De grootste terreurentiteit op aarde, de VS, vermoordt op grote schaal verdachten, maar vooral omstanders die niet eens verdacht zijn…… Zonder enige vorm van proces worden verdachten standrechtelijk geëxecuteerd, het is werkelijk ongelofelijk dat de VS hiermee wegkomt, zonder dat er zelfs maar opgeroepen wordt sancties in te stellen tegen deze vereniging van terreurstaten……..
Zoals gezegd, het merendeel van de slachtoffers zijn omstanders die niet als verdacht zijn aangemerkt, let wel: het gaat hier om meer dan 90% van de slachtoffers, die met deze drone-aanvallen worden vermoord!!
Anti-Media bracht afgelopen woensdag het bericht dat bij een drone-aanval in Jemen twee kinderen werden vermoord…. Het vreemde in dit geval is het feit, dat de twee jongens die net buiten het dorp Yakla werden vermoord, terwijl er geen spoor van verdachten in de buurt te vinden was……..
Voorts werden afgelopen week een aantal andere mensen in Jemen vermoord middels VS drone-aanvallen, volgens de ‘Jemenitische overheid’* waren dit ‘terreurverdachten’, al zijn deze slachtoffers nog niet geïdentificeerd…… Daarnaast viel er een aantal gewonden, die nergens van verdacht werden….
Een paar dagen geleden plaatste ik al een bericht, waarin de conclusie te lezen is, dat de VS drone-aanvallen sinds het aantreden van Trump met 400% zijn gestegen……** George W. Bush introduceerde deze vorm van standrechtelijke executies, die onder ‘de vredesduif’ Obama sterk werden geïntensiveerd……
De VN heeft gisteren gewaarschuwd dat de hongerdood dreigt voor 20 miljoen mensen, één van de landen die door de VN worden genoemd is Jemen…….. Alleen al 2 miljoen kinderen dreigen in Jemen om te komen door honger….. Hoe is het in godsnaam mogelijk, dat de VN niet met de beschuldigende vinger wijst naar Saoedi-Arabië, de VS en Groot-Brittannië?? De laatste, GB, overigens vooral voor de levering van wapens, munitie (zoals clusterbommen….) en militaire training aan Saoedi-Arabië……
Saoedi-Arabië en de VS blokkeren het grootste deel van Jemen voor hulpgoederen, het deel van Jemen dat in handen is van de Houthi-rebellen met de hulp van een voormalige president en een deel van het Jemenitische leger. Door die blokkades is er een groot tekort ontstaan aan medicijnen, voedsel, drinkwater en brandstof……… Let wel: deze Houthi rebellen streden met veel succes tegen IS en Al Qaida, al in de tijd dat de VS deze groepen ‘bestreed’ met wapenleveranties en militaire training……
En zoals al vaker op deze plek gesteld: hoe kan de wereld toezien dat de VN mensenrechtenorganisatie (UNCHR) wordt geleid door een Saoedische psychopaat??? Terwijl de UNCHR er haar dagtaak van kan maken, Saoedi-Arabië aan de paal te nagelen voor de meest vreselijke schendingen van die mensenrechten!! Totaal gestoord!!
Waar is de disfunctionerende PvdA sufferd Koenders met zware kritiek op Saoedi-Arabië en de VS, voor hun vreselijke oorlogsmisdaden (alleen al) in Jemen begaan??
US
Drone Strike Kills Two Children in Central Yemen
The
US, naturally, did not immediately comment on the killings, while
Yemeni officials insisted the road was known to sometimes be used by
al-Qaeda fighters. Yakla is the village that was largely destroyed in
January in a botched US ground raid.
These
are the first confirmed civilian deaths in US strikes against Yemen
over the past week, though a number of wounded civilians were also
reported, and many of the slain have not been conclusively
identified. Those other slain are all officially labeled “suspects”
by the Yemeni government.
Intense
US drone strikes, and the civilian casualties they inevitably cause,
have led to serious anti-US sentiment in other countries like
Pakistan, and while Yemen has a lot of things on their plate right
now, with Saudi Arabia still invading, the US strikes continue to
fuel resentment among victims’ families, giving al-Qaeda a fertile
crop of people to recruit from.
* Saoedi-Arabië heeft de voormalige president van Jemen, na diens vrijwillige opstappen onder druk zover gekregen, dat hij de hulp van de Saoedische fascistische psychopaten inriep, om Jemen ‘veilig te stellen’. Met andere woorden, de ‘officiële’ overheid van Jemen, die ook door het westen wordt erkend en gesteund, is een marionettenregering, die in feite door Saoedi-Arabië wordt geleid…..
De VS aanvallen met drones, onder president Obama verworden tot bijna dagelijkse praktijk, zijn onder, de korte tijd dat het beest Trump aan het bewind is, met 432% gestegen, zo berichtte Anti-Media gisteren.
Nobelprijs voor de Vrede winnaar Obama voerde al 10 keer meer drone aanvallen uit, dan onder president George W. Bush werden uitgevoerd, dezelfde Bush die e.e.a. introduceerde……..
Uit onderzoek is duidelijk geworden dat meer dan 90% van de slachtoffers die bij deze aanvallen worden vermoord, omstanders zijn, die niet eens verdacht worden door de VS!! U snapt het al, inclusief vrouwen en kinderen……. Dat ‘verdacht’ gaf ik in vet weer, daar de doelen nog altijd verdachten zijn, dus niet door een rechter veroordeelde personen……. Deze vorm van terreur wordt dan ook ‘standrechtelijke executie’ genoemd……….
Overigens uitermate vreemd en schandalig, dat politici als Koenders deze standrechtelijke executies, zoals gezegd een ernstige vorm van terreur, nooit veroordelen. Kijk als Rusland hetzelfde zou doen, waren Koenders rapen allang gaar geweest……..
Hier het artikel van Anti-Media:
U.S. Drone Strikes Have Gone Up 432% Since Trump Took Office
(ANTIMEDIA) When
he was in office, former President Barack Obama earned the ire of
anti-war activists for his expansion of Bush’s drone wars. The
Nobel Peace Prize-winning head of state ordered ten
times more drone strikes than
the previous president, and estimates late
in Obama’s presidency showed 49 out of 50 victims were civilians.
In 2015, it was reported that up to 90%
of drone casualties were
not the intended targets.
Current
President Donald Trump campaigned on a less interventionist foreign
policy, claiming to be opposed to nation-building and misguided
invasions. But less than two months into his presidency, Trump has
expanded the drone strikes that plagued Obama’s “peaceful”
presidency.
According
to an analysis from
Micah Zenko, an analyst with the Council on Foreign Relations, Trump
has markedly increased U.S. drone strikes since taking office. Zenko,
who reported earlier
this year on the over 26,000 bombs Obama dropped in 2016, summarized
the increase:
“During
President Obama’s two terms in office, he
approved 542such
targeted strikes in 2,920 days—one every 5.4 days. From his
inauguration through today, President Trump had approved at least 36
drone strikes or raids in 45 days—one every 1.25 days.”
The
Trump administration has provided little acknowledgment of the human
toll these strikes are taking. As journalist Glenn Greenwald noted in
the Intercept,
the Trump administration hastily brushed off recent civilian
casualties in favor of honoring the life of a single U.S. soldier who
died during one of the Yemen raids just days after Trump took office:
“The
raid inYemen
that cost Owens his life also killed 30 other people, including ‘many
civilians,’ at least
nine of whom were children.
None of them were mentioned by Trump in last night’s speech, let
alone honored with applause and the presence of grieving relatives.
That’s because they were Yemenis, not Americans; therefore, their
deaths, and lives, must be ignored (the only exception was some
fleeting media mention of the 8-year-old daughter of Anwar al-Awlaki,
but only because she was a U.S. citizen and because of the irony
that Obama
killed her 16-year-old American brotherwith
a drone strike).”
Greenwald
notes this is typical of not just Trump, but the American war machine
in general:
“We
fixate on the Americans killed, learning their names and life stories
and the plight of their spouses and parents, but steadfastly ignore
the innocent people the U.S. government kills, whose numbers are
always far greater.”
Though
some Trump supporters sang his praises as a peace candidate before he
took office, the president’s militarism was apparent on many
occasions. He openly advocated increasing the size and scope of the
military, a promise he is now moving to keep. And as Zenko
highlights, Trump was disingenuous with his rhetoric against
interventionism:
“He
claimed to have opposed the 2003 Iraq War when he actually backed it,
and to have opposed the 2011 Libya interventionwhen he
actually strongly endorsed it,
including with U.S. ground troops. Yet, Trump and his loyalists
consistently implied that he would be less supportive of costly and
bloody foreign wars, especially when compared to President Obama, and
by extension, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”
As
Trump continues to dig his heels into decades-old policies he has
criticized himself — reportedly mulling
over sending ground troops into Syria — he is increasingly proving
to be yet another establishment warmonger implementing policies
that spawn
the creation of more terrorists.
As Zenko concludes:
“We
are now on our third post-9/11 administration pursuing many of the
same policies that have failed to meaningfully reduce the number of
jihadist extremist fighters, or their attractiveness among potential
recruits or self-directed terrorists. The Global War on Terrorism
remains broadly unquestioned within Washington, no matter who is in
the White House.”
Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terug kan vinden, dit geldt niet voor de labels: al-Awlaki, Wedler en Zenko.
De ex-president van Rusland, of beter gezegd de Sovjet-Unie, Gorbatsjov, liet afgelopen januari weten, dat de wereld zich opmaakt voor oorlog. De redactie van Anti-Media zocht daar aanwijzingen voor en vond er 5, die op 1 maart jl. werden gepubliceerd:
5
Signs We’re Headed Toward a Major War
5 Signs We’re Headed Toward a Major War
(ANTIMEDIA) In
January of this year, former Soviet Union leader Mikhail
Gorbachev warned that
the whole world is preparing for war. There are many indicators that
back up Gorbachev’s assertion, but to discuss them in their
entirety would take a dissertation or two. Instead, we have put
together a list of the five most obvious signs of impending war
currently being overlooked by the media. As a result of these
oversights, the public is also missing them.
1.
Travel Ban
The
Trump administration’s travel ban, which targeted seven
majority-Muslim nations, makes little sense in the context of
fighting international terrorism. A Department of Homeland
Security report already
found no evidence of any extra threat posed by the nations on the
travel ban.
Conversely, a Saudi official has admitted Saudi
Arabia’s longstanding practice of supporting terrorism as a
political tool, yet Saudi Arabia managed to escape the list. So did
Turkey, a country that has extensively
aided ISIS fighters;
Qatar, which has spent immense
amounts of
money arming fanatical jihadists; the United
Arab Emirates (where
the majority of the funding for the 9/11 attacks passed through), and
the list goes on.
Instead,
the travel ban was purely
political.
With help
from the anti-Trump media establishment,
the ban worked wonders separating the American public between those
who oppose Trump’s every move and those who support him
wholeheartedly in his quest to “make America great again.” But
little attention was paid to the reality of the ban.
Six
of the seven countries on Trump’s travel ban were featured in a
memo that was adopted shortly after 9/11 that detailed how the U.S.
was going to topple the governments of seven countries, as exposed by
four-star General Wesley Clark. The countries featured on Clark’s
list were Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Iran.
Including
Iran in the travel ban — despite the fact Iran is not currently
embroiled in a major civil conflict of its own, is not currently
bombing any other countries, and is one of the major
partners in the fight against ISIS —
demonstrates something more sinister at play than mere concerns
regarding international terrorism.
2.
Trump’s anti-Iran rhetoric
The
Obama administration, having successfully taken out Libya in 2011,
was tasked with finishing the job in Syria and toppling the Assad
regime. Overwhelming
support for
Syrian rebels battling the Syrian government was replaced
by urgent calls to intervene directly in 2013,
but Obama failed to gain international and public support for
airstrikes on the Syrian government. Russia diplomatically put its
hand up to offer a different proposal altogether, also warning that
“[they]
have [their] plans”
should the American military decide to strike Syria as Obama
intended. Any speculation that the real focus of the Syrian war was
aimed at Iran was proven to be not just mere conjecture; Obama
immediately thereafter warned Iran
that just because the U.S. did not attack Syria did not mean the U.S.
wouldn’t still strike Iran over its alleged nuclear program.
The
Russian military intervened overtly in Syria in 2015, which only
further foiled Washington’s plans for regime change in the country,
as admitted by former Secretary of State John Kerry in a leaked
audio recording.
As
such, the Trump administration has appeared to move the focus away
from Syria and directly back to Iran, in line George
W. Bush’s approach
when he was in office.
Trump
has assembled a
team that is “obsessed with Iran” and has accused Iran
of being the biggest state sponsor of terrorism. Theresa May, the
prime minister of the United Kingdom, also stated that
pushing back on “Iran’s
aggressive efforts” to
increase its “arc
of influence from Tehran through to the Mediterranean” was
a “priority.” Trump
was likely thrilled by these statements, as May
successfully secured 100
percent support for NATO from Trump the next day.
Following
an Iranian missile launch, the Trump administration officially
put “Iran
on notice.” The U.S. government wanted to make sure the
Iranians “understood
we are not going to sit by and not act on their actions.”
Just
this past month, Trump warned in a tweet that
Iran was “playing with fire,” and he vowed he would not be
anywhere near as “kind” as his predecessor was to Iran. This is
important because Trump has accused Iran of breaching its obligations
under the nuclear agreement, though the nuclear agreement does
not prohibit non-nuclear tests.
The
nuclear deal reached in 2015 was viewed as one of Obama’s greatest
diplomatic achievements, but in reality, it was doomed to fail right
from the start. In the same way Libya was coaxed out of rapidly
advancing its weapons programs before
being bombed back
into the Middle Ages in 2011, it may be the case that this diplomatic
approach to Iran was always a smokescreen to give the United States
more ‘reasoned’ leverage when attempting to convince the
international arena that a strike on Iran was justified.
As
outlined in the book “Which
Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran”:
“For
those who favor regime change or a military attack on Iran (either by
the United States or Israel), there is a strong argument to be made
for trying this option first. Inciting regime change in Iran would be
greatly assisted by convincing the Iranian people that their
government is so ideologically blinkered that it refuses to do what
is best for the people and instead clings to a policy that could only
bring ruin on the country. The ideal scenario
in this case would be that the United States and the international
community present a package of positive inducements so enticing that
the Iranian citizenry would support the deal, only to have the regime
reject it. In a similar
vein, any military operation against Iran will likely be very
unpopular around the world and require the proper international
context – both to ensure the logistical support the operation would
require and to minimize the blowback from it. The
best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support
(however grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a
widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected
a superb offer – one so good that only a regime determined to
acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would
turn it down.” [emphasis
added]
By
claiming that through its missile tests Iran is violating a deal
that Trump
never supported to
begin with, he can lay the groundwork for an all-out confrontation
with Iran that could garner support from the international community,
as well as the misinformed American public.
3.
Iran dumps dollar
Currency
is a major driving factor behind the wars of our generation. Iraq
reportedly gave up
the U.S. dollar in 2000 for the euro and netted a “handsome profit”
for doing so. The U.S. military invaded in 2003 and
immediately switched oil sales in
Iraq from the euro back to the dollar. Iraq was also under heavy U.S.
sanctions that spanned
the course of at least a decade prior
to the invasion.
Comparatively,
in response to Trump’s anti-Iran rhetoric and the travel ban, Iran
officially dumped the
U.S. dollar. Iran has also been on the receiving
end of sanctions since
the Bush administration, and Trump has slapped fresh
sanctions on Iran over the missile tests.
In
the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, our television sets
were rife with
an unprecedented amount of disinformation regarding Iraq’s nuclear
program and the threat it posed to the world. Conversely, Israel
has been crying wolf over Iran’s nuclear program for
at least two decades, yet no actual evidence of an Iranian nuclear
weapons program has been produced.
The
Trump administration also accused Iran
of attacking a U.S. navy vessel – an attack that never took place.
Make
no mistake. The Trump administration is laying the groundwork for a
war with Iran by sowing the anti-Iranian seeds necessary to take the
American public into another dangerous war in the Middle East.
4.
Syria
While
Trump appeared at first to have heralded
a new approach to the Syrian conflict,
namely that Assad should be left alone and the real focus of American
foreign policy should be on defeating ISIS, the Trump administration
is stepping up its Syria operation behind the curtains. Trump is
reportedly planning to
send troops to Syria, and he is not the only external power doing so.
Iran’s regional arch-rival Saudi Arabia, which has incessantly
accused Tehran of backing rebels in neighboring Yemen without
producing any real evidence,
is also reportedly sending
troops into Syria.
Iranian-backed
regime troops will not look favorably on any foreign invading force,
particularly Saudi troops. Saudi Arabia has already made it clear
that it intends to liberate areas of Syria from ISIS and will be on
the ground to ensure that “liberated areas [do] not fall
under the control of Hizballah, Iran or the regime.”
How
far will they go to ensure this? Not to mention, how can one country
go into another and say that they want to ensure that the land does
not fall back into the hands of the people governing that country?
5.
Military drills and military alliances
The
United States and the United
Kingdom have
already begun military drills that simulate a potential conflict with
Iran. As reported by Russian-state owned news site RT,
Iran has staged a
“massive” military drill of its own, spanning 2 million square
kilometers.
This
preparation for war can be seen across the globe. Russia is
also holding
military drills as NATO
troops and tanks encroach upon
its border. Iran is seeking even closer military relations with
Russia and North
Korea.
The Baltic states that border Russia are running
drills,
too, supposedly out of fear that the Kremlin will invade. Russia’s
longstanding ally, China,
is also currently running drills for its own geostrategic
purposes.
Germany
is reportedly seeking to increase
its troop numbers to
200,000 troops even though such a move may put its neighbors on edge.
The Philippines, having decided to give the political middle finger
to the United States and instead forge closer relations with Russia
and China, welcomed
Russian warships to
its shores in January of this year.
Looking
at these military drills and alliances in the context of the above
developments paints a very grim picture for where humanity is headed.
***
War
with Iran: too unthinkable?
The
only rational criticism pundits have given
regarding Anti-Media’s previous
warnings of war is that because a war with Iran would be so
unthinkable, the Trump administration would never be so reckless as
to pursue it. Critics who hold such a view always neglect two very
important points: firstly, the United States under the Obama
administration was vehemently
opposed to the Assad regime in Syria.
The previous U.S. administration resorted
to directly targeting Syrian troops in
the middle of what was supposed to be a peace process, all with full
knowledge that the Assad regime is bound to Iran by a mutual defense
agreement. Secondly, America’s Middle Eastern power, Israel, has
also attacked Syria multiple
times since 2011,
targeting Iranian military personnel and their proxies.
Those
who think a war with Iran is unthinkable cannot answer the question:
what if Iran were to respond directly?
Think
of it like the current
to and fro between
Floyd Mayweather and UFC champion Conor McGregor. The two sides talk
tough and
attempt to provoke each other to set the mood for the current
conflict. Plenty of speculation occurs about whether one side is
bluffing and whether
or not the fight could possibly occur in the near future.
There is even the idea that such a fight would be so disastrous for
one of the sides (or both) that there is nothing to gain from
pursuing it.
But
all it takes is one wrong move; one reckless, cowardly, ill-advised
decision from either side and the entire Middle Eastern powder
keg could explode.
Trump
ordered a raid on Yemen that even war hawk Barack Obama disapproved
of because it was deemed too risky, and the raid
was an instant failure that
killed multiple civilians. This is the same president who turns down
dinners because he cannot face the torment of the liberal media and
instead forms
his opinions from Fox
News before
taking to Twitter.
Ontving gisteren van Brasscheck TV een video, die handelt over het boek ‘American Nuremberg’. Het boek dat de VS en de internationale pers ‘links liet liggen….’ In haar boek neemt Rebecca Gordon alle maatregelen en oorlogsmisdaden door die terreurentiteit VS nam, na de aanvallen van 911 (11 september 2001), oorlogsmisdaden t/m illegale oorlogvoering………
Rebecca Gordon gaat eerst in op de Neurenberg processen na de oorlog, waar men aanvankelijk nog dacht, dat ook de oorlogsmisdaden van de geallieerden zouden worden berecht in Neurenberg. Naar wat we inmiddels al lang weten, is dit nooit gebeurd*, zelfs niet de enorme oorlogsmisdaden begaan met het afwerpen van twee atoombommen op respectievelijk Hiroshima en Nagasaki.
Het Internationaal Strafhof is een uitvloeisel van de Neurenberg processen, waar de VS onder G.W. Bush weigerde het verdrag daartoe te ratificeren, sterker nog zelfs een verbod uitsprak over het berechten van ook maar één VS burger door dit hof……..
De illegale oorlog van de VS tegen (Afghanistan en) Irak, is volgens Gordon te vergelijken met de invallen van de nazi’s in andere landen…. Juist die invallen werden destijds onder de Neurenberg processen als een enorme oorlogsmisdaad neergezet. Onder het verdrag van Genève werden dergelijke invallen, een aanval zonder aanleiding daartoe, als oorlogsmisdaad van de hoogste categorie bestempeld. Gordon betoogt dat Dick Cheney al bij zijn aantreden (en dus zelfs voorafgaand daaraan) de opzet had Irak aan te vallen, m.a.w. al voor de aanslagen van 911 wilde men Irak binnenvallen………
Wolfowitz, behorend tot de vriendenkring van G.W. Bush en Cheney, had al in de 90er jaren een doctrine voorgesteld, waarin de VS Irak en daarna Syrië zou aanvallen en bezetten…..
Een berechting van de G.W. Bush bende voor de vele gepleegde oorlogsmisdaden ziet Gordon niet gebeuren. Hoewel het geteisem daar wel bang voor is, G.W. Bush liet een paar jaar geleden een uitnodiging voor Zwitserland schieten, daar hij bang was aangehouden te worden vanwege die oorlogsmisdaden, een Zwitserse rechter zou e.e.a hebben onderzocht…… Gordon ziet dit echter wel als een mogelijkheid, afzonderlijke landen, die een verantwoordelijke VS diplomaat kunnen arresteren en deze onder eigen wetgeving berechten……. Een andere mogelijkheid is volgens Gordon een proces in de VS en dan op afgeleide gronden, zoals het verbod op martelen, dat in de VS wet is opgenomen……
Gordon pleit voor een tribunaal georganiseerd door bijvoorbeeld een universiteit in de VS, waar mensenrechtenorganisaties, rechtsgeleerden en anderen, zoals slachtoffers, of nabestaanden van slachtoffers gedocumenteerd de begane oorlogsmisdaden vastleggen en de verantwoordelijken daarvoor aanwijzen…….
Zie de video duur 9 minuten:
Luister ook naar het volgende audioverslag waarin een interview met Gordon te horen is (duur 1 uur en 40 minuten):
Hier nog een audiobestand >> WORLDWIDE ARREST FOR OBAMA, BUSH AND CHENEY FOR DESPICABLE WAR CRIMES 2016 (14 minuten):
* Datzelfde geldt voor het Joegoslavië tribunaal: de vele door de westerse legermachten begane oorlogsmisdaden (zelfs die begaan onder VN mandaat) werden niet eens voorgelegd aan dit tribunaal………
Klik voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terug kan vinden.
Kreeg gisteren een oproep van Amnesty International (VS) om mee te werken een een telefoonactie om Sara Beltran Hernandez vrij te krijgen.
Sara ontvluchtte huiselijk geweld en misdaadbendes in El Salvador, maar op haar vlucht voor haar leven, werd Sara door de VS autoriteiten gevangengezet, i.p.v. dat haar asiel werd verleend……. Ze zit nu al 475 dagen in detentie en heeft dringend medische hulp nodig, die haar deels wordt ontzegd………
Let wel: Sara werd opgesloten onder het bewind van Obama, ‘de mensenrechten respecterende vredesduif…’ (voor de niet regelmatige bezoeker: dit is uiterst sarcastisch bedoeld)
Leve de beschaving anno 2017!!
Hier het verhaal van AI en de manier waarop u (eventueel) kan helpen:
Free
Sara, A Young Mother Jailed by Immigration Officials
You’ve
been hearing about President Trump’s new immigration policies in
the U.S. – and today I’m writing to ask for your urgent help on
behalf of Sara Beltran Hernandez, a 26-year-old mother of two from El
Salvador who is fighting for her freedom.
Back in El
Salvador, Sara suffered serious physical and psychological domestic
violence, including sexual abuse. Sara also received death threats
from a gang leader and gang members who are believed to have killed
people in the past.
“I
knew [the gang leader] would not stop until she killed me.” —Sara
Beltran Hernandez
Sara
fled this violence and abuse and sought asylum in the U.S. Instead of
treating her with compassion and considering her claim, U.S.
immigration authorities imprisoned Sara in a detention facility in
Texas, where she’s been held for 15 months.
Sara has been in a U.S. jail since she arrived 475 days ago. After she collapsed in jail earlier this month, Sara was transferred to a hospital, where she says a doctor told her she had a brain tumor. For several days, Sara’s lawyer and family were denied access to Sara or information about her condition, including medical records. Sara has now been transferred back to a detention center.
As President Trump’s aggressive immigration orders begin to be implemented, we must do everything we can to ensure protection for people fleeing violence, like Sara. We are working to ensure that people with asylum claims are given a fair hearing and are not treated like criminals while their cases are processed.
Hier de tekst die bij de telefoonactie vermeld staat. Als u zich geroepen voelt, bel dan met de autoriteiten en vraag om haar onmiddellijke vrijlating. Onderaan vindt u een voorbeeld gesprek en daarboven wordt uitgelegd wat u moet doen:
Sara
Beltran Hernandez is a 26-year-old mother of two from El Salvador who
is fighting for her freedom.
According
to her affidavit in support of her claim for asylum, back in El
Salvador, Sara suffered serious physical and psychological domestic
violence, and was sexually abused. Sara also received death threats
from a gang leader and gang members who are believed to have killed
people in the past.
Fearing
for all their lives and unable to turn to the police, Sara fled to
the U.S. to seek asylum with her family.
Sara
has been detained in U.S. jails since she arrived 15 months ago. Sara
is suffering from a serious medical condition which requires
immediate medical attention.
As
President Trump’s aggressive immigration orders continue, we will
fight to ensure that people with asylum claims are given a fair
hearing, and that they are not treated like criminals while their
cases are processed. We must do everything we can to ensure
protection for people fleeing violence, like Sara.
It
only takes 5 minutes to help — we must call on the authorities to
release Sara to get urgent medical care she needs. Here’s how:
Enter
your number in the box below,
and you will be connected to I.C.E.
Urge
them to release Sara for parole on humanitarian grounds —
you can follow our suggested script below.
Once
connected press 2 to
be connected to the Detention Duty Office
Below
is a suggested script:
Hello, I am calling with Amnesty International USA on behalf of Sara Beltran Hernandez, A#: 208-548-384. I am calling to demand that Sara is immediately released on parole, pending the resolution of her asylum claim. Sara fled El Salvador seeking asylum and protection from life-threatening gang violence and domestic abuse. Now she has been held in detention for over 475 days and needs medical attention. Please immediately release Sara on parole and ensure that she receives urgently needed medical attention. Thank you.
======================
Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terug kan vinden, dit geldt niet voor het label ‘S.B. Hernadez’.
Een paar dagen geleden plaatste ik een bericht over het offensief tegen het door ISIS bezette West-Mosul en het totaal ontbreken van beeldmateriaal en vooral het totale gebrek aan aandacht voor de meer dan 600.000 mensen die opgesloten zijn in dat deel van Mosul*.
Gisteren ontving ik een bericht van ANTIMEDIA, met dezelfde strekking. Met een paar grote uitzonderingen: zo spreekt de schrijver, Shahtahmasebi, die Oost-Aleppo vergelijkt met West-Mosul, over de systematische verschrikkingen, die de bevolking daar onderging door toedoen van het Syrische leger en de Russen…. Voor deze bewering is echter geen greintje bewijs, alles is van horen zeggen en toch berichtte de westerse media of ze deze zaken uit eigen ooggetuigen verslag hadden verkregen……
Voorts citeerde men o.a. SOHR (Syrian Observatory for Human Rights), een organisatie in Engeland bemenst en geleid door één persoon, een gewezen Syrische crimineel. De verslagen bleken telkens weer op leugens te berusten, maar dat was geen reden voor o.a. de BBC en de NOS de berichten van SOHR niet uit te zenden……….
Ook wordt er door Shahtahmasebi gesteld dat de verdedigers van Oost-Aleppo, de burgers niet gebruikten als menselijk schild. Dat is ronduit gelul van een dronken aardbei, dat deden de ‘gematigde rebellen’ (lees: psychopathische moordenaars en verkrachters) nu juist wel!! Sterker nog de door het Syrische leger en Russen meermaals ingestelde corridors, waardoor de burgers van Oost-Aleppo konden vluchten, werden door deze ‘gematigde rebellen’ keer op keer onder vuur genomen. Ook werden burgers die probeerden te vluchten zonder pardon standrechtelijk geëxecuteerd, inclusief mee vluchtende familieleden (waar de leeftijd van de vluchtenden er niet toe deed…….)……
Eén ding is zeker: waar steden in Irak in het recente verleden werden ontzet ‘door het Iraakse leger’ (o.l.v. de VS), vonden gruwelijke oorlogsmisdaden plaats door deze coalitie, zoals in het geval van Fallujah en een eerdere strijd om Mosul in 2014….. Daarover gesproken: men stelde dat na de bevrijding van Oost-Aleppo de mensenrechten op grote schaal werden geschonden door het Syrische leger, iets waar (alweer) geen bewijs voor werd geleverd, echter bij de ontzetting van Fallujah en andere steden, door ‘de Iraakse coalitie’ (in feite ‘de VS coalitie..’), werden er veel gruwelijkheden begaan op de bevolking die e.e.a. had overleefd……..
Mensen lees zelf het volgende artikel, het geeft zeker een ziek beeld van de strijd die de burgers in West-Mosul moeten ondergaan……..
650,000
Civilians Trapped in US-Backed Siege of Mosul and Nobody Is Talking
About It
(ANTIMEDIA) Iraqi
forces, backed by American airpower, are set to launch a long-awaited
offensive to retake West Mosul. There are reportedly 3,000
ISIS fighters left defending their last major stronghold in Iraq, and
an estimated 650,000 civilians are trapped in the western-held area
of the city. The U.N. has warned that these civilians are at “extreme
risk,” with food, fuel, water, and electricity supplies extremely
scarce. Mosul, the third largest city in Iraq, has been under
siege by U.S.-backed forces in a months-long offensive to retake the
city from ISIS.
Given
a captured ISIS fighter admitted that
he raped over 200 women in Iraq, it makes sense to want to liberate a
city of civilians currently held hostage by the terror group.
However, the forces the Americans are backing to retake the Iraqi
city are reportedly no better. There have been numerous accounts
of documented
revenge acts committed
by the Shia-led militias against the local Sunni population.
Despite
this, the mainstream media presents the siege Mosul as a
legitimate military operation without question, especially when
compared to the media’s coverage of the battle for Aleppo in late
2016. As noted by
Patrick Cockburn in the Independent:
“But
look at how differently the international media is treating a similar
situation in Mosul, 300 miles east of Aleppo, where one million
people and an estimated 5,000 Isis fighters are being encircled by
the Iraqi army fighting alongside Kurdish Peshmerga and Shia and
Sunni paramilitaries and with massive support from a US-led air
campaign. In the case of Mosul, unlike Aleppo, the defenders are to
blame for endangering civilians by using them as human shields and
preventing them leaving. In East Aleppo, fortunately, there are no
human shields – though the UN says that half the civilian
population wants to depart – but simply innocent victims of Russian
savagery.”
Cockburn notes that the
media completely hyped up Russia’s destruction of Aleppo yet stayed
almost silent on the Iraqi city of Ramadi, which was “80
per cent destroyed by US-led air strikes in 2015.”
Still,
even these much-needed criticisms published in the mainstream media
do not counteract the corporate media’s almost wholehearted support
for American military might in the Middle East and its complete
distaste for Russia. Mainstream outlets hammered home the narrative
that Russia was pounding at least 250,000 civilians trapped in
Eastern Aleppo at the end of 2016. However, the media failed to
mention three crucial facts regarding this assessment: 1) The
majority of Aleppo’s population lived in government-controlled
areas of Aleppo,
which were subject to regular
shelling by rebel groups;
2) The rebel groups that held Eastern Aleppo were all
affiliated with al-Qaeda and shared ISIS’ core belief system;
and 3) The New
York Times admitted the
figure of 250,000 civilians was a fabrication, as “some
groups say the population of eastern Aleppo is much lower, in the
tens of thousands.”
Following
the Aleppo offensive, the Syrian peace deal brokered without the
assistance of the United States has been said to hold “more than
previous ones,” according to
the U.N. envoy to Syria, Staffan de Mistura.
“And
in my modest opinion, has – if we all look at it carefully and
support it – more chances to actually succeed than others,” de
Mistura also said.
ISIS
only exists in Iraq in
the first place because when the U.S. invaded in 2003, one of the
first things the top U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq, Paul
Bremer, chose to do was fire
an estimated350,000
to 400,000 soldiers simply
because they were part of Saddam Hussein’s Baathist party. These
soldiers went from being classified as secularist to fighting
alongside fanatical and radical ISIS members, including
holding high-ranking positions within ISIS’ ranks.
Not
only that, but when ISIS was taking over Mosul in 2014, the U.S.
air force was nowhere to be seen,
even as they captured massive amounts of American military equipment
and brandished it on social media. ISIS’ rise to power was
facilitated by the Obama administration, as leaked
audio of
former Secretary of State John Kerry addressing Syrian opposition
members revealed:
“And
we know that this was growing, we were watching, we saw that DAESH
[ISIS] was growing in strength, and we thought Assad was threatened.
(We) thought, however…We could probably manage that Assad might
then negotiate, but instead of negotiating he got Putin to support
him.”
In
short, U.S. policies put ISIS in Iraq to begin with. Then, when it
suited their warped foreign policy, they decided not to target ISIS
so its momentum could grow throughout the region. Even recently, as
ISIS fought
to retake Deir
ez-Zor in Syria, putting another 250,000 Syrian civilians at risk,
the American military and mainstream media stayed mostly silent. This
was an area in which the U.S. military did strike
in 2016, only to target
Syrian military forces embroiled
in a battle with ISIS.
As
Iraq is set to retake Mosul from ISIS with American assistance, it is
not clear whether the Iraqi people will receive the much-needed
break that they deserve.
Thankfully,
Iraq’s prime minister, Haidar al-Abadi, asked the
Iraqi armed forces to respect human rights during the battle and to
take care of those displaced by the fighting. It is unlikely such a
request would have any effect on rogue militias given that in the
past, the Shia-led militias have been barred
from entering certain cities due to the havoc they are known to
unleash.
Fortunately
for the Iraqi forces, they are fighting alongside the U.S. military,
so their crimes are likely to be swept under the rug by the
mainstream media (for
now, anyway).
Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terug kan vinden, dit geldt niet voor het label ‘Deir ez-Zor’.
Het volgende artikel van Chris Hedges (en Matt Taibbi in de bijgevoegde video) op Information Clearing House (overgenomen van ‘Truth Dig’) handelt over de neergang van de democratie en haar instituties t.b.v. grote bedrijven, banken en het militair-industrieel complex, noodzakelijk voor de uiteindelijk beoogde fascistisch machtsovername…… (Bedrijven functioneren uitstekend in een fascistische staat….)
De vakbonden zijn verworden tot grote instituties waar kapitalen worden verspild en die nog amper van enige betekenis zijn. De reguliere (massa-) media zijn in handen van enkele figuren en dienen als eerste het belang van die topgraaiers en vervolgens het belang van de zittende neoliberale regering (althans als die goed voor de bedrijven werkt….). Wat betreft de publieke zendgemachtigden, zoals de BBC (en de NOS in ons land), is het dienen van het belang van de zittende regering overduidelijk….. Ach ja, wiens brood men eet……….
Het is in ons land al zo zot, dat men het normaal vindt, dat de Eerste Kamer bestaat uit figuren die in het (grote) bedrijfsleven werkzaam zijn en uiteraard lobbyen voor die bedrijven (bedrijven inclusief de financiële maffia en het militair-industrieel complex….). Een zienswijze die wordt gedeeld door de reguliere massamedia……..
In de VS gaat men zover, dat kritische studenten worden weggezuiverd van de universiteiten……. Ook de rechterlijke macht fungeert, meer en meer als een klassen-justitieel systeem, waar de belangen van het neoliberalisme worden gediend…… Dat geldt overigens ook voor een groot deel voor Nederland, zo besloot vanmorgen de hoogste bestuursrechter in Nederland, de Raad van State, dat er naar gas mag worden geboord bij Terschelling……..* (klik ook op het label ‘klassenjustitie’, dat u onder dit bericht terugvindt).
Lees dit uitstekende artikel en zie de bijgevoegde video (onder het artikel kan u klikken voor een ‘Dutch’ vertaling, dit neemt wel enige tijd in beslag):
The
Elites Won’t Save Us
By
Chris Hedges
February
13, 2017 “Information
Clearing House”
– “Truth
Dig” – The four-decade-long assault on our democratic
institutions by corporations has left them weak and largely
dysfunctional. These institutions, which surrendered their efficacy
and credibility to serve corporate interests, should have been our
firewall. Instead, they are tottering under the onslaught.
Labor
unions are a spent force. The press is corporatized and distrusted.
Universities have been purged of dissidents and independent scholars
who criticize neoliberalism and
decry the decay of democratic institutions and political parties.
Public broadcasting and the arts have been defunded and left on life
support. The courts have been stacked with judges whose legal careers
were spent serving corporate power, a trend in appointments that
continued under Barack Obama. Money has replaced the vote, which is
how someone as unqualified as Betsy DeVos can buy herself a Cabinet
seat. And the Democratic Party, rather than sever its ties to Wall
Street and corporations, is naively waiting in the wings to profit
from a Trump debacle.
“The
biggest asset Trump has is the decadent, clueless, narcissistic,
corporate-indentured, war-mongering Democratic Party,” Ralph
Nader said when I reached him by phone in Washington. “If
the Democratic strategy is waiting for Godot, waiting for Trump to
implode, we are in trouble. And just about everything you say about
the Democrats you can say about the AFL-CIO.
They don’t control the train.”
The
loss of credibility by democratic institutions has thrust the country
into an existential as well as economic crisis. The courts,
universities and press are no longer trusted by tens of millions of
Americans who correctly see them as organs of the corporate elites.
These institutions are traditionally the mechanisms by which a
society is able to unmask the lies of the powerful, critique ruling
ideologies and promote justice. Because Americans have been bitterly
betrayed by their institutions, the Trump regime can attack the press
as the “opposition
party,” threaten to cut off university
funding, taunt a federal jurist as a “so-called
judge” and denounce
a court order as “outrageous.”
The
decay of democratic institutions is the prerequisite for the rise of
authoritarian or fascist regimes. This decay has given credibility to
a pathological liar. The Trump administration, according to an
Emerson College poll, is considered by 49 percent of registered
voters to be truthful while the media are considered truthful by only
39 percent of registered voters. Once American democratic
institutions no longer function, reality becomes whatever absurdity
the White House issues.
Most
of the rules of democracy are unwritten. These rules determine public
comportment and ensure respect for democratic norms, procedures and
institutions. President Trump has, to the delight of his supporters,
rejected this political and cultural etiquette.
Hannah
Arendt in “The Origins of Totalitarianism” noted that
when democratic institutions collapse it is “easier to accept
patently absurd propositions than the old truths which have become
pious banalities.” The chatter of the liberal ruling elites about
our democracy is itself an absurdity. “Vulgarity with its cynical
dismissal of respected standards and accepted theories,” she wrote,
infects political discourse. This vulgarity is “mistaken for
courage and a new style of life.”
“He
is destroying one code of behavior after another,” Nader said of
Trump. “He is so far getting away with it and not paying a price.
He is breaking standards of behavior—what he says about women,
commercializing the White House, I am the law.”
Nader
said he does not think the Republican Party will turn against Trump
or consider impeachment unless his presidency appears to threaten its
chances of retaining power in the 2018 elections. Nader sees the
Democratic Party as too “decadent and incompetent” to mount a
serious challenge to Trump. Hope, he said, comes from the numerous
protests that have been mounted in
the streets, at
town halls held by members of Congress and at flash points
such as Standing
Rock. It may also come from the 2.5 million civil servants within
the federal government if a significant number refuse to cooperate
with Trump’s authoritarianism.
“The
new president is clearly aware of the power wielded by civil
servants, who swear an oath of allegiance to the U.S. Constitution,
not to any president or administration,” Maria J. Stephan, the
co-author of “Why Civil Resistance Works,” writes
in The Washington Post. (WaPo) “One of Trump’s first acts as
president was a sweeping federal hiring freeze affecting all new and
existing positions except those related to the military, national
security and public safety. Even before Trump’s inauguration, the
Republican-controlled House of Representatives reinstated an obscure
1876 rule that would allow Congress to slash the salaries of
individual federal workers. This was a clear warning to those serving
in government to keep their heads down. Trump’s high-profile firing
of acting attorney general Sally Yates, who refused to follow the
president’s immigration ban, sent shock waves through the
bureaucracy.”
A
sustained, nationwide popular uprising of nonviolent obstruction and
noncooperation is the only weapon left to save the republic. The
elites will respond once they become afraid. If we do not make them
afraid we will fail.
The
four-decade-long assault on our democratic institutions by
corporations has left them weak and largely dysfunctional. These
institutions, which surrendered their efficacy and credibility to
serve corporate interests, should have been our firewall. Instead,
they are tottering under the onslaught.
Labor
unions are a spent force. The press is corporatized and distrusted.
Universities have been purged of dissidents and independent scholars
who criticize neoliberalism and
decry the decay of democratic institutions and political parties.
Public broadcasting and the arts have been defunded and left on life
support. The courts have been stacked with judges whose legal careers
were spent serving corporate power, a trend in appointments that
continued under Barack Obama. Money has replaced the vote, which is
how someone as unqualified as Betsy DeVos can buy herself a Cabinet
seat. And the Democratic Party, rather than sever its ties to Wall
Street and corporations, is naively waiting in the wings to profit
from a Trump debacle.
“The
biggest asset Trump has is the decadent, clueless, narcissistic,
corporate-indentured, war-mongering Democratic Party,” Ralph
Nader said when I reached him by phone in Washington. “If
the Democratic strategy is waiting for Godot, waiting for Trump to
implode, we are in trouble. And just about everything you say about
the Democrats you can say about the AFL-CIO.
They don’t control the train.”
The
loss of credibility by democratic institutions has thrust the country
into an existential as well as economic crisis. The courts,
universities and press are no longer trusted by tens of millions of
Americans who correctly see them as organs of the corporate elites.
These institutions are traditionally the mechanisms by which a
society is able to unmask the lies of the powerful, critique ruling
ideologies and promote justice. Because Americans have been bitterly
betrayed by their institutions, the Trump regime can attack the press
as the “opposition
party,” threaten to cut off university
funding, taunt a federal jurist as a “so-called
judge” and denounce
a court order as “outrageous.”
The
decay of democratic institutions is the prerequisite for the rise of
authoritarian or fascist regimes. This decay has given credibility to
a pathological liar. The Trump administration, according to an
Emerson College poll, is considered by 49 percent of registered
voters to be truthful while the media are considered truthful by only
39 percent of registered voters. Once American democratic
institutions no longer function, reality becomes whatever absurdity
the White House issues.
Most
of the rules of democracy are unwritten. These rules determine public
comportment and ensure respect for democratic norms, procedures and
institutions. President Trump has, to the delight of his supporters,
rejected this political and cultural etiquette.
Hannah
Arendt in “The Origins of Totalitarianism” noted that
when democratic institutions collapse it is “easier to accept
patently absurd propositions than the old truths which have become
pious banalities.” The chatter of the liberal ruling elites about
our democracy is itself an absurdity. “Vulgarity with its cynical
dismissal of respected standards and accepted theories,” she wrote,
infects political discourse. This vulgarity is “mistaken for
courage and a new style of life.”
“He
is destroying one code of behavior after another,” Nader said of
Trump. “He is so far getting away with it and not paying a price.
He is breaking standards of behavior—what he says about women,
commercializing the White House, I am the law.”
Nader
said he does not think the Republican Party will turn against Trump
or consider impeachment unless his presidency appears to threaten its
chances of retaining power in the 2018 elections. Nader sees the
Democratic Party as too “decadent and incompetent” to mount a
serious challenge to Trump. Hope, he said, comes from the numerous
protests that have been mounted in
the streets, at
town halls held by members of Congress and at flash points
such as Standing
Rock. It may also come from the 2.5 million civil servants within
the federal government if a significant number refuse to cooperate
with Trump’s authoritarianism.
“The
new president is clearly aware of the power wielded by civil
servants, who swear an oath of allegiance to the U.S. Constitution,
not to any president or administration,” Maria J. Stephan, the
co-author of “Why Civil Resistance Works,” writes
in The Washington Post. “One of Trump’s first acts as
president was a sweeping federal hiring freeze affecting all new and
existing positions except those related to the military, national
security and public safety. Even before Trump’s inauguration, the
Republican-controlled House of Representatives reinstated an obscure
1876 rule that would allow Congress to slash the salaries of
individual federal workers. This was a clear warning to those serving
in government to keep their heads down. Trump’s high-profile firing
of acting attorney general Sally Yates, who refused to follow the
president’s immigration ban, sent shock waves through the
bureaucracy.”
A
sustained, nationwide popular uprising of nonviolent obstruction and
noncooperation is the only weapon left to save the republic. The
elites will respond once they become afraid. If we do not make them
afraid we will fail.
Chris
Hedges, spent nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent in
Central America, the Middle East, Africa and the Balkans. He has
reported from more than 50 countries and has worked for The Christian
Science Monitor, National Public Radio, The Dallas Morning News and
The New York Times, for which he was a foreign correspondent for 15
years.
The
views expressed in this article are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information
Clearing House.
“Insane
Clown President”
Chris
Hedges and Matt Taibbi
Video
How a reality TV
star became our president.
Chris Hedges examines the spectacle
of the 2016 presidential election and the system that created
President Donald Trump with Matt Taibbi, author of “Insane Clown
President”.
Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het voorgaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terug kan vinden, dit geldt niet voor de labels: Arendt, Nader, M.J. Stephan en Taibbi.
Gistermiddag, tijdens de demonstratie op het Haagse Malieveld tegen Trumps inreisverbod voor moslims, sprak ook de hypocriete PvdA volksverlakker Asscher.
Waar is Asscher als Israël de Palestijnen steeds verder terugdringt op een krimpend stuk West Bank en hen de toegang ontzegt op hun eigen (landbouw-) grond, of weigert Palestijnen toegang te geven tot Israël, waar die Palestijnen bij de stichting van deze apartheidsstaat, met veel geweld werden verdreven uit hun land? Waar is Asscher als Israël de zoveelste slachting onder Palestijnen aanricht in de Gazastrook??
Waar was Asscher toen Obama ook een moslim inreisverbod gebood in 2011, 2015 en 2016???
Asscher noemde in z’n hypocriete toespraak de VS ‘the land of the free…….’ ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
De vrijheid van de VS overheid en geheime diensten, om de vrijheid van de burgers in dat gestolen land in hoog tempo af te breken en hen onderdeel te maken van continue screening via computerinbraak en het afluisteren van de telefoon. Kortom de vrijheid om de privacy van de burgers tot de grond toe af te breken…….
De vrijheid om werknemers uit te buiten, zodat veel van deze VS arbeiders zelfs aan 2 banen niet genoeg hebben om rond te kunnen komen…….
De vrijheid om mensen (en hele gezinnen) op straat te donderen, zonder voor vervangende huisvesting te zorgen……….
De vrijheid om zoveel mogelijk te voorkomen, dat de grote kansarme groep in de VS gaat stemmen…… (in de VS zijn bijvoorbeeld meer dan 50 miljoen burgers afhankelijk van voedselbonnen……)
De vrijheid om bij verdenking van terrorisme mensen (ook VS burgers) voor onbepaalde tijd vast te zetten, zonder enige vorm van proces, een door Obama getekende wet!!
De vrijheid om mensen te verbieden nog langer te demonstreren tegen overheidsmaatregelen. In een paar staten mogen automobilisten demonstranten op de snelweg omver rijden, waarna deze automobilisten niet vervolgd zullen worden…….
De vrijheid van de overheid om haat- en angst te zaaien tegen/voor minderheden als moslims……..
De vrijheid om hele gebieden onleefbaar te maken middels schalie-olie- en schaliegaswinning…… Hetzelfde geldt overigens voor zeeën, neem de Golf van Mexico……..
De vrijheid om steenkool tegen dumpprijzen af te zetten op de wereld markt en kolencentrales te bouwen in ontwikkelingslanden en daarmee de klimaatverandering nog verder aan te jagen……
De vrijheid om (particuliere) gevangenissen vol te proppen met gekleurde mensen……..
De vrijheid om wapens te leveren aan ‘gematigde rebellen’ (lees: psychopathische moordenaars en verkrachters) en iedereen die maar wapens wil kopen (zolang een dictatuur pro VS is, kan deze rekenen op wapens uit en training van de VS….)….
De vrijheid om verdachten waar dan ook te ontvoeren en zonder proces te gijzelen, dan wel standrechtelijk te laten executeren middels drones of ‘een gewone moord’, bijvoorbeeld middels een ongeluk…….
De vrijheid van de VS overheid, om schijt te hebben aan mensenrechten……..
Om over alle andere vrijheden die de VS zichzelf in het buitenland heeft toegeëigend, nog maar te zwijgen, neem de illegale oorlogen die de VS heeft gevoerd en voert, of de vele door de VS opgezette opstanden en staatsgrepen……….
De VS ‘the land of the free’ ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Asscher? ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terug kan vinden.
De VS is zonder meer de grootste terreurentiteit op onze aarde. Middels illegale oorlogen en het organiseren van opstanden en staatsgrepen heeft de VS alleen deze eeuw al meer dan 2 miljoen moorden buiten de VS grenzen op haar naam……….
Deze (massa-) moorden blijven niet zonder ‘resultaat’, m.n. de bemoeienis van de VS (met de NAVO aan de hand) in Afghanistan, Irak en Libië heeft tot een grote toename van islam extremisme geleid en daarmee een toename van terrorisme in de EU en de VS veroorzaakt…… Al moet wat betreft terreur in de VS een fikse slag om de arm worden gehouden, veel deskundigen stellen, dat deze terreur, precies als de 911 aanslagen, door de geheime diensten van de VS werden geregisseerd……
Trump heeft een inreisverbod voor moslims uit 7 landen afgekondigd, lullig genoeg heeft de VS in 2016 maar liefst 24.000 mensen uit die landen vermoord. Daartegenover is er niet 1 moord op een VS burger begaan, door iemand uit 1 van die landen en dat zelfs sinds de afgelopen 30 jaar!!
Lees het volgende artikel van Khalife geplaatst op Stepfeed en Information Clearing House (beiden op 31 januari jl.), met een opsomming van ‘bomfeiten’, onder dit artikel kan u klikken voor een ‘Dutch’ vertaling:
In
2016, America Killed Over 24,000 of the Nationals Donald Trump Just
Banned
On
the other hand, nationals of banned countries killed zero Americans
in the last 30 years.
How
many people has America killed in these very same countries in
2016 alone? Over
24,000.
In
2016, the US dropped 26,172 bombs in Iraq, Syria,
Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.
Five
of these countries are on Trump’s “Muslim Ban”
list — including Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and
Sudan.
Here’s
the breakdown of the number of bombs the US dropped on
Muslim-majority countries last year.
1.
Syria gets bombed over 12,000 times in 2016
In
2016, America dropped over 12,000 bombs on Syria in its fight against
ISIS.
2.
Bombs on Iraq fell a hundred short of Syria
During
former President Barack Obama’s last year in office, the country
witnessed over 12,000 bombs, killing at least 6,878 civilians the
same year.
Trump
has repeatedly suggested that America could get “another
chance” to steal Iraq’s oil — saying that ISIS probably
wouldn’t exist if the US had “kept
the oil.“
3.
Libya got bombed nearly 500 times
4.
Yemen has been dubbed “one of the worst humanitarian
catastrophes”
Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terug kan vinden, dit geldt niet voor het label ‘Khalife’.
Weet niet of u ook een raar gevoel krijgt bij de enorme ophef die is ontstaan, nadat Trump een tijdelijke maatregel afkondigde tegen inreizende moslims. Trump begon tot dusver geen illegale oorlog tegen een moslim land, zoals Obama wel heeft gedaan, waarbij deze ook nog eens de grote aanstichter achter de illegale oorlog tegen Syrië was…..*
Ook Libië werd door de VS en een aantal andere EU landen, waaronder Nederland, ‘goed’ de vernieling in geholpen……
Waar was toen de verontwaardiging van al de mensen, die zich nu wel tegen Trump verzetten???
Maar het kan altijd nog gekker mensen: ‘vredesduif’ Obama heeft 3 keer een inreisverbod afgekondigd voor één of meerdere moslimlanden, in 2011, 2015 en zelfs vorig jaar nog. Misschien heb ik het gemist, maar volgens mij heb ik op een enkele mensenrechtenorganisatie na, geen hond gehoord, die zich daar druk om maakte…….. Ach ja, het ging toen natuurlijk ook om ‘onze eigen’ Obama….. Zóóóóón charismatische man en innemende persoonlijkheid….. Gedver!!
Laat men zich in het westen maar eens bezighouden met het tegengaan van illegale oorlogen, de grote producent van terroristen en terrorisme (een illegale oorlog is in feite de ultieme vorm van grootschalige terreur!!!)
Lees het volgende artikel van Moon of Alabama, dat gisteren verscheen op Information Clearing House (onder het artikel kunt u klikken voor een ‘Dutch vertaling’):
Outrage
About Trump Exposes “Librul” Hypocrisy
By
Moon Of Alabama
January
30, 2017 “Information
Clearing House”
– “Moon
Of Alabama” – The
current “librul” (liberale, AP) outrage about Trump’s announced policies
is somewhat amusing. Yes, these policies are bad, very bad. Trump is
bad. But so was Obama and so is Clinton. Protesting the policies of
one while not protesting when the other implemented the same policies
is insincere grandstanding.
Wherever
you look, those Trump policies are building directly on, or simply
repeat Obama policies. The now theatrically outraged people swallowed
those without a word of protest.
A
Trump order yesterday introduced a temporary ban on visa holders and
visa issuing to citizens of seven Middle East countries. These
countries are: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.
Those countries have one thing in
common. No terrorist who killed on U.S. soil originated from
them. The (few) terrorists who attacked within the U.S. came from the
Middle Eastern countries not on the list. Following Trump’s order,
outcries on social media and in various papers ensued. People went to
airports to protest. TV was there to spread the news.
But
it is nothing new that the citizens of those countries are targeted
with U.S. visa restrictions. It was Obama who introduced such
in 2015 and 2016. The Trump order links directly to them. It does not
name any country but refers to them as “countries
designated in Division O, Title II, Section 203 of the 2016
consolidated appropriations act.”
U.S
animosities against these countries is even older. According
to the former general Clark, plans were made to wage war
against six of the now named seven countries back in 2001. Yemen was
later added while Lebanon was (temporarily?) taken off the list. The
administrations change, the selected “enemies” stay the
same.
In
2011 Obama stopped processing Iraqi visa requests for
six month. That move was quite similar to Trump’s current one.
Where was the outcry in 2001? In 2011, 2015 and 2016? Is it only bad
when Trump restricts visits for certain people from certain
countries?
Sure,
Trump introduces his “outrageous” measures loud and
abruptly where Obama sneaked them in. But that is just different
marketing, not a different product.
Yesterday
Trump also issued a
memorandum to structure his National Security Council. It
says that the Director of National Intelligence and the chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Staff
“shall attend” when it is pertinent to the issue in
question. “Librul” outrage ensues. Trump excludes the
DNI and CJCOS from the NSC! Obama’s first Defense Secretary calls it
a “huge mistake”! But a
comparison of the text Trump issued with the text Obama
issued when he came into office shows them to be mostly similar.
Nothing really relevant has changed. The “shall attend”
clause is exactly the
same.
Yesterday
people were protesting at airports against Trump’s temporary
immigration restrictions. Lots of outrage against Trump ensued on
social media over this and the other issues. The hypocrisy here
stinks to high heaven. Where were the protest when Obama did similar?
Where
are the protests demanding the repeal of the Patriot Act? Where are
the anti-war protests? These died as soon as Obama came into office.
They never came back even as Obama pursued polices that were, at
best, Republican light and far from any progressive ideal. Only fake
liberals, aka “libruls”, could agree with these. When Dick
Cheney is your
witness against Trump you have lost the plot.
Many
of the people coming out now against Trump would likely have
jubilated had Hilliary Clinton won the election and introduced the
exactly same policies. Protest against the system that is
incorporated in Trump, just as it is incorporated in Clinton, does
not come to their mind. Do they expect to be taken serious?
There
was no outrage today from any of the U.S. “libruls” and
their media outlets about last nights failedU.S.
military raid in Yemen. The rural home of a tribal leader’s
family, friendly with some Yemeni al-Qaeda members, was raided by a
special operations commando. A U.S. tiltrotor military aircraft was
shot down during the raid. One soldier was killed and several were
wounded. The U.S. commandos responded with their usual panic. They
killed anyone in sight and bombed the shit out of any nearby
structure.According
to Yemeni sources between 30 and 57 Yemenis were killed
including eight women and eight
children (graphic pics). The U.S. military claimed, as it
always does, that no civilians were hurt in the raid.
One
of the killed kids was the 8 year old daughter of al-Qaeda
propagandist Anwar al-Awlaki. (The targeted family is related to
al-Awlaki’s wife.) The girl was a
U.S. citizen. Under Obama the CIA had already assassinated her
father and her 16 year old brother. With Obama’s active help the Gulf
countries have been bombing and destroying Ýemen for nearly two
years. No U.S. demonstrations were held against this war.
Yemeni
sources say that at least two men were abducted by the U.S. military.
The Central Command press release only said that the raid had helped
to acquire “intelligence” about possible future terror
acts. That probably means that the prisoners will be tortured to
unveil such “intelligence” even as they may not have any.
The Obama administration had introduced new rules for the military on
how to handle detainees. The UN judged that the
application of some of these rules is torture. The “libruls”
will of course be outraged should any of those rules, which Obama
introduced, be used under a Trump administration.
The
hypocritical outrage against Trump for things Obama already did is
exactly what Trump wants
and needs. He keeps chasing the media and the Clintonistas around
the block. The impression he leaves, not only with his followers, is
that of a man who works a lot. 25 outrages out of 25 headlines in
just one week? “Impressive! That is way more than Obama
achieved!”
Trump
already filed for reelection. Who really wants to beat him will have
to attack him on fundamental issues. That is a problem for the
“libruls”. Obama and Clinton stand for the same terrible
policies Trump is pushing for. They are not as loud as Trump and
paint their aims in softer colors. But the difference is only one of
degree.
The
U.S., like many other “western” countries, needs
fundamentally different policies and politicians to become a more
just and social society. The current “librul” outcries take
energy away from achieving such.
Mensen, uiteraard moeten we ons wel verzetten, tegen de fascistische maatregelen die Trump en anderen nemen, lees en teken daarom de petitie van Avaaz tegen Trump en geeft het door:
* Al in 2006, onder G.W. Bush werden de fundamenten voor de oorlog tegen Assad gelegd, Assad moest weg (o.a. daar hij tegen pijpleidingen door zijn land richting EU was en is), zelfs als dat oorlog betekende…… Daarbij heeft de VS met een aantal andere landen, waaronder Saoedi-Arabië en Egypte moslim terroristen vervoert richting Syrië, de VS m.n. uit Libië en Tunesië, waarna tevens bewapening en training plaatsvonden….
