenaar Churchill.
Churchill was een groot voorstander van de EU, al moet je daar wel bij opmerken, dat Churchill gezien zijn geschiedenis geen groot voorstander was van democratie. Dat past dan weer mooi bij de EU, waar de democratie ver te zoeken is en dat deelnemende landen als het zo uitkomt, volkomen uitperst en aan de ketting kan leggen, zie Griekenland……. Een dictatuur kan het niet ‘beter’ doen!
Zoals gezegd: Churchill was in feite een massamoordenaar, waar je zelfs WOII niet als bewijs voor nodig hebt……….
Van Houcke nam een artikel over van ‘Crimes of Britain‘, waarin een opsomming is opgenomen, over de enorme misdaden die Churchill beging.
Oordeel zelf over ‘de held’ van de neoliberale hufter Pechtold:
Alexander
Pechtold’s Inspiratiebron
Wat
inspireert Alexander Pechtold?
Op
de schouw in de werkkamer van Alexander Pechtold staan twee beeldjes
van Winston Churchill. Deze Britse politicus wist na de Tweede
Wereldoorlog één ding zeker: alleen met een verenigd Europa kon
vrede en veiligheid gewaarborgd worden.
Tegen
de tijdgeest in stond hij op voor meer Europese samenwerking, en met
die boodschap reisde hij het hele continent over. Hoe actueel! Hoe
inspirerend! Daarover vertelt Pechtold in Optimist in de politiek én
in deze video! #optimist
MIJN
HELD: Alexander Pechtold over Winston Churchill
D66-leider
Alexander Pechtold is fan van Winston Churchill. Hij roemt Churchill
– premier van Groot-Brittannië van 1940 tot 1945 – als belangrijkste
pleitbezorger van het Europese eenwordingsideaal.
England
celebrates their genocides. The ‘Winston Churchill note’ has
entered circulation. Honouring a man who swilled on champagne
while 4 million men, women and children in Bengal starved due to his
racist colonial policies.
The trial of Churchill:
Churchill
was a genocidal maniac. He is fawned over in Britain and held up as a
hero of the nation. He was voted ‘Greatest Briton’ of all time.
Below is the real history of Churchill, the history of a white
supremacist whose hatred for Indians led to four million
starving to death, the man who loathed Irish people so much he
conceived different ways to terrorise them, the racist thug who waged
war on black people across Africa and in Britain. This is the trial
of Winston Churchill, the enemy of all humanity.
THE
TRIAL OF WINSTON CHURCHILL:
Afghanistan:
Churchill
found his love for war during the time he spent in Afghanistan. While
there he said “all who resist will be killed without quarter”
because the Pashtuns need “recognise the superiority of race”. He
believed the Pashtuns needed to be dealt with, he would reminisce in
his writings about how he partook in the burning villages and peoples
homes:
“We
proceeded systematically, village by village, and we destroyed the
houses, filled up the wells, blew down the towers, cut down the great
shady trees, burned the crops and broke the reservoirs in punitive
devastation.” – Churchill on how the British carried on in
Afghanistan, and he was only too happy to be part of it.
Churchill
would also write of how “every tribesman caught was speared or cut
down at once”. Proud of the terror he helped inflict on the
people of Afghanistan Churchill was well on the road to becoming a
genocidal maniac.
Greece:
The
British Army under the guidance of Churchill perpetrated a massacre
on the streets of Athens in the month of December 1944. 28 protesters
were shot dead, a further 128 injured. The British demanded that all
guerrilla groups should disarm on the 2nd December 1944. The
following day 200,000 people took to the streets, and this is when
the British Army under Churchill’s orders turned their guns on the
people.
Churchill regarded
ELAS (Greek People’s Liberation Army) and EAM (National Liberation
Front) as “miserable banditti”, these were the very people who
ran the Nazis out. His actions in the month of December were purely
out of his hatred and paranoia for communism.
The
British backed the right-wing government in Greece returned from
exile after the very same partisans of the resistance that Churchill
ordered the murder of had driven out the Nazi occupiers. Soviet
forces were well received in Greece, this deeply worried Churchill.
He
planned to restore the monarchy in Greece to combat any possible
communist influence. The events in December were part of that
strategy.
In
1945, Churchill sent Charles Wickham to Athens where he was in charge
of training the Greek security police. Wickham learned his tricks of
the trade in British occupied Ireland between 1922-1945 where he was
a commander of the colonial RUC, responsible for countless terror.
In
April 1945 Churchill said “the [Nazi] collaborators in Greece in
many cases did the best they could to shelter the Greek population
from German oppression” and went on to say “the Communists are
the main foe”.
India:
“I’d
rather see them have a good civil war”. – Churchill
wishing partition on India
Very
few in Britain know about the genocide in Bengal let alone how
Churchill engineered it. Churchill’s hatred for Indians led to four
million starving to death during the Bengal ‘famine’ of 1943. “I
hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion” he
would say.
Bengal
had a better than normal harvest during the British enforced famine.
The British Army took millions of tons of rice from starving people
to ship to the Middle East – where it wasn’t even needed. When
the starving people of Bengal asked for food, Churchill said the
‘famine’ was their own fault “for breeding like rabbits”. The
Viceroy of India said “Churchill’s attitude towards India and the
famine is negligent, hostile and contemptuous”. Even right wing
imperialist Leo Amery who was the British Secretary of State in India
said he “didn’t see much difference between his [Churchill]
outlook and Hitler’s”. Churchill refused all of the offers to
send aid to Bengal, Canada offered 10,000 tons of rice, the U.S
100,000, he just point blank refused to allow it. Churchill was still
swilling champaign while he caused four million men, women and
children to starve to death in Bengal.
Throughout
WW2 India was forced to ‘lend’ Britain money. Churchill
moaned about “Indian money lenders” the whole time. The truth is
Churchill never waged war against fascism.
He
went to war with Germany to defend the British Empire, he said this
about India during WW2 “are we to incur hundreds of millions of
debt for defending India only to be kicked out by the Indians
afterwards”.
In
1945 Churchill said “the Hindus were race protected by their
mere pullulation from the doom that is due”. The Bengal famine
wasn’t enough for Churchill’s blood lust, he wished his
favourite war criminal Arthur Harris could have bombed them.
Iran:
“A
prize from fairyland beyond our wildest dreams” – Churchill on
Iran’s oil
When
Britain seized Iran’s oil industry Churchill proclaimed it was
“a prize from fairyland beyond our wildest dreams”. Churchill
meddled in Iranian affairs for decades, he helped exclude Iranians
from their natural resources and encouraged the looting when most
lived in severe poverty.
In
June 1914 Churchill proposed a bill in the House of Commons that
would see the British government become the major shareholder
of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The company would go on to refrain
from paying Iran its share of the dividends before paying tax to
the British exchequer. Essentially the British were illegally taxing
the Iranian government.
When
the nationalist government of Mohammad Mosaddegh threatened British
‘interests’ in Iran, Churchill was there, ready to protect them
at any cost. Even if that meant desecrating democracy. He helped
organise a coup against Mosaddegh in August 1953. He told
the CIA operations officer that helped carry out the plan “if i had
been but a few years younger, I would have loved nothing better than
to have served under your command in this great venture”.
Churchill arranged
for the BBC to send coded messages to let the Shah of Iran know that
they were overthrowing the democratically elected government. Instead
of the BBC ending their Persian language news broadcast with “it is
now midnight in London” they under Churchill’s orders said “it
is now exactly midnight”.
Churchill
went on to privately describe the coup as “the finest operation
since the end of the war [WW2]”. Being a proud product of
imperialism he had no issue ousting Mosaddegh so Britain could
get back to sapping the riches of Iran.
Iraq:
“I
am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against the uncivilized
tribes… it would spread a lively terror.” – Churchill on the
use of gas in the Middle East and India
Churchill
was appointed ‘Secretary of State for the Colonies’ in 1921 and
he formed the ‘Middle East Department’ which was responsible for
Iraq. Determined to have his beloved
empire
on the cheap he decided air power could replace ground troops. A
strategy of bombing any resistance to British rule was now employed.
Several
times in the 1920s various groups in the region now known as Iraq
rose up against the British. The air force was then put into action,
indiscriminately bombing civilian areas so to subdue the population.
Churchill
was also an advocate for the use of mustard and poison gases. Whilst
‘Secretary for War and Air’ he advised that “the provision of
some kind of asphyxiating bombs” should be used “for use in
preliminary operations against turbulent tribes” in order to take
control of Iraq.
When
Iraqi tribes stood up for themselves, under the direction of
Churchill the British unleashed terror on mud, stone and reed
villages.
Churchill’s
bombing of civilians in ‘Mesopotamia’ (Kurdistan and Iraq) was
summed up by war criminal ‘Bomber Harris’:
“The
Arab and Kurd now know what real bombing means within 45 minutes a
full-sized village can be practically wiped out, and a third of its
inhabitants killed or injured, by four or five machines which offer
them no real target, no opportunity for glory as warriors, no
effective means of escape”. – Arthur ‘Bomber’ Harris
Ireland:
“We
have always found the Irish a bit odd. They refuse to be English” –
Churchill
In
1904 Churchill said “I remain of the opinion that a separate
parliament for Ireland would be dangerous and impractical”.
Churchill’s ancestry is linked to loyalism to Britain, he is a
direct descendent of the ‘Marquis of Londonderry’ who helped put
down the 1798 United Irishmen rising. He would live up to his
families reputation when it came to suppressing revolutionary forces
in Ireland.
The
Black and Tans were the brainchild of Churchill, he sent the thugs to
Ireland to terrorise at will. Attacking civilians and civilian
property they done Churchill proud, rampaging across the country
carrying out reprisals. He went on to describe them as “gallant and
honourable officers”. It was also Churchill who conceived the
idea of forming the Auxiliaries who carried out the Croke Park
massacre, firing into the crowd at a Gaelic football match, killing
14. Of course this didn’t fulfill Churchill’s bloodlust to
repress as people who he described as “odd” for their refusal “to
be English”, he went on to advocate the use of air power in
Ireland against Sinn Fein members in 1920. He suggested to his
war advisers that aeroplanes should be dispatched with orders to use
“machine-gun fire or bombs” to “scatter and stampede them”.
Churchill
was an early advocate for the partitioning of Ireland. During the
treaty negotiations he insisted on retaining navy bases in Ireland.
In 1938 those bases were handed back to Ireland. However in 1939
Churchill proposed capturing Berehaven base by force. In 1941
Churchill supported a plan to introduce conscription in the North of
Ireland.
Churchill
went on to remark ”the bloody Irish, what have they ever done for
our wars”, reducing Ireland’s merit to what it might provide by
way of resources (people) for their imperialist land grabs.
Kenya:
Britain
declared a state of emergency in Kenya in 1952 to protect its system
of institutionalised racism that they established throughout their
colonies so to exploit the indigenous population. Churchill being
your archetypical British supremacist believed that Kenya’s
fertile highlands should be only for white colonial settlers. He
approved the forcible removal of the local population, which he
termed “blackamoors”.
150,000
men, women and children were forced into concentration camps.
Children’s schools were shut by the British who branded them
“training grounds for rebellion”. Rape, castration, cigarettes,
electric shocks and fire all used by the British to torture the
Kenyan people under Churchill’s watch.
In
1954 in a British cabinet meeting Churchill and his men discussed the
forced labour of Kenyan POWs and how to circumvent the constraints of
two treaties they were breaching:
“This
course [detention without trial and forced labour] had been
recommended despite the fact that it was thought to involve a
technical breach of the Forced Labour Convention of 1930 and the
Convention on Human Rights adopted by the Council of Europe”
The
Cowan Plan advocated the use of force and sometimes death against
Kenyan POWs who refused to work. Churchill schemed to allow this to
continue.
Caroline
Elkins book gives a glimpse into the extent that the crimes in Kenya
were known in both official and unofficial circles in Britain and how
Churchill brushed off the terror the colonial British forces
inflicted on the native population. He even ‘punished’ Edwina
Mountbatten for mentioning it, “Edwina Mountbatten was
conversing about the emergency with India’s prime minister,
Jawaharlal Nehru, and the then colonial secretary, Oliver Lyttleton.
When Lyttleton commented on the “terrible savagery” of Mau Mau…
Churchill retaliated, refusing to allow Lord Mountbatten to take his
wife with him on an official visit to Turkey”.
Palestine:
“I
do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the
manger.”
In
2012 Churchill was honoured with a statue in Jerusalem for his
assistance to Zionism.
He
regarded the Arab population Palestine to be a “lower
manifestation”. And that the “dog in a manger has the final right
to the manger”, by this he meant the Arabs of Palestine.
In
1920 Churchill declared “if, as may well happen, there should be
created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State
under the protection of the British Crown which might comprise three
or four millions of Jews, an event will have occurred in the history
of the world which would from every point of view be beneficial”.
A
year later in Jerusalem he told Palestinian leaders that “it
is manifestly right that the Jews, who are scattered all over the
world, should have a national centre and a National Home where some
of them may be reunited. And where else could that be but in this
land of Palestine, with which for more than 3,000 years they have
been intimately and profoundly associated?”.
At
the Palestine Royal Commission (Peel) of 1937, Churchill stated
that he believed in intention of the Balfour Declaration was to make
Palestine an “overwhelmingly Jewish state”.
He
went on to also express to the Peel Commission that he does “not
admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red
Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit
that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a
stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put
it that way, has come in and taken their place”.
Four
years later he wrote of his desire for a ‘Jewish state’to be
established after the second war world. The establishment of the
colonial settler state however was done on the watch of the British
Labour Party under Attlee, who were always there to back their Tory
counterparts when it came to British foreign policy.
Saudi
Arabia:
“My
admiration for him [Ibn Saud] was deep, because of his unfailing
loyalty to us.” – Churchill
Prior
to 1922 the British were paying Ibn Saud a subsidy of £60,000 a
year. Churchill, then Colonial Secretary, raised it to £100,000.
He
knew of the dangers of wahhabism, but was content to use the House of
Saud’s twisted ideology for benefit of British imperialism.
Just as the British had done a few years earlier when they teamed up
with Al-Saud and their wahhabism to wage an internal war in the
Ottoman Empire. He described Ibn Saud’s wahhabis as
“intolerant, well-armed and bloodthirsty’.
Of course, as long as they were on the side of the British, Winston
was happy.
Churchill
went on to write that his “admiration for him [Ibn Saud] was deep,
because of his unfailing loyalty to us”.
Churchill
meeting with Ibn Saud whom he showered with money and gifts. Britain
foisted Wahhabism on the region. He gifted Ibn Saud a special
Rolls-Royce in the mid 1940s.
South Africa:
Thousands
were sent to British run concentration camps during the Boer wars.
Churchill summed up his time in South Africa by saying “it was
great fun galloping about”.
Churchill
wrote that his only “irritation” during the Boer war was “that
Kaffirs should be allowed to fire on white men”.
It
was Churchill who planted the seed to strip voting rights from black
people in South Africa. In June 1906, Churchill argued that
Afrikaners should be allowed a self-rule which would mean black
people would be excluded from voting.
He
went on to state to Parliament that “we must be bound by the
interpretation which the other party places on it and it is undoubted
that the Boers would regard it as a breach of that treaty if the
franchise were in the first instance extended to any persons who are
not white”.
Other mentions:
‘BRITISH
GUIANA’:
Churchill
ordered the overthrowing of the democratically elected leader of
‘British Guiana’. He dispatched troops and warships and suspended
their constitution all to put a stop to the governments
nationalisation plan.
CHINA:
“I
think we shall have to take the Chinese in hand and regulate them”
– Churchill His hope from this was for “Ayran stock to triumph”…
ERICH
VON MANSTIEN:
Churchill
donated funds for this Nazi war criminals defence when he was on
trial after WW2.
IMMIGRATION
TO BRITAIN:
Churchill
suggested the motto “Keep England White” when debating the
adoption of new laws limiting immigration from the Caribbean.
MUSSOLINI:
Churchill
extolled Mussolini – “If I were Italian, I am sure I would have
been with you entirely from the beginning” and “what a man
[Mussolini] ! I have lost my heart!… Fascism has rendered a service
to the entire world”.
ON
HIS OWN PEOPLE:
Churchill
suggested “100,000 degenerate Britons should be forcibly
sterilised/others put in labour camps to halt decline of British
race”. He also went on to suggest that “for tramps and wastrels
there ought to be proper labour colonies where they could be sent”.
SUDAN:
Churchill
bragged that he personally shot at least three “savages” whilst
there.
ROBERT
EMMET (IRISH REPUBLICAN LEADER):
Churchill
plagiarised his famous “we shall fight on the beaches” from
Emmet’s speech from the dock.
RUSSIA:
He
urged the US to “wipe” out the Kremlin with an atomic bomb hoping
it would “handle the balance of Russia”.
WORLD
WAR 1:
“I
love this war. I know it’s smashing and shattering the lives of
thousands every moment”.
WORLD
WAR 2:
Churchill’s
cabinet during WW2 obsessed about British people viewing black GIs
favorably.
Overigens heeft Churchill in het gebied dat nu Irak wordt genoemd, begin 20er jaren van de vorige eeuw inderdaad een paar keer mosterdgas laten gebruiken tegen opstandige stammen…….
Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht aantreft, dit geldt niet voor de labels: A. Harris en RUC.
Gisteren ontving ik een video van Brasscheck TV, met dr. Michael Scheuer, ex-CIA agent. Hij stelt onder meer, dat de pro-Israël lobby in de VS, het land in oorlogen dwingt, om zo de vijanden van Israël te verzwakken. Het excuus dat de VS gebruikt, ‘democratie brengen’ klopt van geen kant aldus deze ex-CIA agent. Dit zou je nu toch als algemeen bekend moeten achten, al is de grootschalige terreur die de VS brengt, voor velen nog onbekend, dat is dan weer te danken aan de reguliere westerse afhankelijke media…… De VS brengt geen democratie maar gigantische chaos, aldus Scheuer….. Al Qaida heeft volgens hem nooit bestaan….
Scheuer stelt verder, dat de VS de afgelopen 20 jaar niet anders heeft gedaan dan tirannie steunen in Afrika en het Midden-Oosten (dat is overigens al veel langer, neem de steun aan de Taliban in de 80er jaren, of het omverwerpen in 1953 van het Perzische Mossadegh bewind, met steun van de VS en hulp van de CIA….)…..
Voorts vertelt Scheuer over de oorlogen die de VS voert/voerde terroristen tegen het westen kweekt.
Genoeg, oordeel zelf, hier de video (opvallend: als het interview op 9.44 min. staat, krijgt u de mouw van een VS uniform te zien, waarop een jing jang teken is te zien….), het interview duurt 11 minuten en is, helaas voor een aantal van u, niet ondertiteld:
Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terug kan vinden, dit geldt niet voor het label ‘Scheuer’.
BBC World Service nieuws van gisteren (radio 1.30 u.) meldde dat de VS de visumplicht gaat uitbreiden voor personen die na 2011 o.a. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syrië, Irak en…. Iran bezochten.
Alsof er na de omwenteling van het moorddadige sjah regime* ooit terreur werd uitgeoefend door Iran, anders dan door ‘studenten’, die VS ambassade personeel gijzelden in eigen land……. Het is wel duidelijk: het is voor de VS nog niet genoeg wat betreft de oorlogen in het Midden-Oosten, zoals in Syrië, Irak en Jemen (waar je eigenlijk Afghanistan ook bij op moet tellen), waar de VS een hoofdrol speelt, nu zelfs openlijk met inzet van de NAVO. Wat betreft de grote bloedbaden in Jemen, daar steunt de VS de schuldige, het moordenaars regime van Saoedi-Arabië…. Het zou me niets verbazen als de VS rekening houdt met een inval in Iran….. Hoe zit het met de vloot in de Perzische Golf, is die nog altijd op volle sterkte???
Di alles n.a.v. de ontwikkelingen in Syrië, waar Turkije, naast de welhaast openlijke steun voor IS en andere soennitische terreurgroepen, nu ook een hoofdrol speelt, na het neerschieten van een Russische jager in Syrisch luchtruim…… Maar ook het bombardement door de VS, van een Syrische militaire basis….. Of nogmaals Turkije, met de totaal illegale inval in Noord-Irak. Gezien deze zaken, zou het me niet verbazen, als ook Iran ‘op het lijstje staat’, waar men zogenaamd een verandering van regime wenst, lees: een VS marionet parachuteren als dictator…. Zodat na het land decennia in de tijd terug te hebben gebombardeerd, bedrijven uit de VS en andere westerse bedrijven, weer dikke opdrachten voor de wederopbouw kunnen binnenslepen en de olie en gasvoorraden voor het westen zijn veiliggesteld……
* Een staatsgreep in 1953 gepleegd tegen de democratisch gekozen premier Mossadegh en diens regering, deze staatsgreep werd georganiseerd en geregisseerd door de CIA (in Iran dat toen nog Perzië heette)…….. Overigens werd de staatsgreep die Khomeini in datzelfde land ‘leidde’ (1979), bevochten door de linkse moedjahedien, benieuwd wie het mogelijk heeft gemaakt dat hen de overwinning werd ontstolen, om het zacht te zeggen: ‘het zou me niet verbazen’, als dat de….. CIA was…….
Voor meer berichten over/met visumplicht, VS buitenlands beleid, CIA, Syrië, Irak, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Khomeini en/of oorlogshitsers, klik op het desbetreffende label, onder dit bericht.
Nederlands
English
Русский
Español
简体中文
Français
Deutsch
हिन्दी
Italiano
Português