Estland
‘heeft een vroegtijdig einde gemaakt’ aan één van de voordurende
militaire oefeningen van de NAVO langs de grens met Rusland…..
Een
Spaanse straaljager vuurde per ongeluk een raket af, gelukkig zonder,
althans zo lijkt het, een slachtoffer te hebben gemaakt, of een doel
te hebben geraakt……
Dit
voorval zet nog eens extra grote vraagtekens bij de voortdurende
militaire oefeningen van de NAVO langs de grens met Rusland…….
Als zo’n
raket ‘per ongeluk’ een Russische stad of militaire basis had
geraakt, waren de rapen gaar geweest en was de kans groot geweest dat
we verwikkeld waren geweest in een oorlog met Rusland, een oorlog die
vrijwel zeker tot een volledige wereldoorlog zou hebben geleid…….
Deze
NAVO oefeningen gaan terug tot 2004, lang voordat de relatie met
Rusland werd vernield door het westen….. Ofwel de NAVO agressie
tegen Rusland was al bezig voordat Georgië in 2008 tekeer ging in Zuid-Ossetië en voordat de
VS een opstand in Oekraïne organiseerde, met de opzet de
democratische gekozen president af te zetten, waardoor nu een uiterst corrupte neonazi-junta dit land ‘regeert’, een junta die werd geparachuteerd door de VS, met volledige instemming van de hypocriete EU……
Het
voorgaande betekent ook nog eens dat de EU NAVO lidstaten, inclusief
de Nederlandse regering, hebben gelogen toen ze hun bevolking
voorhielden dat de Baltische staten verdedigd moesten worden tegen
Rusland, dit n.a.v. de zogenaamde annexatie van De Krim en de leugens over het Russische leger dat in Oost-Oekraïne zou vechten……
De
agressie in het bewuste gebied (en andere gebieden langs de Russische
grens) komt maar van één kant: de NAVO (onder leiding van de VS) en haar voortdurende militaire oefeningen langs die grens!!
Stop de VS/NAVO agressie tegen Rusland, de NAVO is zelfs illegaal aanwezig in
Oost-Europa, gezien de afspraken die met Sovjet president Gorbatsjov
werden gemaakt in 1991…….
Nederland
zou zich terug moeten trekken uit de NAVO, de hoogste tijd voor de
ontmanteling van deze uiterst gewelddadige terreurorganisatie!!
Het
volgende Associated Press (AP) artikel dat gisteren werd gepubliceerd over dit ‘ongelukje’ werd
geschreven door Jari Tanner:
Estonia
halts NATO air drills after jet misfires missile
By
JARI TANNER
HELSINKI
(AP) — Estonia’s defense minister has ordered a halt to NATO air
exercises in Estonia pending an investigation after a missile was
accidentally fired over the Baltic country’s airspace by a Spanish
fighter jet on a military exercise this week.
The
air-to-air missile that was erroneously launched Tuesday over
southern Estonia has not been found, but no people were reported
injured or killed by the misfiring, Defense Minister Juri Luik said
Thursday.
“The
Spanish defense minister has apologized and expressed deep regret,”
Luik said at a news conference in the Estonian capital of Tallinn,
adding that the commander of the Spanish Armed Forces apologized as
well.
Estonian
Prime Minister Juri Ratas spoke with NATO Secretary-General Jens
Stoltenberg on Wednesday, expressing Estonia’s concern over the
“serious incident.”
The
AMRAAM-type missile has a range of up to 100 kilometers (62 miles.)
It may have crashed into a remote nature reserve in the eastern
Jogeva region, not far from Estonia’s border with Russia, or
triggered its built-in self-destruct mode and exploded in midair,
Luik said.
The
Eurofighter Typhoon jet belonging to the Spanish Air Force was part
of NATO’s Baltic air-policing mission based in Lithuania and was
carrying air-to-air missiles containing up to 10 kilograms (22
pounds) of explosives.
While
Luik urged Spain to conduct a thorough investigation, he also
launched an internal review of the safety regulations for arranging
military air exercises in the tiny NATO nation of 1.3 million.
Until
the completion of that review “I have suspended all NATO exercises
in the Estonian airspace,” he said.
Luik
reaffirmed Estonia’s trust in NATO’s Baltic air mission, which
started in 2004 as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania joined the military
alliance. The three former Soviet republics don’t possess fighter
jets of their own.
The
air policing is carried out from NATO’s bases in Siauliai,
Lithuania, and Amari, Estonia. French, Portuguese and Spanish fighter
jets are currently in charge of the rotating four-month mission.
In
Moscow, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said
Thursday the Estonian missile incident showed that NATO’s air
drills are security risks for the region.
“What
happened is yet another vivid demonstration of the fact that NATO’s
actions, including in the Baltic states, pose extra risks to security
rather than improving it,” Zakharova told reporters.
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.
Bellingcat
een jonge ‘journalisten’ club heeft zich uit en te na bemoeit met
rampvlucht MH17 en dit clubje werd zelfs door het officiële onderzoeksteam gebruikt om haar ‘bewijslast rond te krijgen….’ Het
laatste ondanks dat keer op keer blijkt dat Bellingcat vooral aan
‘copy en paste’ doet en in het geval van vlucht MH17 afging op
YouTube filmpjes en berichten op de sociale media over de ‘gebruikte
BUK-installatie’ (zo bleek o.a. dat de video’s over de verplaatsing
van deze installatie al van ver voor de aanslag op MH17 waren…)
Een
Russische diplomaat, Dmitri Poljanskij heeft n.a.v. een artikel in de
Washington Post (WaPo) een open brief geschreven en uitgehaald naar
dat ‘nieuwsmedium’, dit daar zijn uitspraken over vlucht MH17 werden
misbruikt door de WaPo…..
In
het artikel wordt gesteld dat ‘de waarheid aan de winnende hand is’,
als het gaat om ‘de strijd tegen Russische desinformatie’. De WaPo
stelt de uitspraken van Polanskij tegenover die van Bellingcat, nauw verbonden
aan The Atlantic Council, een rechtse lobbyclub verenigd in een
‘denktank’ van oorlogshitsers, dat wordt gesteund door één van de
grootste terreurorganisaties op onze kleine aarde, de NAVO…… Als
je Bellingcat durft aan te vallen op haar uitspraken, wordt je
onmiddellijk aangevallen in de media, hoewel men kan weten dat deze
club een verlengde is van de Atlantic Council en daarmee van de
NAVO……
Niet
voor niets ook dat de reguliere westerse (massa-) media de MH17
leugens ‘te vuur en zwaard verdedigen…’ Waarmee deze media een
complottheorie verdedigen, die aantoonbaar volkomen belachelijk
is……
Lees
in het volgende artikel dat op 9 for News werd geplaatst (gevonden op
het blog van Stan van Houcke) en waarin je kan lezen hoe Poljanskij
simpel gehakt
maakt van de beweringen door Bellingcat gemaakt, tevens geeft hij aan
dat het onderzoeksteam keer op keer de door de Russen aangeleverde
informatie heeft geweigerd……. Daartegenover staat het wel zeer
opmerkelijke gedrag van de VS dat nog steeds weigert satellietbeelden
af te staan die werden gemaakt op de dag waarop de MH17 werd
neergehaald…..
Over
dat laatste spreekt de onderzoekcommissie liever niet, wel stelt deze
commissie dat Rusland weigerde mee te werken en zelfs stelde dat
Rusland geen radarbeelden wilde afgeven, een leugen van formaat! Tel
dat nog eens op bij het feit dat de Porosjenko junta op de dag dat
MH17 werd neergehaald bevolen had alle radarinstallaties uit te
schakelen…… (dat gebeurt nooit voor onderhoud, men werkt deze
radarinstallaties één voor één af, zoals zelfs een imbeciel kan bedenken….) Tot slot is daar nog het
feit dat vlucht MH17 afweek van haar normale route en direct over
oorlogsgebied werd geleid (en dat zonder radarinstallaties!!)……..
Kortom
als je nog steeds denkt dat Rusland of de separatisten achter het
neerhalen van MH17 zitten, ben je uiterst fuctioneel gehersenspoeld
met leugens en valse emoties (en daar bedoel ik niet het leed mee dat
de nabestaanden is aangedaan met deze vreselijke
oorlogsmisdaad…)……
De
MH17 aanslag was niets anders dan een ‘false flag operatie’ (een specialiteit van de VS), waarbij
ook de VS betrokken moet zijn…. Vraag jezelf af wie er belang hadden bij deze operatie, daar vallen Rusland en de separatisten onmiddellijk af als verdachten.
Niet de waarheid is aan de winnende hand, maar de doorzichtige leugens zijn aan de winnende hand, dit door manipulaties van o.a.Nederland, met hulp van de hersenspoeling door de reguliere (massa-) media, die intussen niets meer van doen hebben met onafhankelijke journalistiek……
Homepagina» Buitenland» Diplomaat
maakt gehakt van beweringen Bellingcat over MH17. Deze open brief
schreef hij aan de Washington Post
Diplomaat
maakt gehakt van beweringen Bellingcat over MH17. Deze open brief
schreef hij aan de Washington Post
6
augustus 2018 17:00
De
Russische diplomaat Dmitri Poljanskij heeft in een
open brief fel
uitgehaald naar de Washington Post. Hij stelt dat de krant zijn
uitspraken in een
artikel over
vlucht MH17 in een zeer dubieuze context heeft geplaatst.
In
het artikel wordt gesteld dat de ‘waarheid aan de winnende hand is’
in de strijd tegen ‘Russische desinformatie’.
De
krant zet de diplomaat tegenover de social media-onderzoekers van
Bellingcat, die verbonden zijn aan de door de NAVO gesteunde Atlantic
Council.
Niet
gebruikt
Na
de crash van vlucht MH17 wezen Kiev en het Westen gelijk met de
beschuldigende vinger richting Rusland.
Oprichter
van Bellingcat Eliot Higgins claimde op basis van YouTube-filmpjes en
berichten op social media dat een Russische Buk-installatie in het
gebied aanwezig was op het moment van de crash.
#Misinformation ALERT: @washingtonpost publication on #MH17 tragedy does not meet standards of an unbiased journalist report. Its main message is to illustrate alleged “Russian efforts to undercut findings” of @bellingcat and “propaganda efforts of government” – @Dpol_un
Hoewel
Rusland veel informatie en materiaal heeft aangeleverd aan het
onderzoeksteam, is dit niet gebruikt voor het officiële onderzoek,
aldus Poljanskij.
Moskou
verstrekte zelfs geheime informatie over Buk-raketten, voegde hij
toe. Er werden ook ooggetuigenverslagen overgedragen.
Extreem
bizar
De
VS heeft tot nu toe geweigerd satellietbeelden aan te leveren omdat
die volgens de Amerikanen ‘geheim zijn’.
Hoewel
op de ruwe radarbeelden geen raket is te zien in de omgeving van het
toestel, claimden de Nederlandse onderzoekers dat de radar zo’n
klein object mogelijk niet heeft opgepikt.
Het
hoofd van de Russische luchtvaartautoriteit Rosaviatsia zei eerder al
dat de radar Buk-raketten met gemak oppikt.
“Het
gebruiken van social media-accounts als bewijs bij welk onderzoek dan
ook is extreem bizar en twijfelachtig,” schreef Poljanskij. “Des
te meer omdat deze onderzoekers niet onpartijdig zijn.”
Zielige
leugens
Hij
merkte op dat er veel social media-onderzoekers op internet actief
zijn die in tegenstelling tot Bellingcat beweren dat Oekraïne het
vliegtuig heeft neergehaald.
“Waarom
worden zij genegeerd?” vroeg hij zich af.
En
als je vraagtekens zet bij de conclusies van Bellingcat, wordt je
gelijk aangevallen, aldus de diplomaat.
“Ze
hebben geen argumenten behalve beledigingen en zielige leugens,”
klonk het.
“Wat
me nog het meest zorgen baart is dat de waarheid na vier jaar
onderzoek nog lang niet boven tafel is,” besloot hij.
Voor nog meer berichten over vlucht MH17, klik op dat label, of op het label vliegramp, direct onder dit bericht. Let wel: na een aantal berichten zie je het laatst gelezen bericht herhaald worden, dan even opnieuw op het betreffende label klikken onder het laatst gelezen bericht (dit kan zich nog eens herhalen, dan opnieuw op het bewuste label klikken….. enz. enz.). Uiteraard zal je een aantal berichten tegenkomen, waarvan je de link hierboven ziet, in totaal zijn er tot nu toe (15 augustus 2018) 93 berichten over, of gelinkt aan MH17 te vinden op dit blog.
Laatst bijgewerkt op 13 juli 2020, extra links toegevoegd.
Zoals
eerder o.a. op deze plek betoogd, concludeert ook Noam Chomsky dat de Israëlische bemoeienis met de VS verkiezingen veel verder gaat dan
wat men Rusland in de schoenen probeert te schuiven en dat laatste zonder maar één flinter aan
bewijs…..
Met
veel ophef sprak de Palestijnenslachter Netanyahu in 2015 het Congres
toe, zelfs zonder eerst te overleggen met de president, destijds ‘vredesduif’ Obama…… Dan zijn er nog de reguliere (massa-) media in de
VS, die fungeren als lobbyisten voor de fascistische apartheidsstaat Israël en knippen na elke klapscheet van een Israëlische politicus……
Chomsky
wijst op het zogenaamde democratische proces in de VS en stelt
volkomen terecht dat er geen sprake is van een functionerende democratie in de VS
(overigens geldt dit ook meer en meer voor landen in de EU, zelfs voor Nederland…), volgens Chomsky moeten we in de VS spreken van een
‘billionaire
corporatocracy’, niet het volk maar de 1 procent (van welgestelden, waar veel zionisten tussen zitten) en grote bedrijven worden door
de politiek in de VS bediend…… (oh ja en niet te vergeten de belangenbehartiging voor Israël en wat andere
‘fijne fascistische landen’ als Saoedi-Arabië ‘natuurlijk’)
Zelfs
als zou Rusland hebben geprobeerd de verkiezingen te manipuleren,
hebben ze dat op een manier gedaan die totaal geen zoden aan de dijk
zet, althans als je alleen al het bedrag aan reclames door ‘Rusland’
geplaatst op sociale media in ogenschouw neemt, kunnen die niet eens
in de schaduw staan van de bedragen die worden misbruikt voor deze
presidentsverkiezingen……
Voorts
is daar de zogenaamde manipulatie door hacks en door het lekken van
documenten van de democraten naar WikiLeaks, alweer geen flinter aan
bewijs. Bovendien komt deze claim uit de smerige koker van Clinton en
haar aanhangers, om zo de aandacht af te leiden van het smerige spel
waarmee zij tot presidentskandidaat van de democraten werd verkozen, een smerig
spel tegen de enige kandidaat die er toe deed, Bernie Sanders…… Ofwel: je speelt een smerig spel, waarvan de bewijzen op straat komen
te liggen, maar je doet verder geen onderzoek naar dat smerige spel……. Sterker nog: je beschuldigt de klokkenluider en stelt plompverloren dat deze buiten het democratisch comité te vinden moet zijn, vervolgens ga je op zoek naar die klokkenluider* en schuift Rusland de schuld in de schoenen, de aanzet tot het nieuwe ‘McCartyisme’ in de VS en een verdere aanjager voor de herintroductie van de Koude Oorlog..!!! (‘natuurlijk’ worden daarmee ook nog eens de belangen van het militair-industrieel complex gediend……)
Ongelofelijk!!
Lees
het volgende artikel met de zienswijze van Chomsky en oordeel zelf:
Noam
Chomsky: “Israeli Intervention in US Elections Overwhelms Anything
Russia Has Done”
(ZHE) — Well,
this is going to make the weekend’s political conversations a
little more awkward around America.
As
the mainstream media (and even the leftist politicians) begin to back
quietly away from the “collusion” narrative, they remain
increasingly focused on Russia’s “evil” efforts at “meddling”
in the US election and “interfering with our democracy,” or some
such hysterical phrase.
And
that is what makes the comments by mainstay of world-renowned
political dissident and liberal-thinking hero Noam Chomsky’s
comments in the following interview with Democracy Now so ‘awkward’
for the Trump-hating members of society.
(Let wel: dit is niet de video van Democracy Now, met o.a. Chomsky en gepresenteerd door Amy Goodman uit het originele artikel, klik daarvoor op deze link)
…so,
take, say, the huge issue of interference in our pristine
elections. Did
the Russians interfere in our elections? An
issue of overwhelming concern in the media. I mean, in most of the
world, that’s almost
a joke.
First
of all, if you’re interested in foreign interference in our
elections, whatever
the Russians may have done barely counts or weighs in the balance as
compared with what another state does, openly, brazenly and with
enormous support.
Israeli
intervention in U.S. elections vastly overwhelms anything the
Russians may have done…
I
mean, even to the point where the
prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu, goes directly to Congress,
without even informing the president, and speaks to Congress, with
overwhelming applause, to try to undermine the president’s policies
– what happened with Obama and Netanyahu in 2015….
Did
Putin come to give an address to the joint sessions of Congress
trying to – calling on them to reverse U.S. policy, without even
informing the president? And
that’s just a tiny bit of this overwhelming influence.
So
if you happen to be interested in influence of – foreign influence
on elections, there are places to look. But even that is a joke.
I
mean, one
of the most elementary principles of a functioning democracy is that
elected representatives should be responsive to those who elected
them. There’s nothing more elementary than that. But we know very
well that that is simply not the case in the United States.
There’s
ample literature in mainstream academic political science simply
comparing voters’ attitudes with the policies pursued by their
representatives, and it shows that for a large majority of the
population, they’re basically disenfranchised. Their own
representatives pay no attention to their voices. They
listen to the voices of the famous 1 percent – the rich and the
powerful, the corporate sector.
The
elections—Tom Ferguson’s stellar work has demonstrated, very
conclusively, that for a long period, way back, U.S. elections have
been pretty much bought. You can predict the outcome of a
presidential or congressional election with remarkable precision by
simply looking at campaign spending. That’s only one part of it.
Lobbyists
practically write legislation in congressional offices.In
massive ways, the concentrated private capital, corporate sector,
super wealth, intervene in our elections, massively, overwhelmingly,
to the extent that the most elementary principles of democracy are
undermined. Now,
of course, all that is technically legal, but that tells you
something about the way the society functions.
So, if
you’re concerned with our elections and how they operate and how
they relate to what would happen in a democratic society, taking a
look at Russian hacking is absolutely the wrong place to look. Well,
you see occasionally some attention to these matters in the media,
but very minor as compared with the extremely
marginal question of Russian hacking.
And
I think we find this on issue after issue, also on issues on which
what Trump says, for whatever reason, is not unreasonable. So, he’s
perfectly right when he says we should have better relations with
Russia.
Being
dragged through the mud for that is outlandish, makes – Russia
shouldn’t refuse to deal with the United States because the
U.S. carried out the worst crime of the century in the invasion of
Iraq, much worse than anything Russia has done.
But
they shouldn’t refuse to deal with us for that reason, and we
shouldn’t refuse to deal with them for whatever infractions they
may have carried out, which certainly exist. This is just absurd. We
have to move towards better – right
at the Russian border, there are very extreme tensions, that could
blow up anytime and lead to what would in fact be a terminal nuclear
war, terminal for the species and life on Earth. We’re
very close to that.
Now,
we could ask why. First of all, we should do things to ameliorate it.
Secondly, we should ask why. Well, it’s because NATO expanded
after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in violation
of verbal promises to Mikhail Gorbachev, mostly under Clinton, partly
under first Bush, then Clinton expanded right to the Russian border,
expanded further under Obama.
The
U.S. has offered to bring Ukraine into NATO. That’s the kind
of a heartland of Russian geostrategic concerns.
So,
yes, there’s
tensions at the Russian border – and not, notice, at the Mexican
border. Well,
those are all issues that should be of primary concern.
The
fate of – the
fate of organized human society, even of the survival of the species,
depends on this. How
much attention is given to these things as compared with, you know,
whether Trump lied about something? I think those seem to me the
fundamental criticisms of the media.
So
to sum up – Trump’s
right about better relations with Russia – the fate of the world
depends on it, Russia did nothing of note, Russian hacking is
extremely marginal, Israel is the real meddler, US democracy no
longer exists, the billionaire corporatocracy runs America.
Is
Noam Chomsky a “puppet of Putin”? Did the veteran political
dissident just become a “useful
idiot”?
Well he must be an anti-semite, right? We look forward to Adam
Schiff’s response to this crushing blow to the left’s
‘russia-russia-russia’ narrative.
* Onder andere Seth Rich, een ontevreden DNC medewerker, lekte documenten naar WikiLeaks, daar hij pissig was over deze gang van zaken. Deze Rich werd, oh wonder, kort daarna vermoord op straat, volgens de politie een roofoverval, terwijl er niets van waarde werd gestolen en waardevolle spullen had Rich tijdens die ‘roofoverval’ voldoende ‘op zak…’
Professor
Stephen Cohen prikt in een interview dat Aaron Mate afnam, fijntjes door de
Putin – Trump hysterie heen, de hysterie die in de VS ontstond na het gesprek dat
Putin en Trump voerden in de Finse hoofdstad Helsinki. Men raakt er
in de VS weer niet over uitgesproken, al heeft dat alles met de reguliere, over het algemeen rechtse neoliberale pers in de VS te maken,
uiteraard aangevuld met de democratische en republikeinse politici
die openlijk lobbyen voor het militair-industrieel complex……….
Vanaf
het eind van de Sovjet-Unie tot de ontmoeting van Trump en Putin, zet
Cohen duidelijk uiteen hoe we zijn voorgelogen, bijvoorbeeld over ‘de
oorlog van Rusland tegen Georgië’, via Oekraïne, De Krim tot
Syrië…..
Voorts
moet ik Cohen gelijk geven als hij stelt dat we nu blij mogen zijn met
Trump als president, daar hij niet meegaat in de oorlogshitserij die
zoveel VS politici in hun greep houdt. Zoals op deze plek al eerder gesteld,
wat is erop tegen dat men met elkaar spreekt en probeert oorlog te
voorkomen??? Oké Trump is een beest, maar liever een beest dat niet aanvalt dan bijvoorbeeld Obama die 2 volledige termijnen in illegale oorlogsvoering was verwikkeld, zelfs 2 illegale oorlogen extra begon en veel meer bommen liet afwerpen dan Bush in 2 termijnen…….
Cohen stelt voorts terecht dat het onder eerdere
presidenten de normaalste zaak van de wereld was om te spreken met
de Russische collega’s, terwijl dat nu als verraad wordt
neergezet, alleen om Trump af te kunnen zetten en ongebreideld oorlog te kunnen voeren, zoals de VS gewend is te doen…….
Cohen gaat ook in op de beschuldiging dat Putin journalisten laat vermoorden, terwijl daar geen bewijs voor wordt geleverd, sterker nog: Cohen stelt dat deze moorden alles te maken hebben met de georganiseerde misdaad in Rusland……
Lezen mensen en geeft het door, de hoogste tijd dat we met z’n allen weer ons gezonde verstand gebruiken en ons niet langer laten voorliegen en gek laten maken door de reguliere media en het grootste deel van de politici in ons land!
Video:
Debunking the Putin Panic With Professor Stephen Cohen
(RN) — President
Trump’s warm words for Vladimir Putin and his failure to endorse
U.S. intelligence community claims about alleged Russian meddling
have been called “treasonous” and the cause of a “national
security crisis.” There
is a crisis, says Prof. Stephen F. Cohen, but one of our own making…
Part
1:
AARON
MATE: It’s
The Real News. I’m Aaron Mate.
The
White House is walking back another statement from President Trump
about Russia and U.S. intelligence. It began in Helsinki on Monday,
when at his press conference with Vladimir Putin, Trump did not
endorse the claim that Russia meddled in the 2016 election. After an
outcry that played out mostly on cable news, Trump appeared to
retract that view one day later. But then on Wednesday, Trump was
asked if he believes Russia is now targeting the U.S. ahead of the
midterms.
DONALD
TRUMP: [Thank]
you all very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you.
REPORTER: Is
Russia still targeting the U.S. [inaudible]. No, you don’t believe
that to be the case?
DONALD
TRUMP: Thank
you very much, everyone. We’re doing very well. We are doing very
well, and we’re doing very well, probably as well as anybody has
ever done with Russia. And there’s been no president ever as tough
as I have been on Russia. All you have to do is look at the numbers,
look at what we’ve done, look at sanctions, look at ambassadors.
Not there. Look, unfortunately, at what happened in Syria recently. I
think President Putin knows that better than anybody. Certainly a lot
better than the media.
AARON
MATE: The
White House later claimed that when Trump said ‘no,’ he meant no
to answering questions. But Trump’s contradiction of U.S.
intelligence claims has brought the Russiagate story, one that has
engulfed his presidency, to a fever pitch. Prominent U.S. figures
have called Trump’s comments in Helsinki treasonous, and compared
alleged Russian e-mail hacking and social media activity to 9/11 and
Pearl Harbor. Those who also question intelligence claims or
warmongering with Russia have been dubbed traitors, or Kremlin
agents.
Speaking
to MSNBC, the former U.S. ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul
declared that with Trump’s comments, the U.S. is in the midst of a
national security crisis.
MICHAEL
MCFAUL: Republicans
need to step up. They need to speak out, not just the familiar
voices, because this is a national security crisis, and the president
of the United States flew all the way to Finland, met with Vladimir
Putin, and basically capitulated. It felt like appeasement.
AARON
MATE: Well,
joining me to address this so-called national security crisis is
Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus at New York University and
Princeton University. His books include “Failed Crusade: America
and the Tragedy of Post-Soviet Russia,” and “Soviet Fates and
Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War.” Professor
Cohen, welcome. I imagine that you might agree with the view that we
are in the midst of a national security crisis when it comes to
Russia, but for far different reasons than those expounded on by
Ambassador McFaul.
STEPHEN
COHEN: There is a national security crisis, and there is a
Russian threat. And we, we ourselves here in the United States, have
created both of them. This has been true for years, and now it’s
reached crisis proportion. Notice what’s going on. A mainstream TV
reporter shouts to President Trump, “Are the Russians still
targeting our elections?” This is in the category “Are you still
beating your wife?” There is no proof that the Russians have
targeted or attacked our elections. But it’s become axiomatic. What
kind of media is that, are the Russians still, still attacking our
elections.
And
what Michael McFaul, whom I’ve known for years, formerly Ambassador
McFaul, purportedly a scholar and sometimes a scholar said, it is
simply the kind of thing, to be as kind as I can, that I heard from
the John Birch Society about President Eisenhower when he went to
meet Khrushchev when I was a kid growing up in Kentucky. This is
fringe discourse that never came anywhere near the mainstream before,
at least after Joseph McCarthy, that the president went, committed
treason, and betrayed the country. Trump
may have not done the right thing at the summit, because agreements
were reached. Nobody discusses the agreements. But to stage a
kangaroo trial of the president of the United States in the
mainstream media, and have plenty of once-dignified people come on
and deliver the indictment, is without precedent in this country.
And it has created a national crisis in our relations with Russia. So
yes, there’s a national crisis.
AARON
MATE: Let
me play for you a clip from Trump’s news conference with Putin that
also drew outrage back in the U.S. When he was asked about the state
of U.S.-Russia relations, he said both sides had responsibility.
DONALD
TRUMP: Yes,
I do. I hold both countries responsible. I think that the United
States has been foolish. I think we’ve all been foolish. We should
have had this dialogue a long time ago. A long time, frankly, before
I got to office. And I think we’re all to blame. I think that the
United States now has stepped forward, along with Russia, and we’re
getting together, and we have a chance to do some great things.
Whether it’s nuclear proliferation, in terms of stopping, because
we have to do it. Ultimately that’s probably the most important
thing that we can be working on.
AARON
MATE: That’s
President Trump in Helsinki. Professor Cohen, I imagine that this
comment probably was part of the reason why there was so much
outrage, not Just of what Trump said about the claims of Russian
meddling in the election. Can you talk about the significance of what
he said here, and how it contradicts the, the entire consensus of the
bipartisan foreign policy establishment?
STEPHEN
COHEN: I
did not vote for President Trump. But for that I salute him, what he
just said. So far as I can remember, no wiser words or more important
words have been spoken by the American president about Russia and the
Soviet Union since Ronald Reagan did his great detente with Mikhail
Gorbachev in the late 1980s. What
Trump just did, and I don’t- we never know, Aaron, how aware he is
of the ramifications of what he says. But in this case, whether he
fully understood it or not, he just broke with, and the first time
any major political figure in the United States has broken with the
orthodoxy, ever since at least 2000. And
even going back to the ’90s. That all the conflicts we’ve had
with post-Soviet Russia, after communism went away in Russia, all
those conflicts, which I call a new and more dangerous Cold War, are
solely, completely, the fault of Putin or Putin’s Russia.That
nothing in American policy since Bill Clinton in the 1990s did
anything to contribute seriously to the very dangerous conflict,
confrontation we have with Russia today. It was all Russia’s fault.
What
that has meant, and you know this, Aaron, because you live in this
world as well,it
has meant no media or public dialogue about the merits of American
policy toward post-Soviet Russia from Clinton, certainly through
Obama. It
may be changing now under President Trump. Not sure. It means if we
don’t have a debate, we’re not permitted to ask, did we do
something wrong, or so unwise that it led to this even more dangerous
Cold War? And
if the debate leads to a conclusion that we did do something unwise,
and that we’re still doing it, then arises the pressure and the
imperative for any new policy toward Russia. None of that has been
permitted, because the orthodoxy, the dogma, the axiom, is Putin
alone has solely been responsible.
So
you know, you know as well as I do what is excluded. It doesn’t
matter that we moved NATO to Russia’s borders, that’s not
significant. Or that we bombed Serbia, Russia’s traditional ally.
Or that George Bush left the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, which was
the bedrock of Russian nuclear security and, I would argue, our own.
Or that we did regime change by military might in Iraq and Libya, and
many other things. Or that we provoked the Ukrainian crisis in 2004,
and supported the coup that overthrew a legitimate, elected,
constitutional president there. None of that matters. Oh, it was kind
of footnotes to the real narrative. And the narrative is, is that a
Russian leader Vladimir Putin in power was a horrible aggressor.
Killed everybody, somehow, with secret poisons or thieves in the
night who opposed him. And began this new cold or even worse war with
the United States.
No
historian of any merit will ever write the story that way. It’s
factually, analytically, simply untrue. Now Trump has said something
radically different. We got here in these dire circumstances because
both sides acted unwisely, and we should have had this discussion a
long time ago.
So for that, two cheers for President Trump. But whether he can
inspire the discussion that he may wish to, considering the fact that
he’s now being indicted as a criminal for having met Putin, is a
big question.
AARON
MATE: So
a few questions. You mentioned that some agreements were made, but
details on that have been vague. So do you have any sense of what
concretely came out of this summit? There was talk about cooperation
on nuclear weapons, possibly renewing the New START Treaty. We know
that Putin offered that to Trump when he first came into office, but
Trump rejected it. There was talk about cooperating in Syria. And,
well, yeah, if I can put that question to you first, and then I have
a follow-up about what might be motivating Trump here. But first,
what do you think concretely came out of this?
STEPHEN
COHEN: Well,
look, I know a lot, both as a historian, and I’ve actually
participated in some about the history of American-Russian,
previously Soviet, summits. Which, by the way, this is the 75th
anniversary of the very first one, when Franklin Roosevelt traveled
to Tehran to meet Stalin. And
every president, and this is important to emphasize, every president
since
Roosevelt
has met with the Kremlin leader. Some many times, or several times.
So there’s a long tradition. And therefore there are customs. And
one custom, this goes to your question, is that never, except maybe
very rarely, but almost never do we learn the full extent and nature
of what agreements were made. That
usually comes in a week or two or three later, because there’s
still the teams of both are hammering out the details.
So
that’s exactly what happened at this summit. There was no
conspiracy. No, you know, appeasement behind closed doors. The two
leaders announced in general terms what they agreed upon. Now,
the most important, and this is traditional, too, by meeting they
intended to revive the diplomatic process between the United States
and Russia which has been badly tattered by events including the
exclusion of diplomats, and sanctions, and the rest. So to get
active, vigorous diplomacy about many issues going. They
may not achieve that goal, because the American media and the
political mainstream is trying to stop that. Remember that anything
approaching diplomatic negotiations with Russia still less detente,
is now being criminalized in the United States. Criminalized. What
was once an honorable tradition, the pursuit of detente, is now a
capital crime, if we believe these charges against Trump.
So
they tried to revive that process, and we’ll see if it’s going to
be possible. I think at least behind the scenes it will be. Obviously
what you mentioned, both sides now have new, more elusive, more
lethal, faster, more precise nuclear weapons. We’ve been developing
them for a long time in conjunction with missile defense. We’ve
essentially been saying to Russia, you may have equality in nuclear
weapons with us, but we have missile defense. Therefore, we could use
missile defense to take out your retaliatory capacity. That is, we
could stage the first strike on you and you would not be able to
retaliate.
Now,
everybody who’s lived through the nuclear era knows that’s an
invitation to disaster. Because like it or not, we’ve lived with a
doctrine called MAD, Mutual Assured Destruction, that one side dare
not attack the other with a nuclear weapon because it would be
destroyed as well. We were saying we now have this primacy. Putin,
then, on March 1 of this year, announced that they have developed
weapons that can elude missile defense. And it seems to be true. In
the air and at sea, their dodgy, darty, quick thing- but they could
avoid our missile defense. So where we are at now is on the cusp of a
new nuclear arms race involving more dangerous nuclear weapons. And
the current START, New START Treaty will expire, I think, in three or
four years. But its expiration date is less important that the
process of talking and negotiating and worrying officially about
these new weapons had ended.
So
essentially what Trump and Putin agreed is that process of concern
about new and more dangerous nuclear weapons must now resume
immediately. And if there’s anybody living in the United States who
think that that is a bad idea they need to reconsider their life,
because they may be looking into the darkness of death. So
that was excellent. Briefly.
What
I hope they did- they didn’t announce it, but I’m pretty sure
they did- that there had been very close calls between American and
Russian combat forces and their proxies in Syria. We’re doing a
proxy war, but there are plenty of native Russians and Americans in
Syria in a relatively small combat cell. And there have been
casualties. The Russians have said at the highest level the next time
a Russian is killed in Syria by an American-based weapon, we will
strike the American launcher. If Russia strikes our launching pads or
areas, whether on land or sea, which means Americans will be there
and are killed, call it war. Call it war.
So
we need to agree in Syria to do more than, what do they call it,
deconfliction, where we have all these warnings. It’s
still too much space for mishap. And what I hope it think Trump and
Putin did was to try to get a grip on this.
AARON
MATE: Stephen
F. Cohen, professor emeritus at at Princeton University and New York
University, thank you. And stay tuned for part two. I’m Aaron Mate
for The Real News.
*
* *
There
is much to criticize the Russian president for, says Professor
Stephen F. Cohen of Princeton and NYU, but
many US political and media claims about Putin are false – and
reckless…
Part
2:
AARON
MATE: It’s
The Real News. I’m Aaron Mate. This is part two with Stephen Cohen,
professor emeritus of Russian studies at New York University and
Princeton. In part one we talked about the uproar over the
Trump-Putin summit, and Trump’s comments about the U.S.
intelligence community and about cooperation with Russia. Now
in part two we’re going to get to some of the main talking points
that have been pervasive throughout corporate media, talking about
the stated reasons for why pundits and politicians say they are
opposed to Trump sitting down with Putin.
So
let me start with Jon Meacham. He is a historian. And speaking to
CNN, he worried that Trump, with his comments about NATO calling on
the alliance to pay more, and calling into question, he worried about
the possibility that Trump won’t come to the aid of Baltic states
in the event that Russia invades.
JON
MEACHAM: And
what worries me most is the known unknown, as Donald Rumsfeld might
put it, of what happens next. Let’s say Putin- just look at this
whole week of the last five, six days in total. What happens if Putin
launches military action against, say, the Baltics? What, what is it
that President Trump, what about his comments that NATO suggest thar
he would follow an invocation of Article 5 and actually project
American force in defense of the values that not only do we have an
intellectual and moral assent to, but a contractual one, a treaty
one. I think that’s the great question going forward.
AARON
MATE: OK.
So that’s Jon Meacham speaking to CNN. So, Professor Cohen, putting
aside what he said there about our intellectual values and strong
tradition, just on the issue of Trump, of Putin posing a potential
threat and possibly invading the Baltics, is that a realistic
possibility?
STEPHEN
COHEN: So,
I’m not sure what you’re asking me about. The folly of NATO
expansion? The fact that every president in my memory has asked the
Europeans to pay more? But can we be real? Can we be real? The only
country that’s attacked that region of Europe militarily since the
end of the Soviet Union was the United States of America. As I
recall, we bombed Serbia, a, I say this so people understand, a
traditional Christian country, under Bill Clinton, bombed Serbia for
about 80 days. There is no evidence that Russia has ever bombed a
European country.
You
tell me, Aaron. You must be a smart guy, because you got your own
television show. Why
would Putin want to launch a military attack and occupy the Baltics?
So he has to pay the pensions there? Which he’s having a hard time
already paying in Russia, and therefore has had to raise the pension
age, and thereby lost 10 percentage points of popularity in two
weeks? Why
in the world can we, can we simply become rational people. Why in the
world would Russia want to attack and occupy Latvia, Lithuania, and
Estonia? The only reason I can think of is that many, many of my
friends love to take their summer vacations there. And maybe some
crazy person thinks that if we occupy it, vacations will be cheaper.
It’s crazy. It’s beyond crazy. It’s a kind-.
AARON
MATE: Professor
Cohen, if you were on CNN right now I imagine that the anchor would
say to you, well, okay, but one could say the same thing about
Georgia in 2008. Why did Russia attack Georgia then?
STEPHEN
COHEN: I’m not aware that Russia attacked Georgia. The
European Commission, if you’re talking about the 2008 war, the
European Commission, investigating what happened, found that Georgia,
which was backed by the United States, fighting with an
American-built army under the control of the, shall we say, slightly
unpredictable Georgian president then, Saakashvili, that
he began the war by firing on Russian enclaves. And the Kremlin,
which by the way was not occupied by Putin, but by Michael McFaul and
Obama’s best friend and reset partner then-president Dmitry
Medvedev, did what any Kremlin leader, what any leader in any country
would have had to do: it reacted. It sent troops across the border
through the tunnel, and drove the Georgian forces out of what
essentially were kind of Russian protectorate areas of Georgia.
So
that- Russia didn’t begin that war. And
it didn’t begin the one in Ukraine, either. We did that by
[continents], the overthrow of the Ukrainian president in [20]14
after President Obama told Putin that he would not permit that to
happen. And I think it happened within 36 hours. The
Russians, like them or not, feel that they have been lied to and
betrayed. They use this word, predatl’stvo, betrayal, about
American policy toward Russia ever since 1991, when
it wasn’t just President George Bush, all the documents have been
published by the National Security Archive in Washington, all the
leaders of the main Western powers promised the Soviet Union that
under Gorbachev, if Gorbachev would allow a reunited Germany to be
NATO, NATO would not, in the famous expression, move two inches to
the east.
Now
NATO is sitting on Russia’s borders from the Baltic to Ukraine. So
Russians aren’t fools, and they’re good-hearted, but they become
resentful. They’re worried about being attacked by the United
States. In fact, you read and hear in the Russian media daily, we are
under attack by the United States. And
this is a lot more real and meaningful than this crap that is being
put out that Russia somehow attacked us in 2016. I must have been
sleeping. I didn’t see Pearl Harbor or 9/11 and 2016. This is
reckless, dangerous, warmongering talk. It needs to stop. Russia has
a better case for saying they’ve been attacked by us since 1991. We
put our military alliance on the front door. Maybe it’s not an
attack, but it looks like one, feels like one. Could be one.
AARON
MATE: OK.
And in a moment I want to speak to you more about Ukraine, because
we’ve heard Crimea invoked a lot in the criticism of Putin of late.
But first I want to actually to ask you about a domestic issue. This
one is it’s widely held that Putin is responsible for the killing
of journalists and opposition activists who oppose him. And on this
front I want to play for you a clip of Joe Cirincione. He is the head
of the Ploughshares Fund. And this is what he said this week in an
appearance on Democracy Now!.
JOE
CIRINCIONE: Both
of these men are dangerous. Both of these men oppress basic human
rights, basic freedoms. Both of them think the press are the enemy of
the people. Putin goes further. He kills journalists. He has them
assassinated on the streets of Moscow.
Donald
Trump does not go that far yet. But I think what Putin is doing is
using the president of the United States to project his rule, to
increase his power, to carry out his agenda in Syria, with Europe, et
cetera, and that Trump is acquiescing to that for reasons that are
not yet clear.
AARON
MATE: That’s
Joe Cirincione.
STEPHEN
COHEN: I
know him well. It’s worse than that. It’s worse than that.
AARON
MATE: Well
Yes. There’s two issues here, Professor Cohen. One is the state of
the crackdown on press freedoms in Russia, which I’m sure you would
say is very much alive, and is a strong part of the Russian system.
But let’s first address this widely-held view that Putin is
responsible for killing journalists who are critical of him.
STEPHEN
COHEN: I
know I’m supposed to follow your lead, but I think you’re
skipping over a major point. How
is it that Joe, who was once one of our most eminent and influential,
eloquent opponents of nuclear arms race, who was prepared to have the
president of the United States negotiate with every Soviet communist
leader, including those who had a lot of blood on their hands, now
decide that Putin kills everybody and he’s not a worthy partner?
What happened to Joe?
I’ll
tell you what happened to him. Trump. Trump has driven once-sensible
people completely crazy. Moreover, Joe knows absolutely nothing about
internal Russian politics, and
he ought to follow my rule. When I don’t know something about
something, I say I don’t know. But what he just said is ludicrous.
And the sad part is-.
AARON
MATE: But
it’s widely held. If it’s ludicrous-. But widely held, yeah.
STEPHEN
COHEN: Well,
the point is that once
distinguished and important spokespeople for rightful causes, like
ending a nuclear arms race, have been degraded, or degraded
themselves by saying things like he said to the point that they’re
of utility today only to the proponents of a new nuclear arms race.
And he’s not alone. Somebody called it Trump derangement
syndrome. I’m
not a psychiatrist, but it’s a widespread mania across our land.
And when good people succumb to it, we are all endangered.
AARON
MATE: But
many people would be surprised to hear that, because again, the
stories that we get, and there are human rights reports, and it’s
just sort of taken as a given fact that Putin is responsible for
killing journalists. So if that’s ludicrous, if you can explain why
you think that is.
STEPHEN
COHEN: Well, I
got this big problem which seems to afflict very few people in public
life anymore. I live by facts. I’m
like my doctor, who told me not long ago I had to have minor surgery
for a problem I didn’t even know I had. And I said, I’m not going
to do it. Show me the facts. And he did. I had the minor
surgery. Journalists
no longer seem to care about facts. They repeat tabloid rumors. Putin
kills everybody.
All
I can tell you is this. I
have never seen any evidence whatsoever, and I’ve been- I knew some
of the people who were killed. Anna
Politkovskaya, the famous journalist for Novaya Gazeta was the first,
I think, who was- Putin was accused of killing. I knew her well. She
was right here, in this apartment. Look behind me, right here. She
was here with my wife, Katrina vanden Huevel. I wouldn’t say we
were close friends, but we were associates in Moscow, and we were
social friends. And
I mourn her assassination today. But I will tell you this, that
neither her editors at that newspaper, nor her family, her surviving
sons, think Putin had anything to do with the killing. No
evidence has ever been presented. Only media kangaroo courts that
Putin was involved in these high-profile assassinations, two of the
most famous being this guy Litvinenko by polonium in London, about
the time Anna was killed, and more recently Boris Netsov, whom, it’s
always said, was walking within view of the Kremlin when he was shot.
Well, you could see the Kremlin from miles away. I don’t know what
within the view- unless they think Putin was, you know, watching it
through binoculars. There is no evidence that Putin ever ordered the
killing of anybody outside his capacity as commander in chief. No
evidence.
Now,
did he? But we live, Aaron, and I hope the folks who watch us
remember this. Every professional person, every decent person lives
or malpractices based on verified facts. You go down the wrong way on
a one-way street, you might get killed. You take some medication
that’s not prescribed for you, you might die. You pursue foreign
policies based on fiction, you’re likely to get in war. And
all these journalists, from the New York Times to the Washington
Post, from MSNBC to CNN who churn out daily these allegations that
Putin kills people are disgracing themselves. I
will give you one fact. Wait. One fact, and you could look it up, as
Casey Stengel used to say. He was a baseball manager, in case you
don’t know.
There’s
an organization called the Committee to Protect American Journalists.
It’s kind of iconic. It does good things, it says unwise things. Go
on its website and look at the number of Russian journalists killed
since 1991, since the end of the Soviet Union, under two leaders.
Boris Yeltsin, whom we dearly loved and still mourn, and Putin, whom
we hate.Last
time I looked, the numbers may have changed, more were killed under
Yeltsin than under Putin. Did Putin kill those in the 1990s?
So
you should ask me, why did they die, then? And
I can tell you the main reason. Corrupt business. Mafia-like business
in Russia. Just like happened in the United States during our
primitive accumulation days. Profit
seekers killed rivals. Killed them dead in the streets. Killed them
as demonstrations, as demonstrative acts. The only thing you could
say about Putin is that he might have created an atmosphere that
abets that sort of thing. To which I would say, maybe, but originally
it was created with the oligarchical class under Boris Yeltsin, who
remains for us the most beloved Russian leader in history. So that’s
the long and the short of it. Go look at the listing on the Committee
to Protect Journalists.
AARON
MATE: OK.
So, following up on that, to what extent- and this gets a bit into
history, which you’ve covered extensively in your writings. To what
extent are we here in the West responsible for the creation of that
Russian oligarchal class that you mentioned? But also, what is
Putin’s relationship to it now, today? Does he abet it? Is he
entrenched in it? We hear, often, talk of Putin possibly being the
richest person in the world as a result of his entanglement with the
very corruption of Russia you’re speaking about. So both our role
in creating that problem in Russia, but then also Putin’s role now
in terms of his relationship to it.
STEPHEN
COHEN: I’m
going to give you a quick, truncated, scholarly, historical
perspective on this. But this is what people should begin with when
they think about Vladimir Putin and his 18 years in power. Putin came
to power almost accidentally in 2000. He inherited a country whose
state had collapsed twice in the 20th century. You’ve got to think
about that. How
many states have collapsed that you know of once? But the Russian
state, Russian statehood, had collapsed once in 1917 during the
revolution, and again in 1991 when the Soviet Union ended. The
country was in ruination; 75 percent of the people were in poverty.
Putin
said- and this obsesses him. If you want to know what obsesses Putin,
it’s the word ‘sovereignty.’ Russia lost its sovereignty-
political, foreign policy, security, financial- in the 1990s. Putin
saw his mission, as I read him, and I try to read him as a
biographer. He says a lot, to regain Russia’s sovereignty, which
meant to make the country whole again at home, to rescue its people,
and to protect its defenses. That’s been his mission. Has it been
more than that? Maybe. But everything he’s done, as I see it, has
followed that concept of his role in history. And he’s done pretty
well.
Now,
I can give you all Putin’s minuses very easily. I would not care
for him to be my president. But let me tell you one other thing
that’s important. You evaluate nations within their own history,
not within ours. If
you asked me if Putin is a democrat, and I will answer you two ways.
He thinks he has. And compared to what? Compared to the leader of
Egypt? Yeah, he is a democrat. Compared to the rulers of our pals in
the Gulf states, he is a democrat. Compared to Bill Clinton? No, he’s
not a Democrat. I mean, Russia-. Countries are on their own
historical clock. And you have to judge Putin in terms of his
predecessors. So people think Putin is a horrible leader. Did you
prefer Brezhnev? Did you prefer Stalin? Did you prefer Andropov?
Compared to what? Please tell me, compared to what.
And
by the way, that’s how that’s how Russians-. You want to know why
he’s so popular in Russia? Because Russians judge him in the
context of their own what they call zhivaya istoriya, living history;
what we call autobiography. In
terms of their own lives, he looks pretty darn good. They complain
out him. We sit in the kitchen and they bitch about Putin all the
time. But they don’t want him to go away.
AARON
MATE: All
right. Well, on that front, we’re going to wrap this up there.
Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies at New York
University and Princeton. His books include “Failed Crusade:
America and the Tragedy of Post-Soviet Russia,” and “Soviet Fates
and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War.”
Professor Cohen, thank you.
STEPHEN
COHEN: You
forgot one book.
AARON
MATE: I
did not say I was reading your, your complete bibliography.
STEPHEN
COHEN: It’s
called-. It’s called “Confessions of a Holy Fool.”
AARON
MATE: Is
that true? Or are you making a joke.
STEPHEN
COHEN: Somewhere
in between. [Thank you, Aaron.]
AARON
MATE: Professor
Cohen, thank you. And thank you for joining us on The Real News.
Het
Wereldvoedselprogramma van de VN (WFP) heeft een waarschuwing doen
uitgaan dat de illegale oorlog die de Saoedische coalitie, o.l.v.
NAVO-lid VS voert in Jemen, ertoe heeft geleid dat 8 miljoen mensen
zeer dringend voedsel nodig hebben om te kunnen overleven en dat
rond de 22 miljoen Jemenieten op korte termijn humanitaire hulp als
een dak boven het hoofd en/of medische hulp behoeven (een aantal van
de eerder genoemde 8 miljoen, bevindt zich in de groep van 22 miljoen
die daarna werd genoemd)……..
WFP
woordvoerder Frances Kennedy stelt verder (ten overvloede) dat de
infrastructuur van Jemen voor het grootste deel in puin ligt, ‘door
de strijd in het land’ (ofwel door de illegale oorlog die de
Saoedische coalitie voert tegen de sjiitische bevolking van
Jemen*)……
Hieronder
het bewuste artikel met de woorden van Kennedy, een artikel dat op Middle East Monitor (MEMO) werd geplaatst. Van het
verhaal klopt niet veel, behalve dan het feit van de uitzonderlijke noodsituatie
in Jemen, een situatie die al veel langer aanwezig is dan Kennedy doet vermoeden…. Zo wordt er niets over het begin van de
strijd gezegd (al was die strijd nooit ver weg in dit voormalige
protectoraat van de Britten, waar het westen de grenzen als op zoveel
plaatsen in het Midden-Oosten totaal belachelijk met meetlatten heeft getrokken en waar aartsvijanden bij elkaar in één land kwamen te
wonen…..)
Voorts niets
over de terreur van IS en Al Qaida tegen de sjiitische bevolking van Jemen,
sterker nog als je het relaas leest zou je denken dat de Houthi’s met die agressie zijn begonnen, de Houthi’s die godzijdank een goed functionerende strijdmacht hebben**.
Het is trouwens een dapper staaltje vechtkunst van de Houthi’s, het
zo lang uithouden tegen de moderne legermacht van SA en de Verenigde
Arabische Emiraten (VAE), met hun straaljagers, bommenwerpers, helikopters en raketten, terwijl ze zelf niet over een luchtmacht
beschikken……… Sterker nog: deze dictatoriale terreurstaten, die illegaal in Jemen strijden, worden ook nog eens op meerdere manieren gesteund door de VS, de sterkste legermacht op aarde (tevens de grootste terreurentiteit op aarde) en door Groot-Brittannië (waar de VS en G-B ook nog eens NAVO partners en beiden atoommacht zijn….)……
Volgens
Kennedy escaleerde de strijd in 2015 toen de Houthi’s steeds meer
gebied veroverden, echter de strijd was voor de Houthi’s toen al lang
bezig en inderdaad ze bestreden de genoemde terreurgroepen met
succes, overigens gesteund door een fiks deel van de Jemenitische
legermacht, die zich bij de Houthi’s aansloot…….
Ja
Kennedy, de infrastructuur ligt grotendeels in puin en dat is
voornamelijk aan de illegale bombardementen van Saoedi-Arabië te
danken, die willens en wetens deze infrastructuur bombardeerden,
waarbij ook ziekenhuizen, scholen, elektriciteitscentrales en
waterzuiveringsinstallaties, inclusief watervoorzieningen als doel
dienden…… (allen enorme oorlogsmisdaden….) Nog maar een fikse maand geleden bombardeerde dit
geteisem een net geopend ziekenhuis van Artsen Zonder Grenzen (MSF) voor het enorme aantal cholera slachtoffers, gelukkig waren er nog geen patiënten of personeel in
het ziekenhuis…..
Die
cholera en later difterie uitbraak is één op één te danken aan de
Saoedische coalitie…… Ook dat wordt niet door Kennedy
genoemd…..
Het
ergst van al is wel dat Kennedy het woord genocide niet in de mond
neemt, want daar is wel degelijk sprake van in Jemen, een genocide
tegen het sjiitische deel van de bevolking……..
Volgens
de VN, waarvan zoals je kon lezen WFP onderdeel uitmaakt, is het aantal dodelijke burgerslachtoffers meer dan 15.000 (ofwel vermoorden….), dit als gevolg van de Saoedische oorlog tegen het grootste deel van de Jemenitische bevolking (sjiieten), terwijl het
werkelijke aantal volgens deskundigen veel hoger ligt, zelfs meer dan het
dubbele, dus meer dan 30.000 vermoorde Jemenieten (waaronder veel kinderen)…….
De VN en het Internationaal Strafhof zouden eindelijk de VS, Saoedi-Arabië, de VAE en Groot-Brittannië
aan de paal moeten nagelen voor het uitvoeren van een genocide….. G-B levert Saoedi-Arabië munitie, wapens en militaire hardware, dus rollend,
varend en vliegend oorlogstuig en traint ook nog eens Saoedische
militairen….. De VS tankt het vliegend oorlogstuig van de Saoedische
coalitie in de lucht bij, voor een ‘zo goed mogelijk resultaat’ (zoals gisteren het bombarderen van een ziekenhuis***),
voorts heeft het clusterbommen en andere munitie geleverd aan S-A,
dit nog naast wapens en militaire hardware (hetzelfde soort moordtuig
dat G-B levert). Ook coördineert de VS de bombardementen en helpt deze
vereniging van terreurstaten op zee mee aan een blokkade, zodat er
maar mondjesmaat hulpgoederen het land binnenkomen…. Vandaar dat het
ook zo’n schande is, dat deze moorddadige coalitie de enige havenstad
van de Houthi’s, Hodeida bestookt en wil innemen…..
Kennedy
is veel te laat met haar waarschuwing en komt met veel te weinig feiten, waarom noemt ze bijvoorbeeld de rol van de VS en
Groot-Brittannië niet?? Ach ja in dienst van de VN en die wil hun
gastheer de VS niet tegen de haren instrijken…… (hoogste tijd dat
het hoofdkantoor van de VN wordt verplaats naar buiten de VS!) Waar
nogmaals niet vergeten moet worden dat de werkelijke agressors in
eerste instantie IS en Al Qaida zijn (met hoofdverantwoordelijke Al-Hadi, voor de aanwezigheid van deze terreurgroepen in Jemen, Al-Hadi de zogenaamd huidige president)…. Waar later de broodheren van
deze 2 terreurgroepen, S-A, de VS en de VAE zich illegaal in deze strijd mengden, daar de door hen gesteunde terreurgroepen dreigden te worden vernietigd door de
Houthi’s………
En
Kennedy? Die moet zich de ogen uit het hoofd schamen!!
22
Million People in Yemen Urgently Need Humanitarian Aid
(nog een schreeuw om hulp voor het volk van Jemen:)
(MEMO) — The
World Food Program has warned that the war has left eight million
Yemenis in dire need of food assistance to survive, Al
Jazeera reported
WFP Communications Officer, Frances Kennedy, said that around 22
million Yemenis need humanitarian aid, be it shelter or
health-related support.
She
added that the country’s infrastructure has been greatly damaged in
several areas due to the ongoing battles.
Kennedy
noted that the humanitarian situation in Yemen necessitates putting
pressure on political actors in order to end the conflict.
The
conflict in Yemen escalated in 2015 when Saudi Arabia and its
Sunni-Arab allies launched a massive air campaign aimed at rolling
back Houthi gains. The group had taken control of the capital, Sanaa,
and large swathes of the country forcing the internationally backed
government into exile.
Three
years on, more than 15,000 Yemenis have been killed, according to the
UN, and millions continue to suffer in what it has declared as the
worst humanitarian crisis in the world.
* Deze oorlog is illegaal en gezocht door de reli-fascistische dictatuur van S-A. De eerder zelf
opgestapte president Al-Hadi werd door S-A onder druk gezet
zijn presidentschap weer op te pakken, zodat hij S-A te hulp kon
vragen en dit land de strijd tegen de sjiitische bevolking van Jemen
kon starten……… Men loog daarbij dat er Iraanse militairen mee
zouden vechten aan de kant van de Houthi’s tegen destijds de
terreurgroepen IS en Al Qaida die van al-Hadi hun ‘tenten mochten
opslaan’ op Jemenitische bodem, waarna ze vrijwel onmiddellijk
slachtingen onder de sjiitische bevolking begonnen aan te richten……….. Nog
steeds beweert men, zonder ook maar een flinter aan bewijs, dat Iran
meevecht in Jemen en daar wapens en raketten levert (nogmaals: zonder
ook maar iets dat op een bewijs lijkt…..)……
** De Houthi’s die met succes deze terreurgroepen hebben bestreden, i.t.t. de VS dat in Syrië meer dan 1,5 jaar lang zogenaamd IS bombardeerde, maar daar niets mee bereikte, pas nadat de Russen Syrië hielpen in de strijd tegen IS en andere terreurgroepen (‘gematigde rebellen’), begon de VS met haar strijd tegen tegen IS en dat nog in zeer beperkte mate, wat dan weer met de wil van de VS te maken had, Assad te wippen als president. De oorzaak van de oorlog in Jemen, is de opstand die de VS, met hulp van Saoedi-Arabië, Turkije, Groot-Brittannië opzette in dit land, een opstand waartoe de eerste aanzet door de VS in 2006 werd gedaan (volgens officiële VS documenten, o.a. op WikiLeaks te vinden)…….
Voor meer berichten over de genocide in Jemen, klik op de bewuste labels, direct onder dit bericht, klik op MSF (Artsen Zonder Grenzen) voor het bericht over het ‘cholera ziekenhuis’ dat werd vernietigd door de Saoedische terreurcoalitie.
Dankzij
de steun van Israël en de VS kan IS nog steeds terreur uitoefenen in
een paar delen van Syrië. Zo bracht ANTIWAR afgelopen woensdag een
artikel van Jason Ditz waar deze wijst op een IS aanval op de
zuidelijke Syrische stad Swaida , ook wel As-Suwayda genoemd (Engels:
Sweida ) en een paar dorpen in de buurt van die stad……..
Jammer
dat Ditz weer op de proppen komt met het Syrische Observatorium voor
Mensenrechten (SOHR), dit ‘observatorium’ wordt geleid en tot voor
kort bemand door een gewezen Syrische misdadiger, die gevangenisstraf
ontliep door te vluchten en zich als politiek vluchteling voor te
doen. Deze ploert heeft uitstekende contacten met de verschillende
terreurgroepen in Syrië en gaat dan ook voortdurend tekeer tegen
Assad, waar de leugens dat Assad zijn volk zou vergassen, vooral uit
zijn smerige koker komen……… Ook berichten van terreurorganisatie White Helmets (hulp in terreur voor terreurgroepen als Al Qaida) worden regelmatig geciteerd door SOHR, berichten die berusten op leugens…..
Terug
naar de aanval van IS: deze aanslagen waren en zijn alleen mogelijk
door de bescherming van dit geteisem door Israël en de VS……. De
VS, direct verantwoordelijk voor het ontstaan van IS en zelfs de
organisator van deze moordenaarsbende, vindt het prima dat IS de
reguliere Syrische troepen en hun steun uit o.a. Iran aanvalt…….. Het feit dat daarbij de burgers van steden en dorpen worden vermoord die achter hun democratisch gekozen
president zijn blijven staan, een kniesoor die daarover valt (hadden ze maar tegen hun regering moeten zijn, ‘ja toch..??’)…..
Hetzelfde
geldt in feite voor Israël, nauw betrokken bij de geboorte van IS en
hun steun en toeverlaat in de illegaal door Israël bezette
Golanhoogten…….. Op de Golanhoogten lapt Israël de gewonde strijders op, zo dat ze door kunnen gaan met hun terreur tegen de bevolking en de strijd tegen het reguliere Syrische leger…… Het is zelfs zo zot, dat Israël op aanvraag van
IS de Syrische troepen bestookt als deze een te groot gevaar vormen
voor IS stellingen…….
Hoorde
deze week dat er intussen al meer dan een half miljoen Syriërs zijn
omgekomen bij de oorlog in het land, een oorlog die het gevolg is van
VS bemoeienis….. Al in 2006 was men in de VS bezig met
voorbereidingen tot het organiseren van een opstand in Syrië, een
opstand die als in Oekraïne moest leiden tot een staatsgreep……
Daarvoor transporteerden o.a. de VS en Saoedi-Arabië een groot aantal
jihadstrijders uit Libië naar Syrië…….. Libië, een land dat ‘vakkundig’ door de VS en de
NAVO (in feite een terreurorganisatie onder leiding van de VS)naar god is geholpen……. Libië, eens het trotse rijkste land van Afrika,
waar het de burgers aan bijna niets ontbrak (studenten, mannelijk en
vrouwelijk, mochten zelfs op kosten van de staat in het buitenland
studeren, waar hen ook nog eens leefgeld en geld voor huisvesting
werd gegeven…..) Kom daar maar ‘s voor in Nederland…..*
Kortom
de VS, Israël en Saoedi-Arabië (hechte bondgenoten) zijn
verantwoordelijk voor de moord op meer dan een half miljoen
Syriërs….. Een half miljoen moorden, deels onder de verantwoording
van de VS die alleen deze eeuw, met 4 door haar begonnen illegale oorlogen, al ruim meer dan 2 miljoen moorden op
haar naam heeft staan…….
ISIS
Attacks Kill at Least 215 in Southern Syrian City
ISIS
forces attacked the Syrian city of Sweida on Wednesday, with large
numbers of gunmen and suicide attackers hitting multiple sites across
the city, causing massive casualties. This
is one of the biggest ISIS attacks in months.
The local health
authority put the toll at 215
killed. The
Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said they believed 180 people
were killed. A number of nearby villages were also reportedly
attacked by ISIS at the same time.
Sweida is a
Druze-majority city near the Jordan border, and is seen as a
pro-government city. This is almost certainly why ISIS chose to
target them, as opposed to other cities in the south, which up until
recently had been rebel controlled.
ISIS forces control
only a few towns in the south of Syria, along the frontier with the
Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. Syrian and Russian planes have been
bombing the ISIS-held territory intensively in recent days. More
airstrikes against ISIS-held towns were reported after this attack.
* Vanmorgen werd er bekend gemaakt, dat er (zoals te verwachten was) een fikse daling is van gehandicapte jongeren en jongeren uit kansarme gezinnen die gaan studeren, dit als gevolg van het smerige asociale leenstelsel….. Later meer daarover.
Schoot me een paar dagen geleden ineens door m’n hoofd: waarom is er nog steeds geen strafrechtelijk onderzoek ingesteld naar één de grootste oorlogsmisdaden van deze eeuw: de illegale oorlog van de VS tegen Irak in 2003…..??
Me dunkt meer dan 1,5 miljoen vermoorde Irakezen (inclusief veel kinderen*) moet voldoende zijn voor een vervolging van alle partijen die deel uitmaakten van de VS coalitie, waaronder voor en na het begin van die oorlog ook Nederland met respectievelijk een inlichtingen en militaire missie…… Dit nog naast politieke steun voor deze illegale oorlog van CDA plorken Balkenende en de Hoop Scheffer (die laatste werd daarvoor zelfs beloond met de koperen fluit van de NAVO, de oorlogshond van de VS…..) En ja, ook jij en ik hebben via de belasting meebetaald aan de enorme massamoord, waar deze oorlog in uitmondde…….
Geen gelul als partijen moeten lid zijn van het ICC, de politie laat immers ook geen daders van misdrijven lopen als ze geen Nederlander zijn…??
* De sancties van de VS tegen Irak, in de 90er jaren onder het ministerschap van hare gitzwarte kwaadaardigheid Madeleine Albright uit de Clinton regering, heeft naar schatting aan een half miljoen kinderen het leven gekost…… (ofwel die kinderen werden vermoord door de VS) Oorlogsmisdadiger Albright had later het gore lef te zeggen, dat de dood van 500.000 kinderen het doel meer dan waard was……. Ook deze sancties van de VS tegen het Iraakse volk zijn al meer dan een strafrechtelijk onderzoek van het ICC waard…..
Laten we hopen dat een dergelijke strafrechtelijk onderzoek niet te lang op zich laat wachten, zodat de verantwoordelijken kunnen worden gestraft! (verantwoordelijken, inclusief de Hoop Scheffer en Balkenende)
In een interview afgelopen dinsdagavond
heeft Trump gewaarschuwd voor het feit dat de NAVO WOIII zou kunnen
beginnen……. ha! ha! ha! ha! Trump is wakker geworden, maar weet
niet hoe z’n ogen te openen, immers zoals hijzelf NB keer op keer
heeft laten weten met z’n kritiek op de te geringe bijdragen aan defensie uh oorlogsvoering van de andere lidstaten, is de VS de
feitelijke baas van de NAVO……
De VS is bezig of kan zelfs al klaar
zijn met het inrichten van bases voor het volplempen met tanks en
ander oorlogstuig in West- en Oost-Europa (ook in ons Limburg…), ofwel de VS is al lang bezig met de voorbereiding op een oorlog met Rusland, een oorlog die WOIII zal inluiden… Verder heeft de VS een ‘raketschild’
geplaatst in Roemenië en Polen, beiden NAVO lidstaten, een schild dat in
een oogwenk kan worden omgetoverd in raketbases met kernraketten,
uitgerust met meerdere kernkoppen…..* (het ‘schild’ was zogenaamd bedoeld om kernraketten uit Iran tegen te houden, terwijl het overduidelijk is dat de VS Rusland
zo dicht mogelijk op haar grondgebied wil kunnen aanvallen met
kernraketten, in de hoop dat Rusland de tijd ontbreekt om een
tegenaanval in te zetten…)…..
Trump heeft overigens wel gelijk met
zijn uitlating, voor hem lullig genoeg is juist de VS, als baas van de NAVO, verreweg het
grootste gevaar voor de wereldvrede, zoals deze vereniging van terreurstaten deze eeuw al 4 illegale oorlogen is begonnen (waarbij al fiks mer dan 2 miljoen burgers zijn vermoord….), een Derde
Wereldoorlog zal dan ook door de VS worden gestart, een oorlog waaraan de NAVO lidstaten zich niet zullen kunnen onttrekken…. Nogmaals: juist de VS en niet een kleine staat als Montenegro, vormt (al decennia) het grootste gevaar voor de wereld (Trump noemde Montenegro in
dit interview als voorbeeld, terwijl juist de VS de grote
promotor was voor het toetreden van Montenegro tot de NAVO…)…
Kortom als WOIII in al haar hevigheid zal uitbarsten is het op zeker dat de VS de knop daartoe heeft ingedrukt……
Trump
stelde dat een staat als Montenegro de NAVO statuten kan misbruiken (artikel 5,
simpel gezegd: een aanval op 1 NAVO staat is een aanval op alle NAVO
landen >> het 3 musketiers credo…) als
het een appeltje schilt met een naburig land…. Terwijl Turkije dit
al jaren doet, Nederland plaatste met ons belastinggeld zelfs Patriot
raketten in Turkije ter bescherming tegen ‘aanvallen uit Syrië’, terwijl ook destijds
Turkije keer op keer haar grenzen heeft overschreden om illegaal oorlog te
voeren in Syrië en Irak……. Ach ja, Trump is dan ook een imbeciele
psychopaat!
This
is of course true, and not just of Montenegro, but literally any of
NATO’s member nations.
While
Trump’s terming of Montenegrins as “very aggressive people”didn’t
sit well with many, the potential for one smaller NATO member nation
to provoke a war is not some new concern, but a frequent criticism of
the NATO model for decades.
NATO
officials were quick to criticize Trump, saying that NATO’s Article
5 provision for collective defense is “unconditional
and iron-clad.”
This only adds to concerns among NATO nations that Trump’s
commitment to the alliance is by their standards imperfect.
NATO
officials were already unhappy with Trump going into last week’s
summit, and more so coming out of it. The latest comments are a
reminder that the threat of World War 3 remains a serious concern for
the US president, and one not easily dispelled.
Montenegrin
officials were quick to fire back that they don’t intend to start
any wars. Again, this misses the serious concerns of the alliance’s
obligations, as NATO has no shortage of members liable to pick fights
and then come running to the alliance for “defense.”
It’s
not even just the current members of NATO. The Senate Foreign
Relations Committee has voted to express its support for “all”
nations to join NATO if they want to. This means effectively any
nation in the world with an axe to grind might join NATO with an eye
toward using the alliance as its backup.
Trump
is right in recognizing the dangers of NATO collective defense,
something previous presidents have been loathe to publicly discuss.
Yet in doing so he’s once again riled up angered foreign officials
who didn’t like him in the first place.
* Het is vrijwel zeker dat de raketten van dit schild al meteen zijn uitgerust met kernkoppen, zodat er al helemaal geen sprake meer is van een raketschild, zoals de westerse reguliere media en politiek, ook in ons land ons keer op keer voorliegen……..
Vorige week donderdag stelde senator Ron Paul dat men even moet nadenken voor de
NAVO lidstaten, inclusief de VS, Trumps dictaten uitvoeren. Dictaten
als wat de NAVO lidstaten te doen staat en wat de NAVO moet zijn in de (nabije) toekomst, dit n.a.v. de NAVO-top die vorige week plaatsvond.
In een artikel op USA Today wijst Paul op de belangen van Rusland en probeert dit te doen door erop te
wijzen dat men e.e.a. door een Russische bril moet bekijken, ofwel te
denken aan het Russisch perspectief aangaande de NAVO acties, zoals de ongebreidelde expansie van de NAVO richting Moskou…….. Een
uitbreiding die bovendien ook nog eens volkomen in tegenspraak is met
de afspraak die de VS maakte met Sovjet president Gorbatsjov in
1991…… Paul stelt geheel terecht (al is het een cliché van hier
tot Timboektoe) dat actie reactie uitlokt……
Paul stelde verder dat men in de VS eerdere jaren een robuust en bedachtzaam debat
voerde over diplomatie, dit om oorlogen te vermijden…….. ha! ha! ha!
ha! ha! ha! ha! Ik vrees dat Paul een alien is en ‘niet helemaal
begrijpt’ waarvoor de VS staat en dat al vanaf de oprichting van deze
vereniging van terreurstaten en dat is…. oorlogvoeren!! Als dit
gestolen land ook maar de idee heeft dat haar belangen worden
geschaad (of die van haar grote bedrijven, multinationals en
olie-industrie) start het de zoveelste illegale oorlog, wel of niet voorafgegaan door een economische oorlog, het organiseren van een opstand die tot een staatsgreep moet leiden, of botweg zo’n staatsgreep uitvoeren….. Waar ik nog geheime militaire operaties van de VS in een groot aantal landen vergeet te vermelden, acties georganiseerd en geregisseerd door de CIA…….
De
agressieve acties van de VS (en die van de NAVO dat in feite wordt
geleid door de VS) leiden niet tot meer veiligheid in de VS, zoals de politiek en de reguliere media in de VS keer op keer hardop liegen….. Integendeel, veel van de acties brengen de VS juist in gevaar (denk
bijvoorbeeld aan een kernoorlog, die niemand kan winnen en toch denkt
men er hard over na er één te beginnen, sterker nog: ‘vredesduif’ Obama, Hillary Clinton, Trump en de Britse
premier May hebben gezegd, niet uit te sluiten om als eerste kernwapens in
te zetten (tijdens een op handen zijnd ‘conflict’)……..
We
should be aware of Russia’s perspective
Rand
Paul
Published 12:36 p.m. UTC
Jul 12, 2018
Sen. Rand Paul
MICHAEL REYNOLDS/EPA-EFE
Whether or not to expand
NATO is a question that deserves debate. Would it help or hurt U.S.
national security?
Does adding countries
such as Albania and Montenegro increase our security or ensnare us in
possible regional disputes? Are we willing to risk war with Russia by
including countries that already are mired in military conflict with
Russia?
To understand what NATO
expansion does to our relations with Russia, one must at least be
aware of Russia’s perspective. Such awareness does not mean we
agree with their point of view, but rather that we are aware our
actions lead to reactions, and that NATO expansion does not occur in
a vacuum.
We once had robust and
thoughtful debate in our country over diplomacy and our desire to
avoid war. Both parties now tend to shake their fists and declare to
our adversaries: “Take this sanction.” “Take this expansion of
NATO.” “Take this travel restriction” — under the misguided
notion our unilateral actions will lead to capitulation.
Instead, we’ve often
seen rising tensions, increased nationalism and a ratcheting up of a
Cold War-like fever.
There was a time when
many cautioned against reckless expansion.
OUR
VIEW: Donald
Trump’s tirades weaken NATO and please Vladimir Putin
Perhaps the most famous
diplomat of the last century, George Kennan, wrote that NATO
expansion would be a “fateful error” that would “inflame the
nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian
opinion” and “restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West
relations.”
Similarly, Daniel L.
Davis, retired lieutenant colonel with Defense Priorities, said,
“Extending NATO membership to Georgia — or Ukraine, as others
advocate — in no way strengthens U.S. security, but rather
unequivocally increases America’s strategic risk.”
I prefer we think of our
interests first, and that the U.S. Senate return to being a
deliberative body on foreign policy, where ideas are considered, and
dissent is heard and debated.
Sen.
Rand Paul, R-Ky., serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
He was one of two senators who opposed Tuesday’s nonbinding motion
to support and expand NATO.
government” – 
