De FIFA, een organisatie die zich veelvuldig schuldig heeft gemaakt aan machtsmisbruik en bepaald niet op een kinderachtige manier, wil nu de macht van spelersmakelaars aanpakken…… ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
Dat was het nog niet beste bezoeker: de FIFA wil een bank beginnen, anders gezegd: de FIFA wil nog veel meer macht vergaren terwijl het tegelijkertijd anderen beschuldigt van machtsmisbruik……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Jezus is dat lachen dan, ongelofelijk!!
De FIFA begint te lijken op een kleine staat, zo huurt deze misdaadorganisatie eigen veiligheidstroepen in en nu wil men dus ook een eigen bank, reken maar dat men ook met een digitale munt zal komen….. Zie: ‘WK voetbal beschermd door speciale troepen, ingehuurd door de FIFA………‘
THE
ELECTRONIC INTIFADA (EI) heeft de 4 delen van ‘The Lobby – USA’ op
haar site gezet. In de film is te zien hoe sterk de Israël lobby is in de VS en hoe ongelofelijk smerig dit geteisem handelt. Middels lastercampagnes, spionage en intimidatie van burgers die zich voor Palestijnse rechten uitspreken
en die Israël vanwege haar ongebreidelde terreur bekritiseren, probeert men hen de mond te snoeren door hen af te schilderen als antisemieten…….
Ofwel op grond van kritiek op de fascistische apartheidsstaat Israël, wil men critici afschilderen als antisemieten, lullig genoeg lukt dit in de meeste gevallen, al is het met behulp van de westerse reguliere media en het grootste deel van de westerse politici…… Let wel: dat hele label ‘antisemitisch’ is vooral belachelijk als men dit Palestijnen en andere arabieren aanwrijft, daar ook zij semieten zijn!!
Een ‘mooi
voorbeeld’ van een lastercampagne is die tegen Jeremy Corbyn de Labour leider, hij wordt al anderhalf jaar lang
voor antisemiet uitgemaakt, met hulp van o.a. ‘onafhankelijk
zendgemachtigde’ BBC, dit ondanks de band die Corbyn heeft met Joden die kritisch zijn op Israël, zoals de band met onze inmiddels overleden Hajo Meijer, NB een Holocaust overlever, die werkte voor Een Ander Joods Geluid……. In de Britse dagbladen is eveneens amper of geen weerwoord te vinden, Corbyn moet en zal de volgende verkiezingen
verliezen, daar zetten zich zelfs collega’s van Corbyn voor in,
verraders als opperschoft Tony Blair………
Ook in ons land zijn pro-Israëlische zionisten fanatiek bezig tegen mensen die kritiek hebben op het moorddadige beleid van Israël, o.a. Stan van Houcke is sinds kort het doelwit van zionisten ofwel fascisten als Leon de Winter…….
Voor het artikel van Durden heb
ik zelf de video’s overgenomen van YouTube (die van het originele artikel kan ik niet overnemen), ik geef ze i.t.t. tot het artikel op Zero Hedge wel alle 4 weer,
plus nog een video, met de titel: ‘Evidence
the Israel Lobby Control the US Government’. Mensen lees en
verwonder je hoe machtig de pro-Israël lobby in feite is, verwondering ook hoe men dergelijke haatcampagnes kan voeren en het gore lef heeft mensen die opkomen voor de rechten van Palestijnen, als antisemitisch weg te zetten……
Lees,
zie en geeft het door, tijd dat de ogen van de wereldbevolking
opengaan en dat Israël wordt aangepakt voor de vreselijke terreur die
het in haar illegaal gestichte staat en op de West Bank en de
Gazastrook uitoefent, inclusief een enorm aantal massamoorden, niet alleen vlak
voor en na de illegale stichting van Israël, maar tot op de dag van vandaag…
Israëlische
leiders als Netanyahu en Lieberman hadden in Scheveningen al jaren hun levenslange gevangenisstraf moeten uitzitten, en dat beste
bezoeker, heeft totaal niets met antisemitisme te maken, maar alles
met gerechtigheid voor de gepleegde oorlogsmisdaden als massamoord en bijvoorbeeld het opsluiten en martelen van Palestijnse mensen en zelfs
hun kinderen…….
Voorts zouden deze leiders terecht moeten staan voor zaken als het onthouden van water aan de Palestijnen, dit door vernieling van de bronnen (in de Gazastrook) en afdammingen in de Jordaan, t.b.v. de illegale Israëlische nederzettingen op de West Bank, waar Israël zich overigens totaal illegaal als bezettingsmacht bevindt, zoals nazi-Duitsland zich illegaal in ons land ophield van mei 1940 tot mei 1945
De 4 docu-films in het artikel hieronder werden door Al Jazeera gemaakt, echter deze mochten niet worden uitgezonden van Qatar, dit onder druk van Israël, Saoedi-Arabië en de VS……. De feiten in de documentaire werden o.a. verkregen door infiltratie >> een journalist gaf zich uit als een pro-Israëlische vrijwilliger in Washington.
Over censuur gesproken: ook Facebook doet mee aan pro-Israëlische lobby en het platform heeft al honderden accounts van Palestijnen verwijderd…….
En je weet het: als men een documentaire wil verbieden wil men zaken verborgen houden, ofwel Israël geeft in feite toe dat het een barbaars, inhumaan beleid voert t.a.v. de Palestijnen……. Dit alles (met nog een herhaling: het kan niet genoeg gezegd worden) in een illegaal gestichte staat op het grondgebied van die Palestijnen, dat te boek zou moeten staan als Palestina en niet als Israël!
Watch
the film the Israel lobby didn’t want you to see
Update: On
6 November, The Electronic Intifada published the final two episodes
of The
Lobby – USA. You
can watch
episodes three and four here.
The
Electronic Intifada has obtained a complete copy of The
Lobby – USA,
a four-part undercover investigation by Al Jazeera into Israel’s
covert influence campaign in the United States.
We
are releasing the leaked film simultaneously with
France’s Orient XXI and
Lebanon’s Al-Akhbar,
which have respectively subtitled the episodes in French and Arabic.
The
film was made by Al Jazeera during 2016 and was completed in
October 2017.
But
it was censored after
Qatar, the gas-rich Gulf emirate that funds Al Jazeera, came under
intense Israel
lobby pressure not
to air the film.
Although
Al Jazeera’s director-general claimed last month that there were
outstanding legal issues with the film, his assertions have
been flatly
contradicted by his own journalists.
In
March, The Electronic Intifada was the first
to report on
any of the film’s specific content. We followed
this in August by
publishing the first extract of the film, and shortly
after Max
Blumenthal at the Grayzone
Projectreleased others.
Since
then, The Electronic Intifada has released three
other extracts,
and several other journalists have watched the entire film and
written about it – including Alain
Gresh and Antony
Loewenstein.
Now
The Electronic Intifada can reveal for the first time that it has
obtained all four parts of the film.
You
can watch the first two parts in the video embeds above and below. (deel 3 en 4 onder dit artikel van EI)
To
get unprecedented access to the Israel lobby’s inner workings,
undercover reporter “Tony” posed as a pro-Israel volunteer
in Washington.
The
resulting film exposes the efforts of Israel and its lobbyists to spy
on, smear and intimidate US citizens who support
Palestinian human rights, especially BDS – the boycott,
divestment and sanctions movement.
It
shows that Israel’s semi-covert black-ops government
agency, the Ministry
of Strategic Affairs,
is operating this effort in collusion with an extensive network
of US-based organizations.
The
film was suppressed after the government of Qatar came under intense
pressure not to release it – ironically from the very same lobby
whose influence and antics the film exposes.
Clayton
Swisher, Al Jazeera’s head of investigations, revealed in
an article for The
Forward in
March that Al Jazeera had sent more than 70 letters to individuals
and organizations who appear in or are discussed in the film,
providing them with an opportunity to respond.
Only
three did so. Instead, pro-Israel groups have endeavored to suppress
the film that exposes the lobby’s activities.
In
April, Al Jazeera’s management was forced
to deny a claim by
the hard-right Zionist Organization of America that the film had been
canceled altogether.
In
June, The Electronic Intifada learned
that a high level source in
Doha had said the film’s indefinite delay was due to “national
security” concerns of the Qatari government.
Reifkind
– then an Israeli embassy employee – describing her typical work
day as “mainly gathering intel, reporting back to Israel … to
report back to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of
Strategic Affairs.”
She
discusses the Israeli government “giving our support” to front
groups “in that behind-the-scenes way.”
Reifkind
also admits to using fake Facebook profiles to infiltrate the circles
of Palestine solidarity activists on campus.
The
film also reveals that US-based groups coordinate their efforts
directly with the Israeli government, particularly its Ministry
of Strategic Affairs.
The
film shows footage of the very same ex-military intelligence
officer, Sima
Vaknin-Gil,
claiming to have mapped Palestinian rights activism “globally. Not
just the United States, not just campuses, but campuses and
intersectionality and labor unions and churches.”
She
promises to use this data for “offense activity” against
Palestine activists.
Jacob
Baime, executive director of the Israel on Campus Coalition, claims
in the undercover footage that his organization uses “corporate
level, enterprise-grade social media intelligence software” to
gather lists of Palestine-related student events on campus,
“generally within about 30 seconds or less” of them being
posted online.
Baime
also admits on hidden camera that his group “coordinates” with
the Israeli Ministry of Strategic Affairs.
Baime
states that his researchers “issue early warning alerts to our
partners” – including Israeli ministries.
Baime’s
colleague Ian Hersh admits in the film to adding Israel’s “Ministry
of Strategic Affairs to our operations and intelligence brief.”
“Psychological warfare”
Baime
describes how his group has used anonymous websites to
target activists.
“With
the anti-Israel people, what’s most effective, what we’ve found
at least in the last year, is you do the opposition research, put up
some anonymous website, and then put up targeted Facebook ads,”
Baime explains in part
three of the film.
“Canary
Mission is a good example,” he states. “It’s
psychological warfare.”
The
film names, for the first time, convicted
tax evaderAdam
Milstein as
the multimillionaire funder and mastermind of Canary Mission – an
anonymous smear site targeting student activists.
Eric
Gallagher, then fundraising director for The Israel Project, is seen
in the undercover footage admitting that “Adam Milstein, he’s the
guy who funds” Canary Mission.
Milstein
also funds The Israel Project, Gallagher states.
Gallagher
says that when he was working for AIPAC,
Washington’s most powerful Israel lobby group, “I was literally
emailing back and forth with [Adam Milstein] while he was in jail.”
Despite
not replying to Al Jazeera’s request for comment,
Milstein denied that
he and his family foundation “are funders of Canary Mission” on
the same day The Electronic Intifada published the clip.
In
March, The Electronic Intifada published the
first details of what is in the film.
We
reported that it showed Sima Vaknin-Gil claiming to have leading
neoconservative think tank the Foundation for Defense of Democracies
working for her ministry.
The
undercover footage shows Vaknin-Gil claiming that “We have FDD.
We have others working on” projects including “data gathering,
information analysis, working on activist organizations, money trail.
This is something that only a country, with its resources, can do
the best.”
As
noted in part one of the documentary, the existence of the film and
the identity of the undercover reporter became known after footage he
had shot for it was used in Al Jazeera’s The
Lobby –
about Israel’s covert influence campaign in the UK –
aired in early 2017.
Since
then, Israel lobbyists have heavily pressured Qatar to prevent
the US film from airing.
“Foreign agent”
Clayton
Swisher, Al Jazeera’s head of investigations, first
confirmed in October 2017 that
the network had run an undercover reporter in the US Israel
lobby at the same time as in the UK.
Swisher
promised the film would be released “very soon,” but it never
came out.
Multiple
Israel lobby sources told Israel’s Haaretz newspaper
in February that they had received assurances from Qatari leaders
late last year that the documentary would not be aired.
Qatar denied
this,
but the paper stood by its story.
Swisher’s
op-ed in The
Forward was
his first public comment on the matter since he had announced
the documentary.
In
it, he refutes Israel lobby allegations about the film and expresses
frustration that Al Jazeera had not aired it, apparently due to
outside pressure.
They
have included some of the most right-wing and extreme figures among
Israel’s defenders in the US, such
as Harvard
law professor Alan Dershowitz and Morton Klein, the head of the
Zionist Organization of America.
Swisher
wrote in The
Forward that
he ran into Dershowitz at a Doha restaurant during one of these
visits, and invited the professor to a private viewing of the film.
“I
have no problem with any of the secret filming,” Swisher says
Dershowitz told him afterwards.
“And
I can even see this being broadcast on PBS” –
the US public broadcaster.
Yet
it appears that Israel lobby efforts to quash the film were
successful – until now.
Afgelopen zaterdag was het weer zover beste bezoeker, nadat de pagina van Anti-Media was
geladen, spoot de koffie met kracht tegen de ruiten van huize
Azijnpisser en dat had alles met de kop van het hieronder opgenomen
artikel te maken.
De
reli-fascistische terreurstaten Saoedi-Arabië ziet zichzelf
als een baken van licht tegen de Iraanse ‘visie van duisternis…..’ Waar
halen ze ‘t vandaan??!!! Men is daar blijkbaar verblind geraakt door
onderdrukking van vrouwen, onderdrukking die in het openbaar te zien
is met de verplichte burka’s waarin de meeste vrouwen zich moeten
kleden in die twee terreurstaten…..
Wellicht
is deze enorme hersenkronkel ook een gevolg van de in feite illegale
oorlog die deze terreurstaten uitvechten tegen de Houthi’s in Jemen, een
oorlog die is uitgedraaid op een genocide tegen de sjiitische
bewoners van Jemen……….
Hoewel
ook de openbare executies voor zaken als kritiek hebben op het bewind
in Riyad, oorzaak kan zijn van dergelijke hersenspinsels…….
Hoe
durft men daar van zichzelf te zeggen dat het licht verspreidt,
terwijl de pers volkomen door het bewind in die terreurstaten wordt
gecontroleerd en elke journalist die maar een komma verkeerd zet, in
het gevang belandt en niet zelden wordt vermoord, zie de vreselijke
moord op Jamal Khashoggi…….
Over
Khashoggi en de media gesproken: hoe is het mogelijk dat de westerse
reguliere media en het grootste deel van de westerse politiek pas
wakker werden door de moord op deze journalist, die het grootste deel
van z’n leven het bewind in Riyad heeft gesteund in haar bloedige
terreur, ook die in eigen land…….
Bovendien was Saoedi-Arabië ook met Khashoggi als ‘journalist’ (lees: ‘propagandist’) een promotor voor het
wahabisme, een fanatieke tak van de islam die Saoedi-Arabië over de wereld heeft verspreid en verspreidt, dit middels de bouw van moskeeën en madrassa’s, die bediend worden door imams die Saoedi-Arabië welgevallig zijn…… (over verspreiden van duisternis gesproken….) Waarom werd men niet al decennia geleden wakker toen men al
‘journalisten’ en critici tegen het Saoedische bewind opsloot, liet wegrotten in
barbaarse gevangenissen, in het openbaar liet martelen, of zelfs in het openbaar vermoordde, zoals
hiervoor gezegd……???
Waarom
liet en laat het westen Saoedi-Arabië, de Golfstaten, Egypte en
Marokko een genocide begaan in Jemen??? Wel zoals in Nederland een
landelijke actie voeren tegen de hongersnood in Jemen, terwijl ook toen al
duidelijk was dat de voornoemde staten, o.l.v. de VS, met fikse hulp
van Groot-Brittannië, bezig waren met het voltrekken van een genocide
in Jemen……
Nogmaals (het kan niet genoeg gezegd worden) alsof een paar jaar geleden al niet duidelijk was dat
er alweer een genocide werd uitgevoerd, waar de wereld de slachtoffers liet (en laat) barsten, ditmaal de sjiieten in Jemen…… Sterker nog: die
hongersnood in Jemen is één van de zaken waarmee die genocide werd en wordt
uitgevoerd, immers deze hongersnood is ontstaan door de blokkades van Jemen, blokkades die door S-A en de VS worden gehandhaafd……..
Daarnaast is er door de bombardementen een cholera en difterie uitbraak ontstaan in Jemen en dat was voor cholera al 2 jaar geleden het geval, een uitbraak van deze ziekten die men nog steeds niet onder de knie heeft en daarom eisen deze ziekten dagelijks nog vele slachtoffers…… Ook dat draagt bij aan de genocide….
Weet niet hoe het met jou zit, maar tijdens die giro 555 actie voor Jemen, heb ik het woord genocide niet één keer horen noemen, als het land Saoedi-Arabië werd genoemd was dit veelal in positieve zin, immers deze zou de ‘legale regering’ van Jemen te hulp zijn geschoten tegen de Houthi rebellen (een drogreden)……..
Iran
zou terreur verspreiden, echter als er één land is dat terreur
bevordert en NB ook zelf uitvoert in het Midden-Oosten is het
Saoedi-Arabië wel!! Hoe moeilijk is het om iets dergelijks zelf te
onderzoeken en te melden….* Oh ja dom van mij, immers
Saoedi-Arabië en de Golfstaten zijn landen waar het westen dik geld
kan verdienen en daadwerkelijk verdient, tja dat is tegenwoordig zelf
voor de reguliere westerse media belangrijker dan een genocide op
een arm volk in een land van waaruit men niet eens durft te
berichten…….. Die media zijn niet voor niets in handen van plutocraten en grote investeringsgroepen en zoals je weet, die hebben
geen belang bij kritiek die de winsten drukken…….
Over Iran gesproken, dagelijks hoor je op de landelijke zenders van Nederland, Duitsland en Groot-Brittannië de leugen dat de Houthi’s in Jemen worden gesteund door Iran, terwijl daarvoor tot op heden niet één bewijs werd geleverd….. Dat kan ook niet daar Iran niet vecht in Jemen, het enige waaraan Iran ‘zich schuldig heeft gemaakt’, is het leveren van humanitaire hulpgoederen voor de zo geplaagde Jemenitische bevolking…….
Kortom
Saoedi-Arabië is de verspreider van duisternis, een duisternis die
zelfs het zicht in westen meer en meer vertroebelt…….. Laat ik
de hoop uitspreken dat de vreselijke moord op Khashoggi een verandering teweeg zal brengen, men weer duidelijk zicht krijgt en men eindelijk Saoedi-Arabië en
iedereen die dit land blijft steunen zal bestoken met sancties van
het niveau als die van de VS tegen Iran (terwijl nu juist die laatste sancties
volkomen onterecht zijn, sterker nog ze zijn volkomen onrechtmatig en
ongerechtvaardigd!!)
Saudi
Arabia Says It Is Beacon of “Light” Against Iran Despite
Khashoggi Crisis
(MEMO) — Saudi
Arabia and key ally Bahrain said on Saturday that Gulf states are
playing a critical role in maintaining stability in the Middle East
by combating Iran’s “vision of darkness”, as Riyadh faces its
worst political crisis in decades, reports Reuters.
Saudi
Arabia is the lynchpin of a US-backed regional bloc against growing
Iranian influence in the Middle East but the murder of journalist
Jamal Khashoggi at its consulate in Istanbul on Oct. 2. has prompted
a global outcry and strained Riyadh’s ties with the West.
“We
are now dealing with two visions in the Middle East. One is a (Saudi)
vision of light … One is an (Iranian) vision of darkness which
seeks to spread sectarianism throughout the region,” Foreign
Minister Adel al-Jubeir told a security summit in Bahrain.
History
tells us that light always wins out against the dark … The question
is how do we defeat them.
US
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said on Saturday that the killing of
Khashoggi, a prominent critic of Saudi policy, undermined regional
stability and that Washington
would take additional measures against
those responsible after announcing visa bans on 21 suspects in the
case.
“Failure
of any one nation to adhere to international norms and the rule of
law undermines regional stability at a time when it is needed most,”
Mattis told a separate session of the annual Manama Dialogue security
conference.
The
long-planned event has been the focus of greater scrutiny this year
after the killing of Khashoggi, with Jubeir questioned about how the
case would affect Saudi Arabia’s credibility on foreign policy and
security matters.
He
reiterated that Riyadh would bring to justice those responsible for
Khashoggi’s death, saying they would be prosecuted in the kingdom,
a day after Turkey demanded the extradition of 18 Saudis suspected of
involvement in his murder.
Jubeir
said ties between Saudi Arabia, the world’s top oil exporter, and
the United States are “ironclad” and praised what he described as
the “rational, realistic” foreign policy of the current US
administration.
President
Donald Trump has said he wants to get to the bottom of the Khashoggi
case, while also highlighting Riyadh’s role as an ally against Iran
and Islamist militants, as well as a
major purchaser of US arms.
Sunni
Muslim Saudi Arabia and Shi’ite Muslim Iran, which was not
represented in the Manama conference agenda, have long been locked in
a proxy war, competing for regional supremacy from Iraq to Syria and
Lebanon to Yemen.
Trump,
who in May withdraw the United States from a 2015 international
nuclear accord with Tehran, has strongly backed Saudi Arabia in its
efforts to counter Iran’s influence. The next wave of US sanctions
against Iran are due to come into effect on Nov 4.
Iran,
for its part, accuses Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (VAE >> NL) of
funding gunmen who attacked a military parade in Iran last month,
killing 25 people, 12 of them were members of the elite
Revolutionary Guards. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have denied any
involvement. The
Guards accused them of creating “plots and tensions”.
Bahrain’s
foreign minister, Shiekh Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa, told the
conference the Gulf bloc would remain a “pillar” of regional
security and that a proposed security alliance grouping the United
States, Gulf states, Jordan and Egypt would be activated next year.
* Zo regelde Saoedi-Arabië het geld en de middelen voor terreurgroepen in Irak en Syrië, je weet wel terreurgroepen die door het westen worden aangeduid als ‘gematigde rebellen…..’
As`ad
AbuKhalilschrijver
van het hieronder opgenomen bericht, eerder gepubliceerd op
Consortium News, stelt dat de in feite hysterische reactie in het
westen en dan m.n. die van westerse massamedia over de verdwijning
van Khashoggi voor een fiks deel een onoordeelkundige beeld geeft
over ‘journalist’ Khashoggi.
Zonder
de vele artikelen van Khashoggi te hebben gelezen die in
Saoedi-Arabië werden gepubliceerd en zonder veel van diens leven te
weten, hebben ze in feite een ex-fanatiek aanhanger van het Saoedisch
koningshuis (bloederige dictators) schoon gewassen…….
Khashoggi
was heel lang een groot bewonderaar van het Saoedische koningshuis en
heeft zich het grootste deel van zijn leven achter deze dictatuur en
al haar bloederige uitspattingen geschaard………
Khashoggi
zou zelfs aan de kant van Osama bin Laden hebben gevochten, al was
het dan als embedded journalist……
Vergeet
niet dat alle jaren dat Khashoggi in Saoedi-Arabië werkte, echte
journalistiek niet was toegestaan, laat staan kritiek leveren op de
dictatuur……. Collega’s die door de dictatuur van S-A werden opgepakt en gemarteld vanwege ‘de geur van kritiek’ in hun berichtgeving, behoefden niet te rekenen op steun van Khashoggi…….
Zelf
concludeer ik na een aantal columns van Khashoggi in de
Washington Post*
(WaPo) te hebben gelezen, dat Khashoggi weliswaar vuile handen heeft
gemaakt in Saoedi-Arabië, al was het maar het niet opkomen voor
collega’s die niet zo braaf waren en zwaar werden gestraft, maar hij
in de VS wel degelijk fiks tekeerging tegen S-A en bijvoorbeeld haar
smerige oorlog in Jemen (die hij overigens niet als genocide
aanduidde, zoals het overgrote deel van de westerse collega’s dat nalaten)……
Er is
niet veel nodig om de doodstraf te krijgen in S-A en gezien een
aantal van zijn columns overschreed hij daarmee een lijn, die
waarschijnlijk tot zijn dood leidde….. Zo had hij verder kritiek op o.a
de blokkade van Qatar en de propaganda van S-A tegen Iran, zaken die
in S-A ‘doodstrafwaardig’ zijn…… Kortom Khashoggi is ten inkeer gekomen, wat hem niet vrijpleit van het jarenlang propaganda maken voor het bloederige Saoedische koningshuis.
Jamal
Khashoggi, the Saudi journalist, who disappeared in the Saudi
consulate in Istanbul last week is not quite the critic of the Saudi
regime that the Western media says he is.
(CN Op-ed) — The
disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi, the Saudi journalist, in the Saudi
consulate in Istanbul last week has generated huge international
publicity, but unsurprisingly, little in Saudi-controlled, Arab
media. The
Washington Post, for
whom Khashoggi wrote, and other Western media, have kept the story
alive, increasing the pressure on Riyadh to explain its role in the
affair.
It’s
been odd to read about Khashoggi in Western media. David Hirst in The
Guardian claimed
Khashoggi merely cared about absolutes such as “truth, democracy,
and freedom”.
Human Rights Watch’s director described him as representing
“outspoken and critical journalism.”
But
did he pursue those absolutes while working for Saudi princes?
Khashoggi
was a loyal member of the Saudi propaganda apparatus. There is no
journalism allowed in the kingdom: there have been courageous Saudi
women and men who attempted to crack the wall of rigid political
conformity and were persecuted and punished for their views.
Khashoggi was not among them.
Some
writers suffered while Khashoggi was their boss
at Al-Watan newspaper. Khashoggi—contrary to what
is being written—was never punished by the regime, except lightly
two years ago, when Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS)
banned him from tweeting and writing for Al-Hayat, the
London-based, pan-Arab newspaper owned by Saudi Prince Khalid
bin Sultan.
By
historical contrast, Nasir As-Sa`id was a courageous secular Arab
Nationalist writer who fled the kingdom in 1956 and settled in Cairo,
and then Beirut. He authored a massive (though tabloid-like) volume
about the history of the House of Saud. He was unrelenting in his
attacks against the Saudi royal family.
For
this, the Saudi regime paid a corrupt PLO leader in Beirut (Abu
Az-Za`im, tied to Jordanian intelligence) to get rid of As-Sa`id. He
kidnapped As-Sa`id from a crowded Beirut street in 1979 and delivered
him to the Saudi embassy there. He was presumably tortured and killed
(some say his body was tossed from a plane over the “empty quarter”
desert in Saudi Arabia). Such is the track record of the regime.
Finding
the Right Prince
Khashoggi
was an ambitious young reporter who knew that to rise in Saudi
journalism you don’t need professionalism, courage, or ethics. In
Saudi Arabia, you need to attach yourself to the right prince. Early
on, Khashoggi became close to two of them: Prince Turki Al-Faysal
(who headed Saudi intelligence) and his brother, Prince Khalid
Al-Faysal, who owned Al-Watan (The Motherland) where
Khashoggi had his first (Arabic) editing job.
Khashoggi
distinguished himself with an eagerness to please and an uncanny
ability to adjust his views to those of the prevailing government. In
the era of anti-Communism and the promotion of fanatical jihad in Afghanistan and elsewhere, Khashoggi was a true believer. He
fought with Osama bin Laden and promoted the cause of the Mujahideen.
The
Washington Post‘s
David Ignatius and others want to embellish this
by implying that he was an “embedded” reporter—as if bin
Laden’s army would invite independent journalists to report on
their war efforts. The entire project of covering the Afghan
Mujahideen and promoting them in the Saudi press was the work of the
chief of Saudi intelligence, Prince Turki, Khashoggi’s principal
patron-prince.
Western
media coverage of Khashoggi’s career (by people who don’t know
Arabic) presents a picture far from reality. They portray a
courageous investigative journalist upsetting the Saudi regime.
Nothing is further from the truth: there is no journalism in Saudi
Arabia; there is only crude and naked propaganda.
Editors
are trusted individuals who have demonstrated long-time loyalty.
Khashoggi admitted to an Arab reporter last year in an interview
from Istanbul that in Saudi Arabia he had been both
editor and censor.
Editors of Saudi regime papers (mouthpieces of princes and kings)
enforce government rules and eliminate objectionable material.
Khashoggi
never spoke out for Saudis in distress. He ran into trouble in two
stints as Al-Watan editor because of articles he
published by other writers, not by himself, that were mildly critical
of the conservative religious establishment—which he at times
supported. He was relocated to another government media job— to
shield him from the religious authorities.
Khashoggi
was the go-to man for Western journalists covering the kingdom,
appointed to do so by the regime. He may have been pleasant in
conversation with reporters but he never questioned the royal
legitimacy. And that goes for his brief one-year stint in Washington
writing for the Post.
A
Reactionary
Khashoggi
was a reactionary: he supported all monarchies and sultanates in the
region and contended they were “reformable.” To him, only the
secular republics, in tense relations with the Saudis, such as Iraq,
Syria and Libya, defied reform and needed to be overthrown. He
favored Islamization of Arab politics along Muslim Brotherhood lines.
Khashoggi’s
vision was an “Arab uprising” led by the Saudi regime.
In his Arabic writings he backed MbS’s “reforms” and even his
“war on corruption,” derided in the region and beyond. He thought
that MbS’s arrests of the princes in the Ritz were legitimate
(though he mildly criticized
them in a Post column)
even as his last sponsoring prince, Al-Walid bin Talal, was locked up
in the luxury hotel. Khashoggi even wanted to be an advisor to MbS,
who did not trust him and turned him down.
Writing
in the Post (with an Arabic version) Khashoggi came
across as a liberal Democrat favoring democracy and reform. But he
didn’t challenge Saudi regime legitimacy or Western Mideast policy.
Mainstream journalists were enamored with him. They saw him as an
agreeable Arab who didn’t criticize their coverage of the region,
but praised it, considering the mainstream U.S. press the epitome of
professional journalism. Khashoggi was essentially a token Arab
writing for a paper with a regrettable record of misrepresenting
Arabs.
In
Arabic, his Islamist sympathies with Turkey and the Muslim
Brotherhood (Ikhwan) were unmistakable. Forgotten or little
known in the West is that during the Cold War the Saudis sponsored,
funded, and nurtured the Muslim Brotherhood as a weapon against the
progressive, secular camp led by Egypt’s Gamal Abdel
Nasser. Ikhwan controlled the Saudi educational
system raising Saudi students to admire the Brotherhood. But Sep. 11
changed the Saudi calculus: the rulers wanted a scapegoat for their
role in sponsoring Islamist fanaticism and the Ikhwan was
the perfect target. That made Khashoggi suspect too.
Hints
Against Him
Recent articles in
the Saudi press hinted that the regime might move against him. He had
lost his patrons but the notion that Khashoggi was about to launch an
Arab opposition party was not credible. The real crime was that
Khashoggi was backed alone by Ikhwan supporters,
namely the Qatari regime and the Turkish government.
A
writer in Okaz,
a daily in Jeddah, accused him
of meeting with the Emir of Qatar at the Four Seasons Hotel in New
York and of having ties to “regional and international intelligence
services.” If true it may have sealed his fate. Qatar is now the
number one enemy of the Saudi regime—arguably worse than Iran.
Khashoggi
was treated as a defector and one isn’t allowed to defect from the
Saudi Establishment. The last senior defections were back in 1962,
when Prince Talal and Prince Badr joined Nasser’s Arab nationalist
movement in Egypt.
Khashoggi
had to be punished in a way that would send shivers down the spine of
other would-be defectors.
De
Saoedisch journalist Khashoggi, die naar grote waarschijnlijkheid is
vermoord in het Saoedische consulaat in Istanbul, zou op de
hoogte kunnen zijn geweest van de aanslagen tegen o.a. het WTC op 11 september 2001.
Daar
Khashoggi in ongenade was gevallen bij de reli-fascistische
dictatuur van Saoedi-Arabië, was hij het land ontvlucht en werkte hij
voor de Washington Post. In zijn artikelen deed Khashoggi een boek
open o.a. over kroonprins bin Salman (MBS)
Finian
Cunningham schreef een artikel op Information Clearing House, waarin
hij openbaart dat figuren uit de geheime diensten van de VS op de hoogte waren van de Saoedische plannen Khashoggi
te ontvoeren en deze hebben verzuimd hem te waarschuwen…… Hieruit zou je
inderdaad kunnen afleiden dat de VS zelf al niet blij was met
Khashoggi, het waarom zou kunnen duiden op kennis bij Khashoggi van de 9/11 aanslagen in 2001.
De daders van die aanslagen, aangestuurd door de geheime diensten van de VS, kwamen voor het grootste deel uit Saoedi-Arabië. Het is intussen wel zeker dat 9/11 een false flag operatie
was, waarvan vooral de VS heeft geprofiteerd en waarmee men de weg
vrij maakte voor nog meer illegale oorlogen tegen landen die de VS
niet gehoorzaam genoeg vindt…… VS terreur waarmee sinds 2001 meer dan 2 miljoen mensen werden vermoord…..
Cunningham geeft nog veel meer argumenten, lees zijn artikel en oordeel zelf:
Did
Saudis, CIA Fear Khashoggi 9/11 Bombshell?
By
Finian Cunningham
October
14, 2018 “Information
Clearing House” – The
macabre case of missing journalist Jamal Khashoggi raises the
question: did Saudi rulers fear him revealing highly damaging
information on their secret dealings? In particular, possible
involvement in the 9/11 terror attacks on New York in 2001.
Even
more intriguing are US media reports now
emerging that American intelligence had snooped on and were aware of
Saudi officials making plans to capture Khashoggi prior to his
apparent disappearance at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul last week.
If the Americans knew the journalist’s life was in danger, why
didn’t they tip him off to avoid his doom?
Jamal
Khashoggi (59) had gone rogue, from the Saudi elite’s point of
view. Formerly a senior editor in Saudi state media and an advisor to
the royal court, he was imminently connected and versed in House of
Saud affairs. As one commentator cryptically put it: “He knew where
all the bodies were buried.”
For
the past year, Khashoggi went into self-imposed exile, taking up
residence in the US, where he began writing opinion columns for the
Washington Post.
Khashoggi’s
articles appeared
to be taking on increasingly critical tone against the heir to the
Saudi throne, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The 33-year-old Crown
Prince, or MbS as he’s known, is de facto ruler of the oil-rich
kingdom, in place of his aging father, King Salman.
While
Western media and several leaders, such as Presidents Trump and
Macron, have been indulging MbS as “a reformer”, Khashoggi was
spoiling this Saudi public relations effort by criticizing the war in
Yemen, the blockade on Qatar and the crackdown on Saudi critics back
home.
However,
what may have caused the Saudi royals more concern was what Khashoggi
knew about darker, dirtier matters. And not just the Saudis, but
American deep state actors as well.
He
was formerly a media
aide to
Prince Turki al Faisal*, who is an eminence gris figure in Saudi
intelligence, with its systematic relations to American and British
counterparts. Prince Turki’s father, Faisal, was formerly the king
of Saudi Arabia until his assassination in 1975 by a family rival.
Faisal was a half-brother of the present king, Salman, and therefore
Prince Turki is a cousin of the Crown Prince – albeit at 73 more
than twice his age.
For
nearly 23 years, from 1977 to 2001, Prince Turki was the director of
the Mukhabarat, the Saudi state intelligence apparatus. He was
instrumental in Saudi, American and British organization of the
mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan to combat Soviet forces. Those
militants in Afghanistan later evolved into the al Qaeda terror
network, which has served as a cat’s paw in various US proxy wars
across the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia, including
Russia’s backyard in the Caucasus.
Ten
days before the 9/11 terror attacks on New York City, in which some
3,000 Americans died, Prince Turki retired from
his post as head of Saudi intelligence. It was an abrupt departure,
well before his tenure was due to expire.
There
has previously been speculation in
US media that this senior Saudi figure knew in advance that something
major was going down on 9/11. At least 15 of the 19 Arabs who
allegedly hijacked three commercial airplanes that day were Saudi
nationals.
Prince
Turki has subsequently been named in a 2002 lawsuit mounted by
families of 9/11 victims. There is little suggestion he was wittingly
involved in organizing the terror plot. Later public comments
indicated that Prince Turki was horrified by the atrocity. But the
question is: did he know of the impending incident, and did he alert
US intelligence, which then did not take appropriate action to
prevent it?
Jamal
Khashoggi had long served as a trusted media advisor to Prince Turki,
before the latter resigned from public office in 2007. Following
9/11, Turki was the Saudi ambassador to both the US and Britain.
A
tentative idea here is that Khashoggi, in his close dealings with
Prince Turki over the years, may have gleaned highly sensitive inside
information on what actually happened on 9/11. Were the Arab
hijackers mere patsies used by the American CIA to facilitate an
event which has since been used by American military planners to
launch a global “war on terror” as a cover for illegal wars
overseas? There is a huge body of evidence that the 9/11 attacks were
indeed a “false flag” event orchestrated by the US deep state as
a pretext for its imperialist rampages.
The
apparent abduction and murder last week of Jamal Khashoggi seems such
an astoundingly desperate move by the Saudi rulers. More evidence is
emerging from Turkish sources that
the journalist was indeed lured to the consulate in Istanbul where he
was killed by a 15-member hit squad. Reports are saying that the
alleged assassination was ordered at the highest level of the Saudi
royal court, which implicates Crown Prince MbS.
Why
would the Saudi rulers order such a heinous act, which would
inevitably lead to acute political problems, as we are seeing in the
fallout from governments and media coverage around the world?
Over
the past year, the House of Saud had been appealing to Khashoggi to
return to Riyadh and resume his services as a media advisor to the
royal court. He declined, fearing that something more sinister was
afoot. When Khashoggi turned up in Istanbul to collect a divorce
document from the Saudi consulate on September 28, it appears that
the House of Saud decided to nab him. He was told to return to the
consulate on October 2. On that same day, the 15-member group arrived
from Riyadh on two private Gulfstream jets for the mission to kill
him.
Official
Saudi claims stretch credulity. They say Khashoggi left the consulate
building unharmed by a backdoor, although they won’t provide CCTV
images to prove that. The Turks say their own CCTV facilities
monitoring the front and back of the Saudi consulate show that
Khashoggi did not leave the premises. The Turks seem confident of
their claim he was murdered inside the building, his remains
dismembered and removed in diplomatic vehicles. The two private jets
left the same day from Istanbul with the 15 Saudis onboard to return
to Riyadh, via Cairo and Dubai.
To
carry out such a reckless act, the Saudis must have been alarmed by
Khashoggi’s critical commentaries appearing in the Washington Post.
The columns appeared to be delivering more and more damaging insights
into the regime under Crown Prince MbS.
The
Washington Post this week is reporting that
US intelligence sources knew from telecom intercepts that the Saudis
were planning to abduct Khashoggi. That implicates the House of Saud
in a dastardly premeditated act of murder.
But
furthermore this same disclosure could also, unwittingly, implicate
US intelligence. If the latter knew of a malicious intent towards
Khashoggi, why didn’t US agents warn him about going to the Saudi
consulate in Istanbul? Surely, he could have obtained the same
personal documents from the Saudi embassy in Washington DC, a country
where he was residing and would have been safer.
Jamal
Khashoggi may have known too many dark secrets about US and Saudi
intel collusion, primarily related to the 9/11 terror incidents. And
with his increasing volubility as a critical journalist in a
prominent American news outlet, it may have been time to silence him.
The Saudis as hitmen, the American CIA as facilitators.
Finian
Cunningham has
written extensively on international affairs, with articles published
in several languages. He is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural
Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of
Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper
journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20
years, he worked as an editor and writer in major news media
organisations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent.
* In Nederlands: Turki bin Faisal al-Saoed (‘T. bin Faisal’ als label onder dit bericht, dit is overigens de eerste keer dat ik deze Saoedische ‘prins’ noem).
Voor meer berichten over de 9/11 aanslagen, klik op het label ‘911’ direct onder dit bericht.
PS: gisteren hebben Turkije en Saoedi-Arabië een onderzoek gedaan in het consulaat in Istanbul, daaraan voorafgaand heeft een schoonmaakploeg het consulaat grondig gereinigd, daarover later deze dag meer.
Caitlin
Johnstone heeft een artikel geschreven over de uiterst doorzichtige
propaganda gebracht door de reguliere (massa-) media. Hiervoor haalt
ze het voorbeeld aan van het 7 jarige meisje Bana Alabed dat werd ‘geïnterviewd’ door CNN ‘journalist’ Alisyn Camerota. Uit dit interview
blijkt duidelijk dat het meisje zaken noemde die te ingewikkeld zijn
voor een kind van haar leeftijd, bovendien was duidelijk te zien dat
Bana zaken voorlas van een ‘tele prompter’, niet alleen door de
beweging van haar ogen, maar ook door woorden in delen op te lezen,
waar duidelijk uit blijkt dat ze niet begreep waar ze het over
had…….
Zoals
altijd met propaganda is deze bedoeld om het volk achter een oorlog
of een aanval te krijgen, vandaar ook dat men keer op keer als er
over Assad wordt gesproken in die reguliere media, de superlatieven niet
van de lucht zijn, zo is hij o.a. al omschreven als duivels, een bloedige
dictator en vergasser van kinderen en de rest van zijn
bevolking…… Niet dat voor dat laatste, dus de vergassing van burgers, bewijzen zijn, echter door
het te blijven herhalen (terwijl al lang is bewezen dat Assad niet
achter die aanvallen met gifgas zat) wordt het volk dusdanig
gehersenspoeld dat ze de leugens gaan geloven en zelfs militair
ingrijpen eisen……… Zoals je begrijpt geldt dat al helemaal voor de andere gebruikte superlatieven.
Het
meest lullig is wel dat ook president Trump die leugens gelooft en
minstens twee keer actie heeft ondernomen tegen Syrië, op basis van (valse) anti-Assad propaganda op Fox…….
Lees
het uitgebreid op basis van feiten (via links) geschreven artikel van
Johnstone en geeft het ajb door! Het is tijd dat het volk, ook in
Nederland, eindelijk inziet dat het bijna dagelijks wordt voorgelogen
en niet zelden over meerdere onderwerpen…… Neem alleen al de steun voor financiering van ‘gematigde rebellen’, die terreurgroepen bleken te zijn*, of zie de berichtgeving voorafgaand aan en tijdens de oorlog tegen Irak in 2003……
That
Time CNN Staged a Fake Interview With a Syrian Child for War
Propaganda
(CJ Opinion) — Imagine
if you and some friends wandered into a completely dark room together
for some reason. You’ve never been in this room before, and you
can’t see a thing.
Now
imagine one of your friends says he can see everything in the room
perfectly, and starts describing the different things that he sees in
a confident, assertive tone of voice. You know for a fact that
there’s no light in the room, so you are doubtful that your friend
is able to see any better than you are, but one by one your other
friends start talking about the objects in the room as though what he
is saying is true. After a while your group starts telling you you’re
crazy and evil because you remain skeptical of your first friend’s
ability to see the room in pitch darkness, despite his assertive tone
of voice and despite the fact that everyone else believes it.
Western
public discourse about Syria is very much the same. All the time I
get people coming up yelling at me about what a butcher Bashar
al-Assad is, how he loves gassing children because he’s an evil
monster, how he’s killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in his
own country out of sheer sadism, and all I can say to them is, you
don’t know that. You don’t know any of those things, you’re
just pretending you do because that’s what everyone else is doing.
I know you don’t know any of those things because you’re looking
at the same information landscape as I am, and it’s chock full of
war propaganda. The media
matrix is
too full of obvious psyops meant to manufacture public consent for
military interventionism in Syria for any westerner to have a clear
idea of what’s actually happening in that country.
And
we know this for a fact, as sure as you know when you’re in a dark
room. Take the time CNN knowingly staged a fake, scripted interview
with a seven year-old Syrian girl last year and passed it off to its
audience as a real interview.
I
point this out to my readers every few months, and I expect I will
continue to do so for as long as western war propaganda is a problem.
In April of last year, following a hotlydisputed accusation
of chemical weapons use in Idlib province, a little girl named Bana
Alabed was paraded before the audience of CNN’s New
Day in an
interview with Alisyn Camerota.
Bana was seven years old at the time, yet was seen in the interview
providing complex ideas and geopolitical analysis that she could not
possibly have understood. Her eyes moved back and forth as though
reading from a teleprompter, and she sounded out the words in English
(a language she doesn’t
appear to have understood at the time)
syllable-by-syllable in a way you’ve never heard any child speak in
your life.
It
was a fake interview passed off as a real one, scripted and passed
off as spontaneous. It’s as clear as day for anyone to see. And
Alisyn Camerota necessarily had the other half of that script, since
she needed to know what questions to feed the child. It was a
coordinated deception of CNN’s audience, meant to sell the
unpopular idea of yet another military intervention in yet another
Middle Eastern country, aired on America’s most trusted and
well-known nationwide news network. It was as brazen a deception as
you could possibly imagine, on as mainstream a platform as you could
possibly get, advancing a narrative clearly intended to manufacture
support for an agenda which could potentially devastate an entire
region. That happened. They did that. If they’ll do that, there’s
nothing they won’t do.
And
now, as things are heating up in Idlib, we’ve got America’s
UN ambassador saying
that any sign of chemical weapons use will be immediately blamed on
the Assad government and retaliated against despite the known
presence of Al-Qaeda affiliates who’d have every
incentive to stage such an attack,
and despite the complete absence of motive for Assad. We’ve got
State
They
are lying to us about what is happening in Syria. We know that for a
fact, just like we now for a fact when we are in a dark room. And we
know for a fact that the US and its allies have been scheming to
effect regime change in that very nation, the nation immediately
adjacent to their previous regime change target Iraq, for many years.
We know that they have been planning to orchestrate a violent
uprising in Syria since
long before violence erupted in 2011,
and we know that it erupted as they had planned. I posted the
evidence for this in a recent article, but here it is again just to
make sure more people see it:
Here
is a 2006 WikiLeaks cable in
which the US government is seen exploring possible factions which
could be incentivized to rise up against Assad, and ways in which
psyops could be used to ensure widespread violence.
Here
is a declassified CIA memo from
1986 in which the Central Intelligence Agency is seen exploring ways
in which sectarian tensions can be inflamed to provoke a violent
uprising in Syria. Here
is a useful articlefeaturing
excerpts from the memo showing some jarring parallels between what
was being planned and what happened a quarter century later.
Here
is a video clip of
General Wesley Clark naming Syria among the countries scheduled by
the Pentagon for regime change in the wake of 9/11.
Here
is a video clip of
the former Foreign Minister of France stating in plain language that
he was informed by British government insiders in 2009 that a
violent Syrian uprising was being planned, two years before the
violence erupted.
Here
is an article featuring
a video of the former Qatari Prime Minister stating that the US and
its allies were involved in the violence from the very beginning.
Here
is an article from
May of 2011 reporting on some of the extremely suspicious
provocations that led to the outbreak of widespread violence. Here’s
another from
March 2011. Here’s
another from
December 2011.
So
don’t be fooled. Remember, the reason they work so hard to
manufacture our consent for these agendas is because
they need that consent in order to operate.
If they try to operate without our consent, they will lose control of
the narrative, and thus lose their ability to propagandize us
effectively. So don’t give them your consent. Fight their lies on
all fronts, using truth, skepticism and critical thinking as your
weapon. Stand tall, shine bright, refuse to be ignored, don’t wait
for your turn to speak, use
unmitigated speech,
say what needs to be said and say it like you’re right, because you
are.
Let
a giant “NO” to this manipulation roar through us all. Let the
Syrian people be free from imperialist agendas once and for all. Let
us all be free from imperialist agendas once and for all. End the
madness and begin moving into sanity.
De
bliksem is de Saoedische ‘minister’ van buitenlandse zaken (bij de gratie van MBS*), Adel al-Jabeir in de maffe bol geslagen. De
idioot stelde dat Qatar de kosten moet dragen voor de illegale
aanwezigheid van de VS in Syrië, daarnaast moet Qatar zelf troepen
sturen naar Syrië……. Aan welke kant die troepen dan moeten
vechten maakte al-Jabeir niet bekend, immers Saoedi-Arabië betaalt behalve IS, alle terreurgroepen in Syrië en heeft dat zelfs een tijdlang voor IS
gedaan…. Bovendien heeft S-A (zoals de VS) deze terreurgroepen van wapens en
voertuigen voorzien……
Al-Jabeir
liet weten dat wanneer Qatar dit niet doet, de VS Qatar niet langer
zal steunen en het land binnen een week zal vallen (door een inval
van Saoedi-Arabië……)…..
Professor Madawi al-Rasheed stelde terecht de vraag welke Golfstaat niet wordt beschermd door de VS, of welke Golfstaat niet wordt bewapend door de VS, of welke Golfstaat niet door de VS wordt geleid, of die niet is leeggeroofd door de VS??
Dan nog:
hoe durft deze losgeslagen al-Jabeir internationaal nog iets op te
merken, als je ziet dat Saoedi-Arabië zoals gezegd terreurgroepen financiert en
godbetert een genocide uitvoert in buurland Jemen???
Nieuw voor mij is de wil van de Trump administratie om een Arabisch leger op poten te zetten met de legers van Saoedi-Arabië en die van de Verenigde Arabische Emiraten (VAE), dit om de illegale taken van de VS over te nemen en stabiliteit te brengen in van IS bevrijdde gebieden……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Alsof je een stel psychopathische moordenaars de verantwoording over de politie geeft……
Wanneer
wordt Saoedi-Arabië eindelijk voor het Internationaal Strafhof (ICC)
gesleept? Dit land moet intussen verantwoordelijk zijn voor alleen in
Jemen al meer dan 20.000 doden, dit door de hongersnood, cholera en
difterie uitbraak, allen één op één te danken aan de blokkade van S-A
en de VS en de oorlog die S-A voert tegen de sjiitische burgers van
Jemen……..
Qatar
Should Pay for US Troops in Syria or Risk Downfall: Saudi Minister
(MEE) — The
US government will stop protecting Qatar if the country doesn’t
fund the American military venture in Syria, Saudi Arabia’s foreign
minister warned on
Tuesday.
“Qatar
has to pay for the US military’s presence in Syria and send its
military forces there before the US president cancels the American
protection of Qatar, which has an American military base on its
grounds,” Adel al-Jubeir said in a statement.
Without
American protection – or more specifically Al-Udeid, a key US
military base in Qatar which hosts 10,000 troops – Al-Jubeir said
Doha’s government “would fall in less than a week”.
The
foreign minister’s comments come a week after Saudi Arabia said it
would be willing to deploy troops to Syria as part of US-led efforts
to stabilise the country.
The
Trump administration has said it is seeking to assemble an Arab
force, including Saudi Arabia and
the
United Arab Emirates, to replace US troops and pay for the
stabilisation and reconstruction of areas captured from the Islamic
State militant group.
But
analysts said Jubeir’s recommendation was politically motivated and
unlikely to happen, with one calling it “a silly, silly
suggestion”.
“How
could Qatar pay for the United States when they are under a
blockade?” Madawi Al-Rasheed, a visiting professor at the Middle
East Centre at LSE, told Middle East Eye.
“And
why pick on Qatar? Saudi Arabia were the ones who sponsored
discussions to bring Syrian opposition under one umbrella against
President Assad.”
She
added: “This is just an admission of failure. It’s just a silly,
silly suggestion. It comes out of desperation to implicate Qatar in
Syria after Saudi Arabia were the ones funding and encouraging groups
there in the first place,” she said.
Translation:
Is there a Gulf country that America doesn’t protect? Or America
doesn’t arm? Or America doesn’t lead? Or America hasn’t
looted?
Christopher
Davidson, a reader in Middle East politics at Durham University, said
that the Saudi foreign minister was “trying to throw the hot potato
onto Doha’s lap”.
“Saudi
Arabia and Qatar are both grappling with having to survive a new
and more adept US administration that is keen to extract greater
concessions from its ‘Gulf allies’ in return for continuing
protection and international diplomatic support,” he said.
Neither
Saudi Arabia nor Qatar want to be involved in Syria “as it would
likely involve not only direct confrontation with
Damascus-Tehran-Moscow axis forces, but also entanglement with some
of the same extremist groups they themselves, or at least many of
their wealthy private citizens, have recently funded and weaponised,”
Davidson added.
Saudi
Arabia and Qatar have been at loggerheads for years, but particularly
since last June when the kingdom, along with the United Arab
Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt, cut diplomatic and trade ties with Doha,
accusing the country of supporting terrorism. Qatar has denied those
claims.
The
emirate’s only land border was closed and all flights were banned
to and from the country.
As
a result of the blockade, foreign financing and resident private
sector deposits reportedly fell by $40bn, but that was offset by cash
injections from the central bank and Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund,
according to an International Monetary Fund (IMF) report released in
March.
The
IMF said the blockade’s impact was “transitory” because new
trade routes were quickly established and growth remained positive.
Madawi
added: “Regardless [of the blockade], I think this is a trap for
Qatar. Saudi Arabia and its allies have accused Qatar of terrorism,
so under what mandate would Qatari troops go into Syria? And which
side would they be on? The side of the rebels or of the regime?”
*
MBS: de psychopathische massamoordenaar, tevens kroonprins van de
reli-fascistische terreurstaat Saoedi-Arabië: Mohammad bin Salman
al-Saoed, de hoofdverantwoordelijke voor de zich voltrekkende
genocide in Jemen, een genocide die zoals gezegd al aan vele duizenden mensen en
kinderen het leven heeft gekost, iets waar het westen schijt aan
heeft……… Hetzelfde westen dat hysterisch de bol uitgaat na de eerste beste doorzichtige leugen over een gifgasaanval…….. (je zou bijna denken dat men niet eens gelooft dat er een genocide plaatsvindt in Jemen, terwijl aan alle ‘voorwaarden’ voor die beschuldiging is voldaan……..)
De schoonzoon van Trump, Jared Kushner is de grote gangmaker achter de boycot ingesteld op Qatar door Saoedi-Arabië, Egypte, de Verenigde Arabische Emiraten (VAE) en Bahrein.
Topgraaier Kushner kocht met een enorme berg geleend geld, op het verkeerde moment (in 2007) een wolkenkrabber in New York. Nadat de crisis in 2008 losbarstte, moest Kushner een flink deel van het gebouw verkopen. Om de rest van de schuld te kunnen betalen, zocht hij geld in o.a. Qatar dat hem een lening van 500 miljoen dollar in het vooruitzicht stelde.
Sjeik Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani (HBJ) uit Qatar wilde hem 500 miljoen dollar lenen, als hij inderdaad zou worden gekozen als adviseur van het Witte Huis. Ook een Chinees staatsbedrijf wilde investeren in de wolkenkrabber. Echter nadat Kushner zijn adviseursaanstelling kreeg, trok het Chinese bedrijf zich terug vanwege vermeende belangenverstrengeling.
Als reactie op die beslissing, trok ook de sjeik uit Qatar zich terug uit het ‘project’.
The Intercept meldde dat Kushner het Witte Huis adviseerde op te treden tegen Qatar, hoewel er geen hard bewijs is, dat e.e.a. met de beslissing van de sjeik te maken had, is het wel duidelijk dat het één met het ander te maken heeft…… Met andere woorden: ook hier heeft de VS de lont in het kruitvat gestoken…..
Het volgende bericht, gepubliceerd door Anti-Media, is grotendeels gebaseerd op het artikel van The Intercept (in het bericht vind je de link naar dat artikel):
Jared
Kushner ‘Sought $500 Million From Qatar for Skyscraper Bailout’
(MEE) — Jared
Kushner, the son-in-law to US President Donald Trump and a senior
White House adviser, sought a $500m investment from Qatar for a New
York skyscraper shortly before the diplomatic crisis between Qatar
and a host of other countries, according to an Intercept
article on
Monday.
The
account raises suspicions that Trump’s foreign policy is related to
the family’s business interests.
Citing
unidentified sources that reportedly had knowledge of the proposed
bailout, the Intercept reported that Kushner tried to shore up
funding from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani (HBJ) after the
skyscraper’s value plummeted from the real estate crisis in 2008.
Kushner had bought the building in 2007 – when he was 26 – for
$500m out of his family’s pocket and $1.3bn in borrowed money.
However,
the real estate crisis forced Kushner to sell off a sizeable chunk of
their office space in the building as part of a financial package;
but in order to pay back those who originally borrowed money, he must
have $1.3bn by early next year. According to a New
York Magazine report,
if Kushner “can’t find some new scheme for refinancing and
redeveloping the property by then, [he] will have cost his family
half a billion dollars”.
After
the election, investors appeared to be willing to bail out Kushner’s
skyscraper fiasco.
HBJ
reportedly agreed to invest $500m in the severely debt-ridden
property as long as Kushner was able to raise the rest of the money,
which he could do when he became a senior White House adviser,
according to the Intercept article.
A
Chinese company with ties to members of the country’s ruling party
was also willing to shore up $400m in March, but had decided to back
out in March over a “conflict of interest” that consisted of “a
company with ties to the Chinese government going into [big] business
with the family of a senior adviser to the American one”.
When
the Chinese company exited, so did HBJ.
Months
later in June, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and
Bahrain cut off all air, land and sea links to Qatar. Trump sided
with the four-nation coalition, saying that the tiny petro-chemical
nation funded terrorism.
The
Intercept reported that Kushner played a key role in the White
House’s hardline stance against Qatar, but it did not establish a
link whether Kushner’s role had anything to do with the failed
skyscraper bailout.
In de reguliere westerse (massa-) media wordt continu gelogen over Syrië en wat men in die media ‘dictator Assad’ noemt. Assad die NB in 2014 met een grote meerderheid van stemmen werd gekozen tot president, dit in verkiezingen die door internationale waarnemers als eerlijke verlopend werden bestempeld!!
Anti-Media bracht gisteren een artikel van MintPress News, waarin wordt gemeld, dat bijna 500.000 gevluchte Syriërs terugkeren naar door het bewind van Assad gecontroleerde gebieden. Me dunkt ‘het teken, dat ze Assad een smerige, bloederige dictator vinden……’
Andrej Mahecic, woordvoerder van de hoge commissaris voor vluchtelingen bij de VN (UNHCR), heeft bekend gemaakt, dat sinds het begin van dit jaar 440.000 Syrische vluchtelingen, die in Syrië zijn gebleven, terug zijn gekeerd naar hun woonplaats in door reguliere Syrische troepen gecontroleerd gebied. Daarnaast zijn er in dezelfde tijd 31.000 Syrische vluchtelingen die naar het buitenland waren gevlucht, teruggekeerd naar alweer door het Syrische leger gecontroleerd gebied. Voorts zijn er sinds 2015 vanuit het buitenland 260.000 vluchtelingen teruggekeerd naar (nogmaals) door het Syrische leger gecontroleerd gebied…..
De westerse praatjes, dat het merendeel van de Syriërs zijn gevlucht voor het wrede regime van Assad, is een smerige leugen in de propagandaoorlog die de westerse massamedia en het merendeel van de westerser politici, onder aanvoering van NB de grootste terreurentiteit op aarde, de VS, voeren tegen de regering Assad, Rusland en Iran……….
Vergeet niet dat het (ongedeelde) Syrië onder Assad, van voor de door de VS en anderen geregisseerde en gefinancierde opstandvan 2011, een land was waar een groot aantal geloven, zonder enige probleem ‘onder hetzelfde dak leefden…..’ Iets dat in de door Assad gecontroleerde gebieden nog steeds zo is!!
Het agressieve westen moet zich als de donder terugtrekken uit Syrië, voordat het land opgedeeld kan worden, een opdeling die de wens is van: de VS, Saoedi-Arabië (na de VS de nr. 2 terreurstaat), Israël (na de VS en S-A de nr. 3 terreurstaat), Egypte en de Golfstaten (zonder Qatar). Als dit niet gebeurd is er niet alleen de kans op een internationaal conflict van enorm formaat, maar zal Syrië de zoveelste ‘failed state made in USA’ zijn……..
Hier het artikel van Anti-Media:
Over
500,000 Syrian Refugees Return To Government-Controlled Areas Of
Syria
(MPN) — DAMASCUS
(Analysis) – Crucial
to the Western narrative of the Syrian conflict is the assertion that
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is a brutal
dictator who
has taken to killing
his own people over
the course of Syria’s six-year-long conflict. This allegation has
been the crux of the “humanitarian” justification for foreign
military intervention in Syria that would seek to depose Assad’s
government, a justification frequently used by the U.S. and its
allies prior to an invasion or the toppling of an extant regime.
While
this narrative has been pervasive in media coverage of the Syrian
conflict, it is now being debunked by the very Syrian refugees that
the media purported were fleeing Assad in the first place.
According
to a
recent statement from
Andrej Mahecic, a spokesman for the UN High Commissioner for
Refugees, an estimated 440,000 displaced Syrians who remained in the
country have returned to their homes since the year began. In
addition, 31,000 refugees in neighboring countries also returned to
Syria in the first half of the year, with 260,000 having returned to
Syria from other nations since 2015.
Though Mahecic noted that these refugees represent only a “fraction” of the five million Syrian refugees living in neighboring countries, what is notable is that nearly all of those who have decided to come back are settling in areas of Syria controlled by the government or where the Syrian government has made major territorial gains against ISIS and US-backed militants like al-Nusra Front in recent months – namely Aleppo, Hama, Homs and Damascus.
Even
with the conflict in Syria still raging, thousands of the displaced
are eagerly returning to their homes under the control of the Syrian
government. This may seem strange, as the U.S. media has
long suggested that most
refugees were fleeing Assad, not foreign-backed terrorists like Daesh
(ISIS) and Al-Nusra.
Of
course, this assertion was based on “polls” of refugees conducted
by the Syria Campaign, a
USAID-funded organization that
has long pushed for U.S. military intervention in Syria.
This
begs the question: why would refugees choose to return to territory
controlled by the person they supposedly sought to flee, as the
mainstream media portrays?
These
latest figures from the UN suggest that many refugees were not
fleeing their government, but rather the violence caused by a
foreign-funded insurgency intended to topple the popular Assad
government. As Middle
East Eye noted in
2015, prior to the outbreak of the conflict, Assad was widely
popular, though his popularity allegedly evaporated as the 2011
Saudi- and U.S.-funded uprising began.
Did
Assad’s popularity with the Syrian people ever really go away?
Western media reports containing interviews with the handful of
Syrians who support Assad as dictator claim it is so. But the
evidence has long suggested that the majority of Syrians have
continued to approve of their president throughout the conflict.
Indeed,
there is plenty of evidence that the “popular uprisings” against
the Assad government in 2011 were
staged on
behalf of foreign mercenaries largely backed by Saudi Arabia, Qatar
and Turkey – governments that have long sought to remove Assad from
power. Assad’s popularity prior to the outbreak of violence likely
remained unchanged after the fact.
Polling
within Syria has consistently shown this to be true. Even polls
funded by anti-Assad nations like Qatar have
also found that
the majority of Syrians continue to overwhelmingly support Assad.
Indeed, when elections were last held in 2014, the Western media
could not hide the large crowds that came to vote, as the
population re-elected
Assad,
who won with 88 percent of the vote. By contrast, voter
turnout was 55.7 percent in
the last U.S. Presidential election, suggesting that Assad has a
stronger democratic mandate than U.S. President Donald Trump.
Six
years into the conflict, video footage, and photographs clearly show
that Assad and his wife regularly walk
among the Syrian people in
Damascus with little to no security detail. The Assads even
drive their own cars –
without security – through the countryside.
This
seems like a difficult feat for a “hated” and “feared”
dictator to perform on a regular basis. By contrast, some Western
leaders can
hardly spend a few minutes among
their constituents – even with a massive security detail in tow –
without being sped away for their own protection.
Even
U.S. politicians who have traveled to Syria have come back
acknowledging Assad’s popularity. For instance, Virginia State
Senator Richard Black has cited internal reports from U.S.
intelligence which state that, were an election in Syria to be held
today, Assad would
likely be reelected with
90 percent of the vote, including in areas occupied by terrorists.