De VS denkt werkelijk een nucleaire oorlog te kunnen winnen, te zot voor woorden en een enorm verraad aan het grootste deel van de eigen bevolking, die net zo hard tot slachtoffer gebombardeerd zal worden als de door de VS bestookte tegenpartij (Rusland)……..

Nadat de VS net als Groot-Brittannië een paar maanden geleden al heeft aangegeven, niet terug te deinzen, kernraketten in te zetten bij een (eerste) aanval. Uiteraard tegen Rusland, al werd dat er door beide terreurstaten niet bij vermeld…….. Daarmee werd een eind gemaakt aan het tijdperk, dat de ‘atoombom’ (kernraket) een afschrikkingsmiddel en daarmee een defensief middel was, tegen de ‘atoombommen’ van de tegenpartij………

Afgelopen zaterdag vond ik het volgende artikel op het blog van Stan van Houcke. Het betreft een interview met vicepresident Biden, dat gisteren werd uitgezonden op NBC. Volgens Biden zal Obama gepaste maatregelen nemen, mocht Trump op 3 november a.s. de presidentsverkiezingen winnen……. De gepaste maatregelen, waar Biden op doelt, kunnen volgens Eric Zuesse niets anders zijn, dan een nucleaire aanval inzetten tegen Rusland……

De regering Obama en de rest van de democratische partij, doen hun best Putin te beschuldigen van inmenging in de VS verkiezingen…….. Zo zou Rusland zich al actief via computer hacks hebben bemoeid met de voorverkiezingen in de VS, aldus het bloeddorstig geteisem in Washington…… Alsof de verkiezingen in de VS eerlijke democratische verkiezingen zijn, waar niets op aan te merken is…… ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Moet u nagaan: als er een ‘land’ op de wereld is, dat zich bemoeit met regeringen elders, is het de VS wel: als een land niet VS gunstig gestemd is, probeert de VS eerst middels een opstand, deze regering weg te krijgen voor een wel VS gunstig gestemde variant. Als dit niet lukt, begint de VS desnoods een illegale oorlog……

De laatste 15 jaar is de VS al 4 keer een illegale oorlog begonnen….. Of wacht even: eigenlijk 5, daar de oorlog die de door de VS geparachuteerde corrupte neonazi-vriend en juntaleider Porosjenko tegen de bevolking in het oosten van Oekraïne is begonnen, een voortvloeisel is uit het hiervoor genoemde scenario. De VS stak 4 miljard dollar in de opstand, die in Oekraïne tot de door de VS gewenste staatsgreep leidde…

Kortom: Obama sluit WOIII op basis van een leugen niet uit!

Lees en huiver:

President
Obama Threatens President Putin with Nuclear War

Posted
on October
14, 2016 by Eric
Zuesse.

Eric Zuesse

“It’ll
be at a time of our choosing,” says U.S. Vice President Joe Biden,
on NBC’’s “Meet the Press,” to be aired on Sunday, October
16th.

Interviewer
Chuck Todd had asked him, “Why would he [Obama] send a message out
to Putin?” Biden pursed his lips, paused, and said, with a grim
look on his face, “We sent him the message.” Of course that
didn’t answer Todd’s question, which was “Why?” Biden and
Todd both remained silent for another tense moment. Then, Biden
picked up again: “We have the capacity to do it, and, uh,” and
Todd interrupted him there with “He’ll know it?” Biden replied:
“He’ll know it, and it’ll be at a time of our choosing, and
under circumstances that have the greatest impact. Uh, the capacity
to do, to fundamentally alter the election, is not what people think;
and, uh, I tell you what: to the extent that they do [‘do’
presumably meaning: fundamentally alter the election], we will be
proportionate in what we do. And, uh,” Todd again interrupted his
interviewee, and said, “So, a message is going to be sent. Will the
public know?” Biden replied, “Hope not.”

Of
course, that “Hope not” could mean many things. It might mean: A
blitz nuclear attack in line with our government’s belief that we
now enjoy Nuclear
Primacy (an
idea that was first published
by the Council on Foreign Relations in
2006, and which has never yet been renounced by the U.S. government,
during the decade since). That would be very much a public response,
which Biden would “hope not” to be ’necessary’. In other
words: Biden might have meant, there: “I hope it won’t have to be
that.” But, clearly, Biden isn’t wanting the public to understand
anything, other than that President Obama has threatened President
Putin, with something, and that it will be “proportionate,” and
the excuse for it will be — if it will happen — that Putin had
done something which Obama thinks caused Hillary Clinton to lose the
election to Donald Trump.

Standing
behind what Biden is saying there, is the belief that Putin does have
in his possession some option that might “fundamentally alter the
election.” This is clearly a threat that’s meant to deter Putin
from doing something that Putin hasn’t yet done. Obama is telling
Putin that either the winner will be the person he wants to be his
successor, or else — or else what?

In
other words: what Biden is saying, is that, if Trump wins this
election, then there is going to be some sudden, unannounced, U.S.
government response against Putin, and that only after it is over,
will the U.S. government explain to the public why it did what it
did.

But,
of course, that assumes Americans will still be alive, even if
Russians are not; and, so, if the “proportionate” response turns
out to be a blitz nuclear attack against Russia, then anyone who is
still alive will be wondering: what was it ‘proportionate’ to?

The
United States is no longer — at least not in Syria — actually
fighting the thing that Trump calls “extremist Islamic terrorism”:
we are instead arming
Al Qaeda in Syria to overthrow and replace Putin’s ally, Bashar
al-Assad, there.
All of the U.S. government’s talk against “ISIL” (the Sauds’
preferred acronym for “ISIS”) is mere distraction from the tens
of thousands of other jihadist fighters from other jihadist groups
that have also been imported by the U.S. and Saudi governments into
Syria as Obama’s and the Sauds’ “boots on the ground” to
overthrow Assad there. The leadership now for all of those jihadist
groups (except for ISIS itself) is, in fact, Al Qaeda in Syria, which
has gone under the name “al-Nusra.” Nusra is supplying the
leadership now to all the jihadist factions that have been sent into
Syria; Nusra is the only jihadist group that possesses the long
experience and training in jihad and military matters, which is
needed in order to be able to overthrow Assad. Al
Qaeda is now America’s essential ally, at doing what the U.S.
government most wants to do: overthrow and replace Assad. The
U.S. is deadly serious about that intention, as can be seen here
from the NBC News preview video of their interview with Biden,
from which the above quotations are sourced. Looking at Biden’s
face there, one can see that this is deadly serious. This isn’t
about sexual aggression — either Donald Trump’s or Bill Clinton’s
— it’s about the survival of civilization, or else nuclear war.

There
have been many reports in the U.S. press saying that Obama has, ever
since at least October 6th, been contemplating an all-out U.S.
bombing campaign to bring down Assad. But that would mean war with
Russia, which has been actively bombing Nusra and all the other
jihadists in Syria. 

Hillary
Clinton is urging a “no-fly
zone” in Syria,
so that we can do to Assad what we did to another ally of Moscow,
Muammar Gaddafi. However, when that was done to Gaddafi, Putin stood
aside and wasn’t supplying military assistance to Gaddafi, which
would have enabled Gaddafi to wipe out the fundamentalist Muslims who
were trying to overthrow him. Russia is involved actively, this time,
to prevent happening in Syria what happened in Libya. A no-fly zone
in Syria would thus mean U.S. war against Russia.

These
are tense times. Any escalation that the U.S. can do against Russia,
can be met by an escalation that Russia can do against the United
States.

Consequently,
whatever escalation Obama is now threatening against Putin, might be
met by an escalation on the other side. Where will it stop, or would
it even be able to stop?

Whatever
escalation Obama might consider to be ‘proportionate’, could
consequently end up ending the world as we know it — and not for
the better. Hillary
Clinton has threatened Putin with war;
now Barack Obama has done likewise.

Whatever
Biden’s assignment here actually was from Obama, one thing about it
is clear: this President is determined that Hillary Clinton be his
successor, and Obama will target anyone who gets in his way if he
doesn’t win his way on this. And Obama wants the American public to
know that this is how he feels about the matter. 

This
Biden-interview is really intended, in that sense, to be a threat
aimed at America’s voters, telling them, telling each one of us:
Vote for Hillary Clinton, or else! He’s not telling us what that
“or else!” is going to be — and maybe he himself has
no accurate idea of how far it will ultimately cycle
and go. Ultimately, whatever he thinks it would be, might not turn
out to be the last step in this cycle of escalation — unless it’s
going to go directly to a blitz attack against
Russia.

Obama
is thus coercing us, before he coerces Putin. He’s telling
us: If we vote against Hillary Clinton — if she
loses this election — then President Obama has something in mind
that we won’t like — and he won’t wait until the next President
is inaugurated on 20 January 2017 to do it, whatever ‘it’ might
be. Obama here is threatenting not only Vladimir Putin, but the
American people. Even if Obama truly believes that he alone possesses
all the power, he does not, unless he possesses the power to
terrorize America’s voters to elect Hillary Clinton, even if we
otherwise would not.

Investigative
historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re
Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records,
1910-2010, and
of  CHRIST’S
VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/10/president-obama-threatens-president-putin-nuclear-war.html

Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terug kan vinden.