Paul
Craig Roberts heeft in een korte analyse aangegeven waar het aan
schort als het gaat om Syrië en het Midden-Oosten in het groot.
Syrië
heeft van Rusland S-300 raketten gekregen ter bescherming van haar
grondgebied tegen vijanden, maar mag deze raketten niet gebruiken als
er aanvallen op dat grondgebied worden gedaan door Israël (en dat
gebeurt veel vaker dan de westerse reguliere media melden) en vorige
week weer eens door de VS….* Terwijl die rakietten nu juist voor dat doel werden geplaatst……
Roberts
haalt Andrew Korybko aan, een politiek analist
aan uit de VS die in Moskou woont en die stelt dat Rusland probeert
de vrede te bewaren door geen actie te ondernemen tegen deze
aanvallen en volkomen terecht stelt dat het Russische beleid door
Israël en de VS wordt beoordeeld als besluiteloosheid…… Dit zal leiden
tot veel meer aanvallen, niet alleen op Iraniërs in Syrië, maar ook
op Hezbollah in Libanon** en uiteindelijk is zelfs een
volledige aanval op Iran mogelijk (immers de meest krachtige tegenmacht is
Rusland dat met haar terughoudende beleid in feite over zich heen laat
lopen…)….. Kortom het Russische beleid zal tot meer oorlog en
destabilisatie leiden in het Midden-Oosten…..
Korybko
zegt dat Rusland met haar politiek er zelfs geen probleem mee heeft als
Iran en haar geallieerde groepen als Hezbollah zich volledig uit Syrië
zullen terugtrekken, althans als dit zal betekenen dat Israël en de
VS zullen stoppen met hun aanvallen op doelen in Syrië. Hiermee
stelt Korybko in feite dat Rusland de wil van
Israël (en de VS) eerbiedigt dat Iran en de aan haar haar gelieerde groepen zich moeten
terugtrekken uit Syrië……..
Roberts
zegt in zijn schrijven dat wanneer Korybko ook maar gedeeltelijk
gelijk heeft met zijn stelling, het Kremlin de VS en Israëlische
agressie niet begrijpt en dat onbegrip tot meer oorlogvoering
zal leiden, terwijl dat juist niet zal gebeuren door het gebruik van de S-300 luchtafweerraketten in Syrië……
(nogmaals terwijl die raketten juist daarvoor werden geplaatst: als antwoord op
agressie, of beter gezegd grootschalige terreur van Israël en de
VS, dit daar het Syrische leger zonder die raketten geen antwoord heeft op die agressie…..)
(zie de gebalde knuistjes van ‘dappere’ oorlogsmisdadiger opa Joe Biden)
Als het
oké is om Iraniërs en Hezbollah aan te vallen in Syrië, zal
Washington (het Pentagon en de Biden administratie) concluderen dat
het ook oké is om Hezbollah in Libanon aan te vallen en zelfs
Iraniërs in hun eigen land aan te vallen (wat de CIA trouwens al
doet, zoals deze dienst eerder aangaf al jarenlang te opereren in
Iran…..)…. Het geweld zal door de houding van Rusland toenemen en
de boel verder op scherp stellen en destabiliseren, i.p.v. het
tegenovergestelde bereiken….. Hezbollah is de reden waarom Israël
Libanon niet aanvalt en dat land verder verdeelt (de laatste
Israëlische inval in Libanon was een fiasco, juist door de goed
getrainde troepen van Hezbollah), echter de zwakke Russische politiek
moedigt Israëlische en VS agressie aan…… Korybko
concludeert dan ook dat de Russische politiek heeft gefaald en nog steeds
faalt….
Roberts
stelt dat het Kremlin moet overwegen welke politieke strategie het
minst riskant is: doorgaan met het afvuren van woorden die geen
effect hebben dan wel raketten te gebruiken die de aanvallen van de VS en Israël
uiterst kostbaar zullen maken….. De makkelijkste manier om vrede te
bereiken zou zijn als Rusland, China, Iran en Syrië een militair
pact sluiten zoals de NAVO, waarbij een aanval op één van de vier zal
worden gezien als een aanval op allen….. Tegenwerpingen dat dit zou
leiden tot oorlog kunnen volgens Roberts beantwoord worden met de
vraag waarom de NAVO niet tot oorlog heeft geleid…. Moet zeggen dat
ik dit nogal zwak vindt, daar NAVO saamhorigheid wel degelijk tot
oorlog heeft geleid, neem alleen al de illegale oorlogen van de VS gesteund door haar NAVO-partners
tegen Afghanistan, Irak, Libië en Syrië….. Wel heeft Roberts
gelijk met zijn uitlating dat wanneer oorlog het gevolg zal zijn van
de aanvallen zoals die van de VS en Israël op Syrië, deze
agressors zich wel 10 keer zullen bedenken voor ze dergelijke
aanvallen zullen uitvoeren, maar ja dat zal waarschijnlijk ook zo
zijn wanneer Rusland Syrië toestaat haar S-300 raketten te gebruiken tegen
die grootschalige terreur van Israël en de VS…….. Waar Roberts aan
toevoegt dat wanneer agressie wordt getolereerd deze zal groeien tot
het moment waarop men wel moet ingrijpen….. (met wellicht veel erger verstrekkende gevolgen…..)
Volgens
Roberts zou het Kremlin moeten begrijpen dat 90% van de VS
Midden-Oosten politiek is bepaald door Israël en Israëlische VS
agenten: de zionistische neoconservatieven in Washington, ook Biden
kan daar niets aan veranderen (wat hij overigens ook niet wil in feite
is hij ook een zionistische agent, gezien zijn verleden)….. Israël
wil een groter Israël en de neoconservatieven in de VS willen VS
hegemonie in het Midden-Oosten om Israël te kunnen geven wat het
wil (en uiteraard haar eigen belangen veilig te stellen)…. Zonder probleem steelt Israël meer en meer Palestijns gebied
en wil zaken versnellen, neem het eerdere voornemen van
Netanyahu om de West bank te annexeren….. Iran, Syrië en Hezbollah in
zuidelijk Libanon zijn de laatste grote obstakels voor de
Israëlische/VS hegemonie in het Midden-Oosten… Roberts stelt tot slot dat wanneer deze hegemonie
een feit zal zijn, Rusland kan verwachten dat Washington een opstand
zal proberen uit te lokken onder moslims in Rusland en voormalige
Sovjet-Aziatische republieken…… Het voorgaande doordat de VS Rusland blijft zien als een voortdurende existentiële bedreiging voor de VS, zoals VS generaal Tod D. Wolters de Russen onlangs zog eens zou hebben voorgehouden….. (terwijl juist de VS de grote agressor is die vanaf WOII meer dan 25 miljoen mensen heeft vermoord….)
Russia’s
Policy of Peace Is Encouraging War
By
Paul Craig Roberts
February 28, 2021
“Information
Clearing House”
– On February 25 the election thief ordered a US air attack on Syria
that killed 17 Iranians. US and Israeli attacks on Syria have been
ongoing for years with no consequences other than Syrian and Russian
denunciations of the US and Israeli violations of international law.
Clearly, the US/lsraeli agenda takes priority over international
law. One would think that after all these years, the Kremlin
would have noticed that and cease sounding like an ineffective broken
record.
After years of
hesitation, Russia finally permitted Syria to obtain S-300 missiles,
which, if they are permitted to be used, are capable of preventing US
and Israeli attacks. As the missiles are never used, Washington
regards them as just another bluff by a cowardly Russian government
that won’t fight.
Andrew Korybko, an
American Moscow-based political analyst, tries to find a Russian
policy in Russia’s protection of US and Israeli attacks on Syria.
He acknowledges that while Russia officially regards Israeli and US
attacks on Syrian territory as violations of international law, “it
never does anything to stop them.” He points to “the
objectively existing and easily verifiable fact that the S-300s have
never even once been used to defend Syria since they were dispatched
there in late 2018 for that explicit purpose” as evidence that
Moscow is “passively facilitating those strikes.”
Korybko postulates
that the Kremlin’s toleration of the strikes is part of a Russian
“grand strategic ‘balancing act’ of trying to promote a
so-called ‘compromise political solution’ to the country’s
conflict, one which envisions the eventual withdrawal of Iranian
forces and their allies such as Hezbollah in possible exchange for
Israel and the US stopping their conventional aggression against the
Arab Republic.”
If Korybko is even
partially correct, the Kremlin does not understand American and
Israeli aggression. The Kremlin’s failure to understand the
enemy is what will lead to war, not Syria’s use of the S-300s to
defend its terrority from attack.
If it is OK to attack
Iranians and Hezbollah in Syria, Washington will conclude that it is
OK to attack Iranians in Iran, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. This
will expand violence and instability, not reduce it. Hezbollah is all
that prevents another Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the partition
of that country. The Russian posture in the Middle East is so
weak that it encourages more US/Israeli attacks.
In other words,
instead of defusing the situation the Kremlin’s policy inflames it.
Moreover, what Russian
interest is served by driving Syria’s Iranian and Hezbollah allies
out of Syria? Only Washington and Israel’s interests are
served. Russia’s policy, as postulated by Korybko, implies that
Russia agrees that Iran and Hezbollah need to be curbed. Therefore,
Hezbollah can be attacked in Lebanon as well as in Syria, and
Iranians can be attacked in Iran as well as in Syria. Russia’s
policy as portrayed by Korybko can only be a failure.
Washington and Israel
will continue their attacks, because they know that there will be no
consequences but words.
The Kremlin needs to
consider which policy is the least risky: continuing to fire off
ineffectual words or missiles that make attacks costly. The
easiest and surest way to establish peace in the Middle East is the
announcement of a Russian/Chinese/Iranian/Syrian mutual defense pact
with NATO’s banner that an attack on one is an attack on all.
The accusation that
this would lead to war can be answered with a question: why then
hasn’t NATO led to war? If war is likely to be the result of
an attack, an aggressor thinks more than once about an attack.
As long as aggression is tolerated, it grows until it has to be
resisted. This has been the official narrative of World War II for
three-quarters of a century.
The Kremlin could
begin by comprehending that 90% of US Middle East policy is
determined by Israel and Israel’s US agents, the zionist
neoconservatives. Biden’s regime is stocked up with them.
Israel wants Greater Israel, and the neoconservatives want US
hegemony in the Middle East in order to give Israel what it wants.
Israel has been slowly and patiently stealing Palestine for decades
and now wants to move faster. Washington’s destruction of
Iraq and Libya moved the plan forward. Syria’s destruction
was in the works until Russia intervened and prevented it. But
Syria is still partly a partitioned country, and Syria, Hezbollah in
southern Lebanon, and Iran are the remaining obstacles to US and
Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. If this hegemony is achieved,
Russia can expect Washington’s subversion of Muslims in the
Federation and in the former Soviet Asian republics.
As US General Tod D.
Wolters again told the Russians three days ago, apparently to no
effect, the United States regards Russia as “an enduring
existential threat to the United States” ( https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2021/02/26/americas-absurd-foreign-policy/
). The inability of Russia to come to terms with this fact will
result in war.
Tijdens en vlak na de
Twin Towers aanslagen, werden een aantal Israëlische mannen
gearresteerd die feestvierden met de WTC ramp op de achtergrond. Het
was duidelijk dat ze feestvierden n.a.v. de aanvallen op de Twin
Towers….. Volgens eigen zeggen waren zij Mossad agenten die werden
uitgezonden om de vernieling van het WTC te filmen, zo verklaarden ze
later op de Israëlische tv…… Zonder enig onderzoek werden de
mannen vrijgelaten en mochten ze zelfs terugreizen naar Israël…….
Paul
Craig Roberts, de schrijver van het Information Clearing House artikel dat hieronder is opgenomen, schrijft verder over de ‘daders’
en haalt intussen al bekende zaken aan, als dat deze daders
onmogelijk de vliegtuigen in de Twin Towers kunnen hebben gevlogen,
een zaak die zelfs geroutineerde piloten naar eigen zeggen niet
kunnen (de daders zouden een paar vlieglessen hebben gehad in kleine
vliegtuigjes). Het is dan ook duidelijk dat de zogenaamde daders
werden begeleid door of geheime diensten van de VS en/of Israël, dit
om de false flag operatie, die 9/11 was, te verhullen…. Overigens werden de vliegtuigen volgens een aantal deskundigen op afstand bediend….
Ook
genoemd door Roberts de aanval op het Pentagon, daar moeten diverse
camera’s beelden hebben opgenomen van wat er werkelijk gebeurde, deze beelden
worden al 18 jaar lang door de FBI afgeschermd voor het publiek en de
politiek. Iedereen met meer dan 2 hersencellen kan zien dat er nooit
een vliegtuig in het Pentagon kan zijn gevlogen, daarvoor was de
schade veel te gering (en dat is nog maar 1 van de redenen die
aangeven dat het geen vliegtuig kan zijn geweest, maar waarschijnlijk
een raket van de VS…..)
Nog een
vreemde zaak, de telefoontjes uit het vliegtuig dat in
Pennsylvania zou zijn neergestort: in die tijd was het nog
onmogelijk om met een mobiele telefoon vanuit een vliegtuig te bellen met het
thuisfront…
Roberts betoogt terecht dat wanneer een handjevol terroristen de VS zo hebben kunnen misleiden (als men het publiek wil doen geloven), Rusland zelfs al ten tijde van de Sovjet-Unie de VS en West-Europa zonder veel moeite kon hebben weggevaagd……
Zoals dik is bewezen sinds 11 september 2001 is het neerhalen van de Twin Towers middels vliegtuigen een onmogelijke zaak, daarnaast hebben deskundigen de resten van heftige springstoffen teruggevonden in de puinhopen van 9/11……
Hoeveel bewijs heb je nog nodig om in te zien dat 9/11 een door de VS overheid gecontroleerde aanslag was…… Roberts noemt nog een aantal zaken, die duidelijk maken dat 9/11 een door de VS (waarschijnlijk met hulp van Israël) opgezette zaak is….. Bush en Cheney zouden hebben geweigerd te getuigen voor de 9/11 commissie…… De leidende figuren van deze commissie stellen zelfs dat ze tot bepaalde zaken geen toegang hadden, dat men werd voorgelogen en dat het de opzet was dat de commissie zou falen……
Het gaat zelfs zover dat de VS overheid zelf de leugen heeft gelanceerd dat de gebouwen door een kernwapen dan wel een gericht-energiewapen (o.a. laser en deeltjesstralen) werden neergehaald om degenen die niet geloven in de officiële lezing in een belachelijk daglicht te stellen en daarmee de aandacht af te leiden van de werkelijke reden van instorting van de gebouwen……
Lees het
volgende artikel en zegt het voort! De aanslagen zijn nu 18 jaar
geleden, daarbij kwamen volgens zeggen 3.000 mensen om het leven,
als reactie daarop heeft de VS alleen in Irak al meer dan 1,5 miljoen
mensen vermoord (met hulp van andere NAVO-lidstaten), in Afghanistan
zouden dit er rond de 500.000 zijn (al houdt het westen veel lagere
aantallen aan….). Als reactie daarop hebben we ‘islamterreur’ op de
straten van Europa en zijn er enorme vluchtelingenstromen
opgang gekomen, voorts zijn onze privacyrechten zo goed als helemaal
uitgekleed (al is dat laatste ook de duidelijke opzet van de 9/11
aanvallen, zie de bevoegdheden en de enorme geldstromen die de geheime diensten erbij kregen na 9/11…..)
Some
of the Many Things Most Americans Never Heard About 9/11
By
Paul Craig Roberts
September
14, 2019 “Information
Clearing House”
– The “Dancing Israelis” who turned out to be Israeli Mossad
agents caught filming and celebrating the destruction of the twin
towers. Arrested by police and released without investigation, they
were not mentioned in the 911 Commission Report. Later on
Israeli TV they said they were sent to New York to film the
destruction of the twin towers. Allegedly, there was no
advance warning of the event, but obviously the Israelis knew.
The
alleged fundamentalist orthodox fanatical Muslims who were prepared
to die to be martyrs, but who drank, drugged, and lived with
strippers and prostitutes in Florida. They were the patsies paraded
through flight schools and left a highly visible public record. They
all flunked out and could not even fly small planes, but performed
miraculous flight feats in their attacks on the WTC towers and
Pentagon that military and civilian airline pilots say are beyond
their own skills. These Saudi Arabians were being operated
by US or Israeli intelligence to create a record to serve as a
parallel patsy operation that could be used to cover up the false
flag attack.
Numerous
video cameras recorded whatever exploded at the Pentagon, but the FBI
has refused to release them for 18 years. Clearly, the videos do not
support the official story.
About
half of the alleged hijackers have been found alive and well and deny
that they had ever left their countries.
In
2001 no cell phone calls were possible from aircraft at the altitudes
from which calls were reported.
The
airliners that allegedly hit the twin towers were flimsy compared to
the steel and concrete of the towers. The airliners would
have smashed against the structure and fallen to the street below.
Pre-knowledge
of 9/11 was widespread. The stocks of the two allegedly
hijacked airlines were sold short prior to the event, resulting in
large profits when the stocks fell in response to the hijackings. The
short-sellers were swept under the carpet and not investigated.
FBI
director Robert Mueller was instrumental in covering up for the false
official story of 9/11, a story that has zero evidence in its behalf.
If
a handful of young men with no intelligence service or government
support can defeat the entire national security state of the United
States and all of its NATO and Israeli allies and successfully attack
with devastating results both New York and the Pentagon itself—the
very symbol of American military supremacy—the Soviet Union could
have wiped out the US and all of Europe without detection. Don’t
you wonder how we survived the Soviet Union when the “Great
American Superpower” was so easily defeated by a handful of young
Saudi Arabians?
Four
hijacked airliners are alleged hijacked, all at airports served by an
Israeli security company.
All four airliners allegedly crash. Two
into the WTC towers, one into a field in Pennsylvania, and one into
the Pentagon. Yet no airliner debris exists. The
Pentagon’s lawn is not even scratched.
The
President of the United States refuses to testify before the 9/11
Commission unless he is accompanied by his handler, Vice President
Cheney. Both refuse to testify under oath. The 9/11
Commission is oh-so-respectful to the distinguished president and
vice president.
One
member of the 9/11 Commission, a US Senator, resigned from the
Commission, saying that “the fix is in.” After the
Commission report was issued, the Commission chairman, vice chairman,
and legal counsel wrote books in which they said that information was
withheld from the Commission, that the Commission was lied to and
considered referring the false testimony to the Justice (sic)
Department for prosecution, and that “the Commission was set up to
fail.” And not a peep from the controlled pressitute
media whose only function is to deliver the controlled explanations
that the ruling oligarchs want planted into Americans’ minds.
Tenants
of the WTC buildings reported constant noises, floors sealed off,
service disruptions and that the excuse was the installation of fiber
optic cable. If the buildings faced condemnation as reported because
of asbestos fireproofing, who would go to the expense of installing
fiber optic cable to upgrade the Internet capability of condemned
buildings?
Scientists
have found reacted and unreacted nano-thermite and other elements
used in controlled demolition. They have proved the
existence of these elements. They have samples from the
WTC dust left which they have offered to scientists and governments
for testing in order to prove or disprove their own findings. No
takers.
Instead,
we have the appearance of nonsensical claims that the WTC buildings
were brought down by a directed energy weapon and by nuclear
bombs. These are preposterous allegations, the purpose of
which is the deliberate creation of disinformation in order to focus
attention away from the false official story and bury it in
disagreements about what caused the buildings to fail.
I
have checked with weapons specialists who are critics of US
government foreign policy and who monitor every development in weapon
systems in the US and Russia. This is what they tell me: “I
can confidently state that no direct energy weapon, capable of
demolishing such a structure at the Twin Towers, existed in 2001, nor
does it exist today.”
Another
reported that there are lab tests of directed energy in Russia but no
deployed weapon. He suggested that people who believe in this fantasy
story should explain the safe source of high energy that the alleged
weapon used, and how it was moved on site and removed without
detection. Moreover, a directed energy burst would show on
detectors which monitor the electromagnetic spectrum. No
such evidence exists. Since no such weapon has ever been tested to
bring down skyscrapers, why would the government take the risk of
using such a weapon for the first time in a public scenario where who
knows what could go wrong and explanations would have to be
given? And why reveal to foreign powers the existence of
such a weapon? Controlled demolition is an old and
familiar technology that works. And it did.
I
could go on and on.
As
I wrote in a previous column, when Americans fell for the 9/11
deception, they lost their country, and peoples in seven countries
lost their lives, limbs, and families.
Verdomd
of je het hebt over de pausen in de Middeleeuwen die naar eigen
goeddunken belangrijke figuren in de ban deden, als ze ook maar een
millimeter afweken van wat de kerk voorschreef, of de belangen van de paus niet behartigden, zo gaat Twitter om
met haar gebruikers……..
Paul
Craig Roberts, econoom, anti-oorlog opiniemaker en voormalig
assistent van de minister van financiën onder het bewind van namaak ‘cojboj’ Reagan, is door Twitter in de ban gedaan…. Nooit heeft
Roberts in zijn tijd als opiniemaker/columnist een leugen gepubliceerd, dit in
tegenstelling tot de reguliere (massa-) media en toch worden niet die
media, maar mensen als Roberts in de ban gedaan…….
Roberts haalt overigens
steeds meer zijn gelijk met z’n stelling dat de ideologie van de
neoconservatieven, naar wie de reguliere (massa-) media en Twitter (en Facebook) de oren
laten hangen, steeds meer begint te lijken op de ideologie van
de nazi’s….. Jammer dat Roberts dit niet ook over de democraten
zegt, immers er is maar bitter weinig verschil tussen de democraten en
republikeinen als men aan het bewind is…….. Waar ik nog aan toe wil voegen dat het neoconservatisme m.i. niets anders is dan ijskoud, inhumaan neoliberalisme, de ideologie die door de meeste westerse landen (en ook door de democraten als zij in de VS aan de macht zijn) wordt bediend in het regeringsbeleid…….
Lees het beknopte artikel van Tyler Durden over deze zaak en verbaas je net als ik over de stap van Twitter…… (hoewel verbazen, ik sta intussen nergens meer van te kijken)
Twitter
Bans Former Asst. Treasury Secretary Paul Craig Roberts
Roberts,
79, served in the Reagan administration from 1981 to 1982. He was
formerly a distinguished fellow at the Cato Institute and a senior
research fellow at the Hoover Institution, and has written for
the Wall
Street Journal and Businessweek. Roberts maintains
an active
blog.
He’s
also vehemently
against interventionary wars around the world,
and spoke with Russia’s state-owned Sputnik news
in a Tuesday article – in which Roberts said that President
Trump’s decision to pull out of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces
(INF) treaty was a handout
to the military-security complex.
The
former Reagan administration official clarified that he
does not think “that the military-security complex itself wants
a war with Russia, but it does want an enemy that can be
used to justify more spending.”
He explained that the withdrawing from the INF Treaty “gives
the military-security complex a justification for a larger
budget and new money to spend: manufacturing the formerly banned
missiles.”
…
The
economist highlighted that “enormous
sums spent on ‘defense’ enabled the armaments corporations to control
election outcomes with campaign contributions,”
adding that in addition, “the military has bases and the
armaments corporations have factories in almost every state so that
the population, dependent on the jobs, support high amounts of
‘defense’ spending.”
“That
was 57 years ago,” he underscored. “You can imagine how
much stronger the military-security complex is today.” –Sputnik
Roberts
also suggested that “The
Zionist Neoconservatives are responsible for Washington’s
unilateral abandonment of the INF treaty, just as they were
responsible for Washington’s unilateral abandonment of the
ABM Treaty [in 2002], the Iran nuclear agreement, and the promise not
to move NATO one inch to the East.”
Is
this what got him suspended?
Roberts
goes on to say that the ideology of US neoconservatives is “akin
to the German Nazy Party last century”
in their ideology of American supremacy and exceptionalism.
“Their
over-confidence about their ability to quickly defeat
Israel’s enemies and open the Middle East to Israeli expansion
got the US bogged down in wars in the Middle East for 17
years … During
this time, both Russia and China rose much more quickly than the
neoconservatives thought possible.”
Dr.
Roberts opined that US policy makers are seeking to weaponize
the Russian opposition and “pro-Western elements” to exert
pressure on Moscow into “accommodating Washington in order
to have the sanctions removed.” On the other hand, the
Trump administration’s new arms race could force Russia into spending
more on defense, according to the author. –Sputnik
While
we don’t know if Roberts’ Sputnik interview resulted in his Twitter
ban 48 hours later, it’s entirely possible.
Wat betreft de laatste zin van het artikel hierboven, zojuist zag ik dat het Twitteraccount van Roberts nog steeds is geblokkeerd, waar volgens mij intussen de 48 uur is verstreken…….. (zaterdagmiddag 27 oktober 2018: 15.30 u.)
Het volgende artikle vond ik op het blog van Stan van Houcke, die het overnam van LewRockwell.com.
In dit artikel legt Paul Craig Roberts uit, dat ‘Russiagate’ een complot tegen Trump is en werd uitgevoerd door de CIA, FBI, Hillary Clinton en het Democratic National Committee (DNC).
Trump vormde een gevaar voor de macht en budgetten van het militair-industrieel complex, daar hij de relatie met Rusland wilde normaliseren, hetzelfde Rusland dat onder Obama nog werd afgeschilderd als ‘Amerika’s meest gevaarlijke vijand…..’ Het militair-industrieel complex heeft zoveel mogelijk ‘conflicten’ (oorlogen en dreiging van oorlogen) nodig om haar macht en de enorme winsten te behouden……..
Daarnaast vormde Trump een bedreiging voor de grote geldstromen die de Clinton Foundation genereerde en de beide Clintons (Bill en Hillary) zou dwarszitten bij het worden van multimiljonairs…..
Lees het volgende artikel van Roberts en laat je niet langer wijsmaken dat Rusland de VS presidentsverkiezingen (en verkiezingen elders) zou hebben gemanipuleerd dan wel manipuleert!*
Now
the Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein confirms what I told you in my
previous post. Mueller
found no evidence that
Russia had any impact on the outcome of the 2016 election.
So
what was Russiagate all about?
It
was exactly, precisely what I told you it was about from the very
begining. It was a conspiracy orchestrated by the military/security
complex, CIA, FBI, Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic National
Committee against Donald Trump.
Trump’s
emphasis during his presidential campaign on normalizing relations
with Russia, which the neocon Obama regime had turned into “America’s
most dangerous enemy,” was a threat to the power and budgets of the
military/security complex. Without a demonized enemy, what is the
justification for a 1,000 billion annual budget and the laws passed
in the 21st century that completely destroy the protections provided
by the US Constitution?
From
the Clinton/DNC standpoint, a Trump victory would halt the vast
riches pouring into the Clinton/DNC pockets from “pay to play.”
The Clinton Foundation and the Clintons themselves were on their way
to both being billionaires with the DNC collecting the registration
fees. This was a model for one party rule. And along comes Donald
Trump.
I
doubt Trump knew what he was stepping into. So far he has been unable
to function as President. But now that the FISA** court has on record
Rosenstein and Comey’s confessions that the spy warrants requested
by the FBI to spy on Trump are based on deception of the court, the
conspirators against Trump face indictment, conviction, and prison,
if Trump has the balls, which he might not have. We cannot even be
sure Trump understands the situation.
What
perhaps has surely happened is that former CIA director John Brennan
is now exposed by the total failue of Mueller to find a Trump/Putin
conspiracy against American democracy. Rosenstein’s statement that
“there is no allegation in [Mueller’s] indictment that any
American was a knowing particiipant in this illegal activity [illegal
activity is an unsubstantiated assertion only]. There is no
allegation in the indictment that the [Russians’] conduct altered
the outcome of the election.”
Brennan
as CIA director had lied under oath to Congress to the contrary.
Rosenstein
and Comey are trapped in their confessions to the FISA court that the
FBI obtained spy warrants from the court via deception of the court.
See here.
What
we must ask ourselves is how it is possible in the Great American
Democracy that people totally devoid of all integrity, all honesty,
all respect for truth can be confirmed by the US Senate as heads of
the CIA, FBI, and National Intelligence?
How
is it possible that these utterly corrupt people can go before the
House and Senate continuously and tell lies under oath and never be
held accountable?
How
is it possible that American Democracy is so utterly weak that
nothing whatsoever can be done about it?
What
kind of America is it when it is ruled by blatant transparant lies?
Paul
Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and
former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, has been
reporting shocking cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades. A
new edition of his book, The
Tyranny of Good Intentions,
co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, a documented account of how
americans lost the protection of law, has been released by Random
House. Visit his
website.
‘Campagne Clinton, smeriger dan gedacht…………‘ (met daarin daarin opgenomen de volgende artikelen: ‘Donna Brazile Bombshell: ‘Proof’ Hillary ‘Rigged’ Primary Against Bernie‘ en ‘Democrats in Denial After Donna Brazile Says Primary Was Rigged for Hillary‘)
Paul Craig Roberts plaatste gisteren een bericht op Information Clearing House aangaande de censuur die langzaam maar zeker op het internet wordt ingevoerd.
Roberts plaatste op 7 oktober jl. een bericht over de terreuraanslag in Las Vegas, waarbij hij vraagtekens plaatste bij de versie van het gebeurde, zoals deze door de VS overheid werd opgelepeld. Een video die zijn ‘vraagtekens’ verduidelijkte, werd door YouTube van het internet gehaald…….. In deze video waren blijkbaar acteurs te zien, die gewonden zonder zichtbare verwondingen in het ziekenhuis afleverden…..
Voorts schrijft Roberts over de goede banden tussen de reguliere media en de CIA, zoals die met de Washington Post (WaPo). Hij noemt een aantal andere voorbeelden, waarin de reguliere media glashard hebben gelogen (leugens die veelal nog steeds worden aangehaald door die media)….. Ook Udo Uilfoffe en zijn boek ‘Purchased Journalism’ (Nederlandse titel: ‘Gekochte Journalisten’) brengt Roberts onder de aandacht, dit boek werd in noodtempo van de markt gehaald en ook dat heeft alles met censuur te maken……
De laatste censuur is in het belang van de reguliere (massa-) media, die niet wensen dat u weet dat ze zich laten gebruiken door de CIA en wat de waarheid over veel zaken is…… Het schijnt nu al zo zot te zijn, dat het grootste deel van de VS bevolking er geen moeite mee heeft dat ze worden voorgelogen door deze massamedia………. Alsof de VS is veranderd in een staat als nazi-Duitsland……. Daarover gesproken: nazi-Duitsland afficheerde zich als het Derde Rijk, het is intussen meer dan duidelijk dat de VS het Vierde Rijk is………
Hier het bericht van Roberts, daaronder kan u klikken voor een vertaling:
Hard
Censorship Hits the Internet
US
Media Credibility Collapses
By
Paul Craig Roberts
October
08, 2017 “Information
Clearing House” – According to
this report,
YouTube has shut down all independent media coverage of the Las Vegas
shooting in a desperate maneuver to protect the official narrative.
I
cannot attest to the truth of this report. However, it has been
brought to my attention that the video made from inside the hospital,
which Iprovided
in a link in my article, of
what appears to be crisis actors carrying pretend wounded into the
hospital has been taken down by YouTube. Clearly, if there are real
wounded carried to the hospital, why at the same time have crisis
actors acting the part? It seems obvious to me that the video was
taken down, because those being carried are clearly not wounded and
are not being handled in a professional way.
I
am aware of books by former insiders that describe the CIA’s
alliance with members of the media. When I was a member of the
congressional staff, I was warned of the Washington Post’s
collaboration with the CIA. And we have the case of Udo
Ulfkotte,
whose book, “Purchased Journalism,” was a best seller in Germany,
but the English translation was yanked from the market. Ulfkotte, an
editor with one of Germany’s main newspapers, wrote that he and
most European journalists post articles handed to them by the CIA.
The
way that the One Percent rules is by controlling the explanations.
They do that through official statements endlessly parroted by the
presstitutes who have sold their souls.
Remember,
the presstitutes sold to the public the false story of “Saddam
Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction,” the false story of
“Assad’s use of chemical weapons,” the false story of “Iranian
nukes,” the false stories about Gaddafi, about “Russian invasion
of Ukraine,” about Afghanistan, and on and on. When the
presstitutes are willing to lie at the expense of the destruction of
millions of peoples, the infrastructures of the countries, and
millions of refugees inflicted upon Europe, how can we believe the
presstitutes about Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, etc., especially when
contradictions in the official stories are never cleared up and in
place of hard evidence we are given only assertions and photoshopped
photos?
Senator
Richard Burr, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said two
days ago that the committee’s investigation of Russiagate uncovered
“quite a few” news outlets that ran stories that were not factual
about Russiagate. He
said “we
will use the findings of our report to let the American people hold
every news organization accountable for what they portrayed as fact.”
Government
in the United States and the media whores that service government
agendas have an immense credibility problem. We cannot rely on the
veracity of any government or media statement. Like the boy who cried
“wolf,” Washington and the presstitutes have made it impossible
to know when they are telling the truth.
The backdrops to the Putin/Trump meeting are the aspirations of Israel and the neoconservatives. It is these aspirations that drive US foreign policy.
What is Syria about? Why is Washington so focused on overthrowing the elected president of Syria? What explains the sudden 21st century appearance of “the Muslim threat”? How is Washington’s preoccupation with “the Muslim threat” consistent with Washington’s wars against Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, and Assad, leaders who suppressed jihadism? What explains the sudden appearance of “the Russian threat” which has been hyped into dangerous Russophobia without any basis in fact?
Saddam Hussein was a secular leader whose job was to sit on the animosities of the Sunni and Shia and maintain a non-violent political stability in Iraq. He, Assad, and Gaddafi suppressed the extremism that leads to jihadism.
Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, and under his rule Iraq constituted a ZERO threat to the US. He had been a faithful vassal and attacked Iran for Washington, which had hopes of using Iraq to overthrow the Iranian government.
Removing secular leaders is what unleashes jihadism. Washington unleashed Muslim terrorism by regime change that murdered secular leaders and left countries in chaos.
Fomenting chaos in Iraq was the beginning for spreading chaos into Syria and then Iran. Syria and Iran support Hezbollah, the militia in southern Lebanon that has twice driven out the Israeli Army sent in to occupy southern Lebanon so that Israel could appropriate the water resources.
Lees het hele artikel op Information Clearing House (met mogelijkheid tot ‘Dutch’ vertaling), hier vestigt Roberts o.a. aandacht op het feit, dat Osama Bin Laden niets van doen had met de 911 aanslagen in 2001:
Hier een ‘rondje Stan van Houcke’ met twee berichten, één van afgelopen vrijdag en daaronder een bericht van afgelopen zaterdag. In het eerste artikel betoogt Paul Craig Roberts o.a., dat in het boek 1984 van George Orwell onwelgevallige informatie wordt verwijderd (ook uit de archieven), terwijl het nu al zo zot is, dat die informatie niet eens wordt gepubliceerd door de reguliere (massa-) media en het overgrote deel van de politici er geen aandacht aan besteden………
Zo liet de hoogste autoriteit van de Russische strijdkrachten, luitenant generaal Viktor Poznihir weten, dat de Russische generale staf heeft geconcludeerd dat Washington een oorlog tegen Rusland voorbereidt…… Me dunkt een bericht waarna alle seinen in de westerse reguliere media op rood hadden moeten staan….. Roberts stelt dat zegge en schrijve een dagblad in de VS dit bericht bracht, het bericht is ‘ook niet’ terug te vinden in andere westerse media……. Geen politicus heeft een woord vuil gemaakt aan deze uiterst verontrustende zaak…….
Vergeet niet dat het Pentagon, Obama en Trump al hebben gesteld, dat de VS een eerste aanval met kernwapens in de toekomst niet uitsluit, een verklaring die de Britse feeks May, die premier mag spelen, voor Groot-Brittannië herhaalde na haar aanstelling als premier…… (GB is ook een kernwapenstaat)
Dit gecombineerd met de uitlating van Poznihir, zou bij iedereen de haren overeind moeten doen staan, immers als Rusland overtuigt is dat de VS een kernaanval wil uitvoeren, waar neocons (neoconservatieven) in de VS stellen, dat de Russische kernwapens in één klap uitgeschakeld kunnen worden, is de kans groot dat Rusland ‘op de knop zal drukken……’ Immers Rusland (noch China) zullen gelaten wachten op hun vernietiging door de VS……
In de 70er en 80er jaren van de vorige eeuw, zou dit tot massale demonstraties hebben geleid in het westen, helaas is daar nu, ongelofelijk genoeg, geen sprake van, terwijl de situatie nu veel ernstiger is dan destijds………
Het tweede artikel van The Saker gaat in op die zogenaamde mogelijkheid van de VS, de kernwapens van de Russen met een eerste kernaanval uit te schakelen. Een ongelofelijk dom idee, zo wordt overduidelijk betoogd. Vandaar de concludie van The Saker, dat het gevaar niet van technologische doorbraken komt, maar uit de hoofden van neoconservatieven, die werkelijk denken dat een kernoorlog is te winnen…..
Mensen het is al met al een behoorlijk lang verhaal, maar meer dan de moeite waard!!
Are
You Ready to Die?
Paul Craig Roberts
In
George Orwell’s 1949 dystopian novel, 1984,
information that no longer is consistent with Big Brother’s
explanations is chucked down the Memory Hole. In the real American
dystopia in which we currently live, the information is never
reported at all.
On April 26—16 days ago—Lt. Gen.
Viktor Poznihir, Deputy Chief of the Main Operations Directorate of
the Russian Armed Forces, stated at the Moscow International Security
Conference that the Operations Command of the Russian General Staff
has concluded that Washington is preparing a nuclear first strike on
Russia.
The Times-Gazett in Ashland, Ohio, was
the only US print media that a Google search could turn up that
reported this most alarming of all announcements. A Google search
turned up no reports on US TV, and none on Canadian, Australian,
European, or any other media except RT and Internet sites.
I have been unable to find any report
that any US Senator or Representative or any European, Canadian, or
Australian politician has raised a voice of concern.
No one in Washington got on the
telephone to tell Putin that this was all a mistake, that the US was
not preparing a nuclear first strike on Russia, or ask Putin how this
serious situation could be defused.
Americans do not even know about it,
except for my readers.
I would have expected at least that
the CIA would have planted the story in the Washington Post, the New
York Times, CNN, MSNBC, and NPR that General Poznihir was expressing
his personal opinion, nothing to be taken seriously. But apparently
Americans and their European vassals are not to even know that such
an accussation was made.
As I reported some time ago and more
recently in my column about North Korea, the Chinese leadership has
also concluded that the US intends a nuclear first strike against
China.
Alone either Russia or China can
destroy the US. If they act together, the destruction of the US would
be redundant. What is the intelligence, if any, and morality, clearly
none, of the US leadership that recklessly and irresponsibly invites
Russia and China to preemptWashington’s attack on them with an
attack on the US?
Surely not even insouciant Americans
are so stupid as to think that Russia and China will just sit there
and wait for Washington’s nuclear attack.
I lived through every stage of the
Cold War. I participated in it. Never in my life have I experienced
the situation where two nuclear powers were convinced that the third
was going to surprise them with a nuclear attack.
I supported Trump because he, unlike
Hillary, said he would normalize relations with Russia. Instead he
has raised the tensions between the nuclear powers. Nothing is more
irresponsible or dangerous.
We currently are in the most dangerous
situation of my lifetime, and there is ZERO AWARENESS AND NO
DISCUSSION!
How can this be? Putin has been
issuing warnings for years. He has told the Western presstitute media
on more than one occasion that they, in their dishonesty, are pushing
the world to nuclear war. Putin has said over and over, “I issue
warnings and no one hears.” “How do I get through to you?”
Maybe the morons will hear when
mushroom clouds appear over Washington and New York, and Europe
ceases to exist, as it will if Europe continues the confrontation
with Russia as is required from Washington’s well-paid vassals.
Within the last several years I
reported the Chinese government’s reaction to US war plans for a
nuclear strike on China. The Chinese showed how their submarines
would destroy the West Coast of the US and their ICBM’s would finish
off the rest of the country.
I reported all of this, and it
produced no response. The Memory Hole wasn’t needed, as neither
Washington nor the presstitutes nor the Internet noticed. This is
insouciance to the thousandth degree.
In America and its subservient,
crawling on their knees vassal states, the information never gets
reported, so it never has to be put down the Memory Hole.
If you convince someone that you are
going to kill them, they are going to kill you first. A government,
such as what exists in Washington, that convinces powerful countries
that they are targeted, is a government that has no respect
whatsoever for the lives of its own people or the peoples of the
world or for any life on planet Earth.
Such a government as Washington is
evil beyond all measure, as are the media whores and European,
Canadian, Australian, and Japanese vassal states that serve
Washington at the expense of their own citizens.
Despite all their efforts to believe
otherwise, the Russian and Chinese leaderships have finally arrived,
belatedly, at the realization that Washington is evil to the core and
is the agent of Satan.
For Russia and China, the Satanic Evil
that rules in the West has reduced the choice for Russia and China to
them or us.
For
weeks now I have been getting panicked emails with readers asking me
whether the USA had developed a special technology called “super
fuses” which would make it possible for the USA to successfully
pull-off a (preemptive) disarming first strike against Russia.
Super-fuses were also mentioned in combination with an alleged lack
by Russia of a functioning space-based infrared early warning system
giving the Russians less time to react to a possible US nuclear
attack.
While
there is a factual basis to all this, the original report already
mislead the reader with a shocking title “How
US nuclear force modernization is undermining strategic stability:
The burst-height compensating super-fuze”
and by offering several unsubstantiated conclusions. Furthermore,
this original report was further discussed by many observers who
simply lack the expertise to understand what the facts mentioned in
the report really mean. Then the various sources started quoting each
other and eventually this resulted in a completely baseless “super
fuse scare”. Let’s try to make some sense of all this.
Understanding
nuclear strikes and their targets
To
understand what really has taken place I need to first define a
couple of crucial terms:
Hard-target
kill capability: this refers to the capability of a missile to
destroy a strongly protected target such as a underground missile
silo or a deeply buried command post.
Soft-target
kill capability: the capability to destroy lightly or
unprotected targets.
Counterforce
strike: this refers to a strike aimed at the enemy’s military
capabilities.
Countervalue
strike: this refers to a strike on non-military assets such as
cities.
Since
strategic nuclear missile silos and command posts are well protected
and deeply buried, only hard-target kill (HTK) capable missiles can
execute a counterforce strike. Soft-target kill (STK) capable systems
are therefore usually seen as being the ultimate retaliatory
capability to hit the enemies cities. The crucial notion here is
that HTK capability is not a function of explosive power, but
of accuracy. Yes, in theory, a hugely powerful weapon can
compensate to some degree for a lack of accuracy, but in reality both
the USA and the USSR/Russia have long understood that the real key to
HTK is accuracy.
During
the Cold War, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) were more
accurate than submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) simply
because targeting from the surface and from a fixed position was much
easier than targeting from inside a submerged and moving submarine.
The American were the first to successfully deploy a HTK capable SLBM
with their Trident D-5. The Russians have only acquired this
capability very recently (with their R-29RMU Sineva SLBM).
According
to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists just a decade ago only 20% of US
SLBMs were HTK capable. Now, with the ‘super-fuse’ 100% of US
SLBMs are HTK capable. What these super-fuses do is very accurately
measure the optimal altitude at which to detonate thereby partially
compensating for a lack of accuracy of a non-HTK capable weapon. To
make a long story short, these super-fuses made all US SLBMs HTK
capable.
Does
that matter?
Yes
and no. What that means on paper is that the US has just benefited
from a massive increase in the number of US missiles with HTK
capability. Thus, the US has now a much larger missile force capable
of executing a disarming counterforce strike. In reality, however,
things are much more complicated than that.
Understanding
counterforce strikes
Executing
a disarming counterforce strike against the USSR and, later, Russia
has been an old American dream. Remember Reagan’s “Star Wars”
program? The idea behind it was simple: to develop the capability to
intercept enough incoming Soviet warheads to protect the USA from a
retaliatory Soviet counter strike. It would work something like this:
destroy, say, 70% of the Soviet ICBM/SLBMs and intercept the
remaining 30% before they can reach the USA. This was total nonsense
both technologically (the technology did not exist) and strategically
(just a few Soviet “leakers” could wipe-out entire US cities, who
could take such a risk?). The more recent US deployment of
anti-ballistic missile systems in Europe has exactly the same purpose
– to protect the USA from a retaliatory counterstrike. Without
going into complex technical discussions, let’s just say that this
point in time, this system would never protect the USA from anything.
But in the future, we could imagine such a scenario
1)
The USA and Russia agree to further deep cuts in their nuclear
strategic forces thereby dramatically reducing the total number of
Russian SLBM/ICBMs.
2)
The USA deploys all around Russia anti-ballistic systems which can
catch and destroy Russian missiles in the early phase of their flight
towards the USA.
3)
The USA also deploys a number of systems in space or around the USA
to intercept any incoming Russian warhead.
4)
The USA having a very large HTK-capable force executes a successful
counterforce strike destroying 90% (or so) of the Russian
capabilities and then the rest are destroyed during their flight.
This
is the dream. It will never work. Here is why:
1)
The Russians will not agree to deep cuts in their nuclear strategic
forces
2)
The Russians already have deployed the capability to destroy the
forward deployed US anti-ballistic system in Europe.
3)
Russian warheads and missiles are now maneuverable and can even use
any trajectory, including over the South Pole, to reach the USA. New
Russian missiles have a dramatically shorter and faster first stage
burn period making them much harder to intercept.
4)
Russia’s reliance on ballistic missiles will be gradually replaced
with strategic (long-range) cruise missiles (more about that later)
5)
This scenario mistakenly assumes that the USA will know where the
Russian SLBM launching submarines will be when they launch and that
they will be able to engage them (more about that later)
6)
This scenario completely ignores the Russian road-mobile and
rail-mobile ICBMs (more about that later)
Understanding
MIRVs
Before
explaining points 4, 5 and 6 above, I need to mention another
important fact: one missile can carry either one single warhead or
several (up to 12 and more). When a missile carries several
independently targetable warheads it is called MIRVed as in “multiple
independently targetable reentry vehicle”.
MIRVs
are important for several reasons. First, one single missile with 10
warheads can, in theory, destroy 10 different targets. Alternatively,
one single missile can carry, say 3-4 real warheads and 6-7 decoys.
In practical terms what look like one missile on take-off can turn
into 5 real warheads, all targeted at different objectives and
another 5 fake decoys designed to make interception that more
difficult. MIRVs, however, also present a big problem: they are
lucrative targets. If with one of “my” nuclear warheards I can
destroy 1 of “your” MIRVed missiles, I lose 1 warhead but you
lose 10. This is one of the reasons the
USA is moving away from land-based MIRVed ICBMs.
The
important consideration here is that Russia has a number of possible
options to chose from and how many of her missiles will be MIRVed is
impossible to predict. Besides, all US and Russian SLBMs will remain
MIRVed for the foreseeable future (de-MIRVing SLBMs make no sense,
really, since the entire nuclear missile carrying submarine (or SSBN)
is a gigantic MIRVed launching pad by definition).
In
contrast to MIRVed missile, single warheads missiles are very bad
targets to try to destroy using nuclear weapons: even if “my”
missile destroys “yours” we both lost 1 missile each. What is the
point? Worse, if I have to use 2 of “mine” to make really sure
that “yours” is really destroyed, my strike will result in me
using 2 warheads in exchange for only 1 of yours. This makes no sense
at all.
Finally,
in retaliatory countervalue strikes, MIRVed ICBM/SLBMs are a
formidable threat: just one single R-30 Bulava (SS-N-30) SLBM or one
single R-36 Voevoda (SS-18) ICBM can destroy ten American cities. Is
that a risk worth taking? Say the USA failed to destroy one single
Borei-class SSBN – in theory that could mean that this one SSBN
could destroy up to 200 American cities (20 SLBMs with 10 MIRVs
each). How is that for a risk?
Contrasting
the US and Russian nuclear triad
Strategic
nuclear weapons can be deployed on land, in the oceans or delivered
by aircraft. This is called the “nuclear triad”. I won’t
discuss the aircraft based part of the US and Russian triads here, as
they don’t significantly impact the overall picture and because
they are roughly comparable. The sea and land based systems and their
underlying strategies could not be any more different. At sea, the
USA has had HTK capabilities for many years now and the US decided to
hold the most important part of the US nuclear arsenal in SSBNs. In
contrast, the Russians chose to develop road-mobile intercontinental
ballistic missiles. The very first one was the RT-2PM Topol (SS-25)
deployed in 1985, followed by the T-2PM2 «Topol-M» (SS-27) deployed
in 1997 and the revolutionary RT-24 Yars or Topol’-MR (SS-29)
deployed in 2010 (the US considered deployed road-mobile strategic
missiles, but never succeeded in developing the technology).
The
Russians are also deploying rail-mobile missiles called RT-23
Molodets (SS-24) and are about to deploy a newer version called RS-27
Barguzin (SS-31?). This is what they look like:
SSBNs
and road and rail mobile missiles all have two things in common: they
are mobile and they rely on concealment for survival as neither of
them can hope to survive. The SSBN hides in the depths of the ocean,
the road-mobile missile launcher drives around the immense Russian
expanses and can hide, literally, in any forest. As for the
rail-mobile missile train, it hides by being completely
indistinguishable from any other train on the huge Russian railroad
network (even from up close it is impossible to tell whether what you
are seeing is a regular freight train or a missile launching special
train). To destroy these systems, accuracy is absolutely not enough:
you need to find them and you need to find them before they fire
their missiles. And that is, by all accounts, quite impossible.
The
Russian Navy likes to keep its SSBNs either under the polar ice-cap
or in so-called “bastions” such as the Sea of Okhotsk. While
these are not really “no-go” zones for US attack submarines
(SSN), they are extremely dangerous areas where the Russian Navy has
a huge advantage over the US (if only because the US attack submarine
cannot count on the support of surface ships or aircraft). The US
Navy has some of the best submarines on the planet and superbly
trained crews, but I find the notion that US SSNs could find and
destroy all Russian SSBNs before the latter can launch unlikely in
the extreme.
As
for the land-based rail-mobile and road-mobile missiles, they are
protected by Russian Air Defenses which are the most advanced on the
planet, not the kind of airspace the US would want to send B-53, B-1
or B-2 bombers in. But most importantly, these missiles are
completely hidden so even if the USA could somehow destroy them, it
would failed to find enough of them to make a first disarming strike
a viable option. By the way, the RS-24 has four MIRVs (make that 4 US
cities) while the RS-27 will have between 10 and 16 (make that
another 10 to 16 US cities vaporized).
Looking
at geography and cruise missiles
Finally,
let’s take a look at geography and cruise missiles. Two Russian
cruise missiles are especially important to us: the Kh-102 and the
3M-14K(?):
KH-102
3M-14K
Range:
5500km
2600km
Launcher:
Strategic
bomber
Aircraft,
ship, container
Warhead:
Nuclear
450kt
Nuclear
(unknown)
What
is important with these two cruise missiles is that the KH-102 has a
huge range and that the KM-14K can be fired from aircraft, ships and
even containers. Take a look at this video which shows the
capabilities of this missile:
Now
consider where the vast majority of US cities are located – right
along the East and West coasts of the USA and the fact that the US
has no air defenses of any kind protecting them. A Russian strategic
bomber could hit any West Coast city from the middle of the Pacific
ocean. As for a Russian submarine, it could hit any US city from the
middle of the Atlantic. Finally, the Russians could conceal an
unknown number of cruise missile in regular looking shipping
container (flying a Russian flag or, for that matter, any other flag)
and simply sail to the immediate proximity to the US coast and
unleash a barrage of nuclear cruise missiles.
How
much reaction time would such a barrage give the US government?
Understanding
reaction time
It
is true that the Soviet and Russian space-based early warning system
is in bad shape. But did you know that China never bothered
developing such a space based system in the first place? So what is
wrong with the Chinese, are they stupid, technologically backward or
do they know something we don’t?
To
answer that question we need to look at the options facing a country
under nuclear missile attack. The first option is called “launch
on warning”:
you see the incoming missiles and you press the “red button”
(keys in reality) to launch your own missiles. That is sometimes
referred to as “use them or lose them”. The next option is
“launch on strike”:
you launch all you got as soon as a nuclear strike on your territory
is confirmed. And, finally, there is the “retaliation
after ride-out“:
you absorb whatever your enemy shot at you, then take a decision to
strike back. What is obvious is that China has adopted, whether by
political choice or due to limitation in space capabilities, either a
“launch on strike” or a “retaliation after ride-out” option.
This is especially interesting since China possesses relatively few
nuclear warheads and even fewer real long range ICBMs .
Contrast
that with the Russians who have recently confirmed that they have
long had a “dead hand system” called “Perimetr”
which automatically ascertains that a nuclear attack has taken place
and then automatically launches a counterstrike. That would be a
“launch on strike” posture, but it is also possible that Russia
has a double-posture: she tries to have the capability to launch on
warning, but double-secures herself with an automated “dead hand”
“launch on strike” capability.
Take
a look at this estimate of worldwide stocks of strategic nuclear
warheads: While China is credited with only 260 warheads, Russia
still has a whopping 7,000 warheads. And a “dead hand”
capability. And yet China feels confident enough to announce a “no
first use” policy. How can they say that with no space-based
nuclear missile launch detection capability?
Many
will say that the Chinese wished they had more nukes and a
space-based based nuclear missile launch detection capability, but
that their current financial and technological means simply do not
allow that. Maybe. But my personal guess is that they realize that
even their very minimal force represents a good enough deterrent for
any potential aggressor. And they might have a point.
Let
me ask you this: how many US generals and politicians would be
willing to sacrifice just one major US city in order to disarm China
or Russia? Some probably would. But I sure hope that the majority
would realize that the risk will always remain huge.
For
one thing, modern nuclear warfare has, so far, only been “practiced”
only on paper and with computers (and thank God for that!)? So nobody
*really* knows for sure how a nuclear war would play itself out. The
only thing which is certain is that just the political and economic
consequences of it would be catastrophic and totally unpredictable.
Furthermore, it remains very unclear how such a war could be stopped
short of totally destroying one side. The so-called “de-escalation”
is a fascinating concept, but so far nobody has really figured this
out. Finally, I am personally convinced that both the USA and Russia
have more than enough survivable nuclear weapons to actually decide
to ride out a full-scale enemy attack. That is the one big issue
which many well-meaning pacifist never understood: it is a good thing
that “the USA and Russia have the means to blow-up the world ten
times over” simply because even one side succeeded in destroying,
say, 95% of the US or Russian nuclear forces, the remaining 5% would
be more than enough to wipe-out the attacking side in a devastating
countervalue attack. If Russia and the USA each had, say, only 10
nuclear warheads then the temptation to try to take them out would be
much higher.
This
is scary and even sick, but having a lot of nuclear weapons is safer
from a “first-strike
stability”
point of view than having few. Yes, we do live in a crazy world.
Consider
that in times of crisis both the US and Russia would scramble their
strategic bombers and keep them in the air, refueling them when
needed, for as long as needed to avoid having them destroyed on the
ground. So even if the USA destroyed ALL Russian ICBM/SLBMs, there
would be quite a few strategic bombers in holding patterns in staging
areas which could be given the order to strike. And here we reach one
last crucial concept:
Counterforce
strikes require a lot of HTK capable warheads.
The estimates by
both sides are kept secret, of course, but we are talking over 1000
targets on each side at least listed, if not actually targeted. But a
countervalue strike would require much less. The US has only 10
cities with over one million people. Russia has only 12. And,
remember, in theory one warhead is enough for one city (that is not
true, but for all practical purposes it is). Just look what 9/11 did
to the USA and imagine of, say, “only” Manhattan had been truly
nuked. You can easily imagine the consequences.
Conclusion
1: super-fuses are not really that super at all
The
super-fuses scare is so overblown that it is almost an urban legend.
The fact is that even if all the US SLBMs are now HTK capable and
even if Russia does not have a functional space-based missile launch
detection capability (she is working on a new one, by the way), this
in no way affects the fundamental fact that there is nothing, nothing
at all, that the USA could come up with to prevent Russia from
obliterating the USA in a retaliatory strike. The opposite is also
true, the Russians have exactly zero hope of nuking the USA and
survive the inevitable US retaliation.
The
truth is that as far back as the early 1980s Soviet (Marshal Ogarkov)
and US specialists had already come to the conclusion that a nuclear
war was unwinnable. In the past 30 years two things have dramatically
changed the nature of the game: first, an increasing number of
conventional weapons have become comparable in their effects to small
nuclear weapons and cruise missiles have become vastly more capable.
The trend today is for low-RCS (stealth) long range hypersonic cruise
missiles and maneuvering ICBM warheads which will make it even harder
to detect and intercept them. Just think about it: if the Russians
fired a cruise missile volley from a submarine say, 100km off the US
coast, how much reaction time will the US have? Say that these
low-RCS missile would begin flying at medium altitude being for all
practical purpose invisible to radar, infra-red and even sound, then
lower themselves down to 3-5 m over the Atlantic and then accelerate
to a Mach 2 or Mach 3 speed. Sure, they will become visible to radars
once they crosses the horizon, but the remaining reaction time would
be measured in seconds, not minutes. Besides, what kind of weapon
system could stop that missile type of anyway? Maybe the kind of
defenses around a US aircraft carrier (maybe), but there is simply
nothing like that along the US coast.
As
for ballistic missile warheads, all the current and foreseeable
anti-ballistic systems rely on calculations for a non-maneuvering
warhead. Once the warheads begin to make turns and zig-zag, then the
computation needed to intercept them become harder by several orders
of magnitude. Some Russian missiles, like the R-30 Bulava, can even
maneuver during their initial burn stage, making their trajectory
even harder to estimate (and the missile itself harder to intercept).
The
truth is that for the foreseeable future ABM systems will be much
more expensive and difficult to build then ABM-defeating missiles.
Also, keep in mind that an ABM missile itself is also far, far more
expensive than a warhead. Frankly, I have always suspected that the
American obsession with various types of ABM technologies is more
about giving cash to the Military Industrial Complex and, at best,
developing new technologies useful elsewhere.
Conclusion
2: the nuclear deterrence system remains stable, very stable
At
the end of WWII, the Soviet Union’s allies, moved by the
traditional western love for Russia, immediately proceeded to plan
for a conventional and a nuclear war against the Soviet Union
(see Operation Unthinkable and Operation
Dropshot).
Neither plan was executed, the western leaders were probably rational
enough not to want to trigger a full-scale war against the armed
forces which had destroyed roughly 80% of the Nazi war machine. What
is certain, however, is that both sides fully understood that the
presence of nuclear weapons profoundly changed the nature of warfare
and that the world would never be the same again: for the first time
in history all of mankind faced a truly existential threat. As a
direct result of this awareness, immense sums of money were given to
some of the brightest people on the planet to tackle the issue of
nuclear warfare and deterrence. This huge effort resulted in an
amazingly redundant, multi-dimensional and sophisticated system which
cannot be subverted by any one technological breakthrough. There is
SO much redundancy and security built into the Russian and American
strategic nuclear forces that a disarming first strike is all but
impossible, even if we make the most unlikely and far-fetched
assumptions giving one side all the advantages and the other all the
disadvantages. For most people it is very hard to wrap their heads
around such a hyper-survivable system, but both the USA and Russia
have run hundreds and even thousands of very advanced simulations of
nuclear exchanges, spending countless hours and millions of dollars
trying to find a weak spot in the other guy’s system, and each time
the result was the same: there is always enough to inflict an
absolutely cataclysmic retaliatory counter-strike.
Conclusion
3: the real danger to our common future
The
real danger to our planet comes not from a sudden technological
breakthrough which would make nuclear war safe, but from the demented
filled minds of the US Neocons who believe that they can bring Russia
to heel in a game of “nuclear chicken”. These Neocons have
apparently convinced themselves that making conventional threats
against Russia, such as unilaterally imposing no-fly zones over
Syria, does not bring us closer to a nuclear confrontation. It does.
The
Neocons love to bash the United Nations in general, and the veto
power of the Permanent Five (P5) at the UN Security Council, but they
apparently forgot the reason why this veto power was created in the
first place: to outlaw any action which could trigger a nuclear war.
Of course, this assumes that the P5 all care about international law.
Now that the USA has clearly become a rogue state whose contempt for
international law is total, there is no legal mechanism left to stop
the US from committing actions which endanger the future of mankind.
This is what is really scary, not “super-fuses”.
What
we are facing today is a nuclear rogue state run by demented
individuals who, steeped in a culture of racial superiority, total
impunity and imperial hubris, are constantly trying to bring us
closer to a nuclear war. These people are not constrained by
anything, not morals, not international law, not even common sense or
basic logic. In truth, we are dealing with a messianic cult every bit
as insane as the one of Jim Jones or Adolf Hitler and like all
self-worshiping crazies they profoundly believe in their
invulnerability.
It
is the immense sin of the so-called “Western world” that it let
these demented individuals take control with little or no resistance
and that now almost the entire western society lack the courage to
even admit that it surrendered itself to what I can only call a
satanic cult. Alexander Solzhenitsyn prophetic words spoken in 1978
have now fully materialized:
A decline in courage may be the most striking feature that an outside observer notices in the West today. The Western world has lost its civic courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, in each government, in each political party, and, of course, in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling and intellectual elites, causing an impression of a loss of courage by the entire society. There are many courageous individuals, but they have no determining influence on public life (Harvard Speech, 1978)
Five
years later, Solzhenitsyn warned us again saying,
To the ill-considered hopes of the last two centuries, which have reduced us to insignificance and brought us to the brink of nuclear and non-nuclear death, we can propose only a determined quest for the warm hand of God, which we have so rashly and self-confidently spurned. Only in this way can our eyes be opened to the errors of this unfortunate twentieth century and our hands be directed to setting them right. There is nothing else to cling to in the landslide: the combined vision of all the thinkers of the Enlightenment amounts to nothing. Our five continents are caught in a whirlwind. But it is during trials such as these that the highest gifts of the human spirit are manifested. If we perish and lose this world, the fault will be ours alone.
We
have been warned, but will we heed that warning?
Klik voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, op één van de labels die u hieronder terug kan vinden, dit geldt (nog) niet voor de labels: HTK, ICBM, MIRV, SLBM, SSBN, SSN, STK en super-fuse
Afgelopen donderdag bracht Anti-Media een artikel met de titel: ‘What You Need to Know About the U.S.-North Korea Conflict Right Now’, vrij vertaald: ‘Wat u direct moet weten over het conflict tussen de VS en Noord-Korea’.
Het opperhoofd van het U.S. Pacific Command, admiraal Harry Harris, vertelde het Congres afgelopen woensdag, dat de militaire opbouw in Zuidoost-Azië er niet op gericht is, Noord-Korea aan te vallen. Nee, die opbouw is erop gericht, de Noord-Koreaanse leider Kim Yung-un af te schrikken, zodat hij stopt met ‘kernproeven’* en niet nog meer tests doet met raketten (die amper luchtwaardig zijn, zoals telkens weer blijkt). Harris stelt dat de VS de Noord-Koreanen iet op hun knieën wil dwingen, maar tot rede wil brengen………
Later stelt Harris, dat Noord-Korea wel degelijk een direct gevaar is voor Zuid-Korea, Japan en de VS…. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Harris gaf wel toe, dat de militaire opbouw van de VS ‘om N-Korea tot rede te brengen’ totaal buiten proporties is, wat betreft de slagkracht van dit land……
Vandaag een artikel van P.C. Roberts op Information Clearing House. Hij betoogt terecht dat de handelingen van de VS er duidelijk op gericht zijn, Rusland en China op de knieën te dwingen, middels een eerste kernaanval op die landen…… Niet zo vreemd, als je de uitlatingen van Harris in ogenschouw neemt: de enorme militaire opbouw (buiten alle proporties) in Zuidoost-Azië.
De VS is in Z.o.-Azië o.a. bezig een enorme vloot (‘armada’) samen te stellen, waarbij zelfs 3 vliegdekschepen en de grootste VS kernonderzeeër betrokken zijn. Daarnaast heeft de VS op meerdere plekken in datzelfde gebied (op land) raketten gestationeerd, raketten die zogenaamd alleen defensief zullen worden ingezet. Lullig genoeg heeft de VS een nieuwe serie raketten, die simpel van anti-raket kunnen worden omgevormd tot kernraket met meerdere kernkoppen…….
Hetzelfde gebeurt overigens met Rusland: de VS staat met de NAVO voor een groot deel van de Russische westgrens, waar het continu grootscheepse militaire oefeningen houdt en intussen een ‘raketschild’ heeft gebouwd, zogenaamd tegen Iraanse raketten, terwijl ook deze raketten in een mum van tijd, kunnen worden omgebouwd tot kernraketten met meerdere kernkoppen……..
Roberts wijst op de uitlatingen van de VS (al onder Obama), dat de VS zich het recht voorbehoud, een aanval (zonder reden daarvoor) met kernraketten te starten…… (hetzelfde heeft de inhumane feeks May, de premier van Groot-Brittannië gedaan, kort nadat zij vorig jaar aantrad….)
Roberts concludeert dan ook dat de VS haar hegemonie over aarde wil afdwingen, precies zoals de Russen dit na uitvoerig onderzoek ook al concludeerden.
Nogmaals terecht stelt Roberts dat dit gevaarlijke spel van de VS de vernietiging van de aarde zal bewerkstelligen (middels WOIII)….. Roberts is teleurgesteld in het linkse activisme, dat door conflicten is verbrokkeld en geen wereldwijd protest kan ontketenen, zoals in de 80er jaren, tegen de kruisraketten (of eerder tegen de illegale oorlogen die de VS voerde in Zuidoost-Azië..)……
Uiteraard likt het overgrote deel van de westerse politici de hielen van hun VS voorbeelden, waar de reguliere westerse media alle VS/NAVO propaganda voor zoete koek slikken en deze uitventen als de enige waarheid (waarbij het ene nepnieuws bericht na het andere wordt opgelepeld, e.e.a vooral middels haat- en angstzaaien…..)…… Daar durft men keer op keer landen als Rusland, Noord-Korea en Iran van gewelddadige expansie te betichten, terwijl daar maar één land echt voor aan is te wijzen: de VS, de grootste terreurentiteit op onze kleine planeet………
Gezien dat laatste is het niet zo vreemd dat N-Korea rare bokkensprongen maakt, immers de VS is niet te vertrouwen, ‘ook niet’ als een land de pogingen staakt, om een atoombom te construeren, dat heeft Libië moeten ondervinden in 2011, dit land werd door de VS en andere westerse landen (o.l.v. de VS) naar god geholpen, waar het eens rijkste land van Afrika, nu zo ongeveer het armste is, een land dat in totale chaos is gedompeld……….
Eén ding is zeker, middels het conflict met Noord-Korea, militariseert de VS in feite het hele zeegebied van China, waar het een paar honderd militaire bases in de buurt van datzelfde gebied heeft…… Precies zoals de VS dit ook heeft in voor Rusland strategische gebieden……. Terwijl de rest van de EU wordt gebruikt voor opslag van militaire hardware, zo biedt Nederland plaats aan extra kernkoppen (sterke geruchten) en tanks (zeker) van de VS………
Eerst vindt u hieronder het artikel van Anti-Media en daarna van ICH. Onder het artikel van ICH, kan u klikken voor een ‘Dutch translation’ (NL vertaling).
What
You Need to Know About the U.S.-North Korea Conflict Right Now
What You Need to Know About the U.S.-North Korea Conflict Right Now
(ANTIMEDIA)Washington,
D.C. — Keeping
in step with the latest bullet point from the mainstream narrative,
the head of the U.S. Pacific Command, Admiral Harry
Harris, told Congress
Wednesday that the military buildup in East Asia is not intended for
a proactive attack on North Korea. Rather, he claimed, it is to deter
the nation’s rogue leader, Kim Jong-un.
Promising
legislators that the U.S. would be ready to defend allies in the
region “with
the best technology” the
military has to offer, Harris said the North Korean leader — who
has ordered multiple
missile tests of late, creating an international stir — will attack
American cities as soon as he can.
Despite
the United States’ innocent intentions in Asia, however — the
military hardware is there to bring Kim “to his senses, not
to his knees,” says Harris — the admiral also reminded
Congress that a first-strike move against North Korea is still a
possibility.
“As
[US President Donald] Trump and [Defense Secretary James] Mattis have
said, all options are on the table,” Harris
said.
Indeed,
Harris seems to think it will, in fact, come to that.
“I
don’t share your confidence that North Korea is not going to attack
South Korea, Japan, or the United States…once they have the
capability,” he
told Congress.
As
to that fancy technology the admiral referred to, some of it is
currently upsetting a lot of South Koreans. From a Reutersreport on
Wednesday:
“The
U.S. military moved parts of an anti-missile defense system to a
deployment site in South Korea Wednesday amid heightened tensions
over North Korea’s missile and nuclear weapons programs, triggering
protests from villagers and China.”
Like
the situation in Japan, many South Koreans feel the
U.S. presence in their country only exacerbates regional tensions. To
them, the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense
(THAAD) system could potentially be viewed as an act of aggression.
Strangely,
Harris also actually admitted to Congress that the military buildup
in East Asia is overkill and that the carrier strike group currently
making its way to the Korean Peninsula is far more powerful than
anything Kim Jong-un could throw at it.
“The
weapons that North Korea would put against the Carl Vinson strike
group are easily defended by the capabilities resident in that strike
group,” Harris said.
Getting
lyrical, the admiral reassured Congress of U.S. military might.
“If
it flies it will die, if it’s flying against the Carl Vinson strike
group,” he
said, referring to North Korean missiles.
Still,
Harris insists, the threat is significant enough that the U.S.
actually needs more firepower in the Pacific.
“The
United States may need to strengthen its missile defense,
particularly in Hawaii,”Reuters writes, “given
the advancing threat from North Korea’s missile and nuclear weapons
programs, the top U.S. commander in the Pacific told Congress
Wednesday.”
According
to the U.S. military, the initial deployments of the THAAD system in
South Korea will be operational within days,
just about the time the Carl Vinson strike group is scheduled
to arrive at
the peninsula.
April
28, 2017 “Information
Clearing House” – Not everyone likes to hear about the
threat of nuclear war. Some find refuge in denial and say that
nuclear war is impossible because it makes no sense. Unfortunately,
humankind has a long record of doing things that make no sense.
In
previous posts in recent years I have pointed out both written
documents and changes in US war doctrine that indicate that
Washington is preparing a preemptive nuclear attack on Russia and
China. More recently, I have shown that Washington’s demonization
of Russia and President Putin, the incessant lies about Russian deeds
and intentions, and the refusal of Washington to cooperate with
Russia on any issue have convinced the Russian government that
Washington is preparing the Western populations for an attack on
Russia. It is obvious that China has come to the same conclusion.
It
is extremely dangerous to all of mankind for Washington to convince
two nuclear powers that Washington is preparing a preemptive nuclear
strike against them. It is impossible to imagine a more reckless and
irresponsible act. Yet this is precisely what Washington has done.
Lt.
Gen. Viktor Poznikhir, Deputy Head of Operations of the Russian
General Staff has concluded that Washington in pursuit of global
hegemony is implementing an anti-ballistic missile system that
Washington believes can prevent a Russian nuclear response to a US
pre-emptive
attack. http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/04/us-forces-preparing-sudden-nuclear.html
Careful
studies have convinced the Russians that Washington is investing in
and arranging components that have no other function than to
devastate Russia and cripple the country’s retaliatory capability.
In short, Washington is preparing to launch a nuclear
war. https://www.rt.com/news/386276-us-missile-shield-russia-strike/
As
I explained previously, the theory behind this insane scheme is that
after America’s preemptive strike Russia will be so devastated that
Russia would not retaliate with any remaining forces out of fear that
Washington would launch a second major strike. Washington also plans
to use agents in place to assassinate as many members as possible of
the Russian government, thus leaving the government in confusion
without leadership.
Yes,
the insane American/Israeli neoconservatives are this determined to
exercise hegemony over the world.
Yes,
Washington is sufficiently criminally insane to risk the destruction
of life on earth based on the supposition that Washington’s offense
will work perfectly and Russia and China’s capabilities will be so
degraded that no retaliatory response will occur.
One
might hope that the American and Western populations would be
outraged that Washington is so power-crazed that Washington is
subjecting all life to such risks. But there is no sign of an
anti-war movement. The Western leftwing has degenerated into Identity
Politics in which the only threat comes from white heterosexual males
who are portrayed as misogynists, racists, and homophopes. The
Western leftwing is no longer war-conscious. Indeed, the leftwing has
become diverted into such silly irrelevancies as transgender rights
to toilets of their choice. The impotence of the Western left is so
overwhelming that the left might as well not exist.
Where
then is the hope? Russia and China cannot simply sit there and await
America’s preemptive nuclear strike.
Possibly
Washington does not intend a preemptive strike, but only to convince
Russia and China that Washington’s preparations give Washington so
much predominance in a conflict that Russia and China will submit to
Washington’s hegemony. But this interpretation of Washington’s
intention implies no less risk. Why would Russia and China wait for
Washington to complete its preparations for war, preparations that
permit Washington to turn Russia and China into puppet states?
The
US military/security complex has clearly prevailed over Trump’s
intention to normalize relations between the US and Russia, and
anti-Russian venom continues to pour out of NATO and Washington’s
European vassal states. The majority of the American people seem to
have accepted the propaganda that Russia is the number one threat to
the United States. With propaganda controlling the explanation,
Washington’s aggressive actions are explained as defense against a
threat and not as a policy that will end life on earth.
The
chances are high that life on earth is approaching its end. The
responsibility lies heavily on the American people, whose success,
due to the mistakes of others, made Americans think that they are
exceptional and privileged. Unaware of the inhumane threat to all
life that is embodied in the neoconservative claim that Americans are
exceptional and indispensable, the self-satisfied American public is
unaware of the consequences of such hubris. Hubris is leading them,
and the entire world, to slaughter in thermo-nuclear war.
The
neoconservative claim of American exceptionalism is the identical
claim made for Germans by Hitler. If Americans are indispensable,
everyone else is dispensable and can be “bombed into the stone age”
as one US government official put it, or nuked as Washington intends
to do to Russia and China. The claim of American exceptionalism is
not accepted by Russia and China. Therefore, the insane, crazed
monsters who rule over the West in Washington are bringing life on
earth to an end.
And
there are no protests. The idiot British, the idiot Germans, the
idiot French, Italians, Canadians, Australians, Belgians, Greeks,
Portuguese, Spanish, Japanese, rally behind the insanity that is
Washington.
And
so apparently do the American people, a population stupid beyond all
belief.
* ‘Kernproeven’, althans zoals de reguliere westerse pers en westerse politici in navolging van de VS en de bluf van de Noord-Koreanen, deze proeven noemen. Vreemd genoeg werd er na geen Noord-Koreaanse ondergrondse kernproef, radioactieve straling gemeten, iets dat normaal wel te meten is na een ondergrondse kernproef. M.a.w. de Noord-Koreanen brengen een enorme hoeveelheid springstof tot ontploffing, zoveel dat deze eenzelfde ‘aardbeving’ teweeg brengt, als die door een ondergrondse kernproef opgewekt…….
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: H. Harris, Holbrooks en Poznikhir,
Trump zei onlangs in een interview tegen de hersenloze rechtse houwdegen O’Reilly, dat de VS ook veel moordenaars heeft, dit op de vraag waarom hij de relaties met Rusland wil normaliseren, terwijl Putin een moordenaar is.
Niet veel mis met deze uitspraak van Trump, ware het niet, dat hij erkende dat Putin een moordenaar is. Gezien de illegale oorlogen die de VS de laatste 26 jaar begon, plus de door de VS opgezette, gefinancierde en geregisseerde opstanden en staatsgrepen, kan je Putin niet eens wegzetten als moordenaar……..
De VS is al jaren de grootste terreurentiteit op aarde!!
Lees het volgende artikel van Roberts, gepubliceerd op Information Clearing House (onder het artikel kunt u klikken voor een ‘Dutch’ vertaling, dit neemt wel enige tijd in beslag):
Has
The American Establishment Opted for Thermo-Nuclear War?
By
Paul Craig Roberts
February
08, 2017 “Information
Clearing House”
– If you want to be an American TV talking head or a Western
presstitute, you are required to be braindead and
integrity-challenged like Bill O’Reilly, CNN, MSNBC, and the New
York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and all the rest.
In
an interview with President Donald Trump, O’Reilly said: “Putin
is a killer.”
O’Reilly
is indifferent to the fact that thermo-nuclear war is a killer of
planet Earth. For O’Reilly, President Trump’s desire to normalize
relations with Russia is an indication that the President of the US
is comfortable making deals with killers, as if America’s last
three presidents have not been mass killers comfortable with their
destruction in whole or part of many countries and millions of
peoples.
President
Trump’s response to O’Reilly’s was: “We’ve got a lot of
killers. What do you think – our country’s so innocent?”
The
only thing wrong with President Trump’s response is that it
implicitly accepts that Putin is no different from Obama, George W.
Bush, and Bill Clinton. Yet there is no evidence that Putin is a
“killer.” This accusation is an assertion from those who prosper
from having a “Russian threat” to keep the money and power
flowing to themselves.
President
Trump’s statement of an obvious fact was quickly branded “defense
of a killer” by congressional Republicans, Hillary Democrats, the
liberal, progressive, left-wing, and the Western presstitutes.
Even
online sites, such as politico.com, jumped in to criticize “Donald
Trump’s defense of Vladimir Putin’s homicidal history.”
Allegations of “Putin’s homicidal history” are astonishing
after 24 years of Washington’s genocide against Muslins in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, and Syria, and
non-Muslims in Yugoslavia and the Russian regions of Ukraine.
Washington ranks as one of the worst mass murderers in human history,
but the Western presstitutes brand Putin as the one who is homicidal.
Listen
to these members of Congress who represent Americans in Washington:
Senate
Majorithy Leader Mitch McConnel (R, Ky) said referring to the thrice
elected President of Russia: “He’s a thug.” McConnel has gone
along with Washington’s mass murder of peoples for 15 years, and
this accomplice to mass murder said that Washington’s murder of
countless millions, which have sent refugees all over the Western
world, are not evidence against America. In his response to Trump’s
statement, McConnel actually said: “We don’t operate in any way
the way the Russians do. I think there’s a clear distinction here
that all Americans understand, and I would not have characterized it
that
way.” http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/republicans-denounce-trumps-defense-of-killer-putin-234665
The
Republican senator from Florida, Marco Rubio, said: “We are not the
same as Putin.” Of course we aren’t. We are mass murderers.
The
Rebublican senator from Nebraska, Ben Sasse, said, and this is a
level of ignorance hard to believe even for Americans, that “Putin
is an enemy of political dissent. The U.S. celebrates political
dissent and the right for people to argue free from violence about
places or ideas that are in conflict [as at Cal Berkeley]. There is
no moral equivalency between the United States of America, the
greatest freedom loving nation in the history of the world, and the
murderous thugs that are in Putin’s defense of his cronyism.”
The
Wall Street Journal’s (WSJ) Bret Stephens said: “Trump puts US on moral
par with Putin’s Russia. Never in history has a President slandered
his country like this.”
No
Bret, you have it backwards. No US president has ever slandered
Russia like this. There is no moral equivalency between Washington
and Moscow. Washington is totally devoid of all morality. Russia is
not. It is not Russia that has murdered, maimed, and displaced
peoples in at least 9 countries in the last 15 years, sending
refugees all over the Western world, some of whom no doubt bear
legitimate grudges.
Trump’s
vice president, Mike Pence, rushed to tell NBC that Trump didn’t
mean that Washington is not morally superior to Putin’s Russia. Of
course the US is morally superior to everyone. The millions of
peoples we kill and dislocate are proof of our unquestioned moral
superiority. Every time we bomb a wedding, a funeral of the wedding
guests, a children’s soccer game, innumerable hospitals and medical
centers, schools, farms, public transportation, we exceptional and
indispensable Americans are demonstrating our moral superiority over
the Earth. Only the morally superior can commit vast crimes against
humanity without being held accountable.
Normal
relations with Russia do not seem to be in the cards. The
demonization and lies will continue. The New Cold War is too
important to the ruling establishment, and to the members of the
House and Senate who are dependent on military/security campaign
donations, for Trump to be allowed to normalize relations with
Russia.
Everything
that Reagan and Gorbachev achieved has been undone. The material
interest of a few has again placed humanity at risk.
“The
greatest freedom loving nation in the history of the world” can’t
even have a debate about it, because a debate is Putin apologetics
and moral equivalency.
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: O’Reilly, Pence, Rubio, Sasse en WSJ.
Het volgende artikel komt van het blog van Stan van Houcke. Het is geschreven door Paul Craig Roberts en werd gisteren gepubliceerd. Op overtuigende wijze stelt Roberts dat Putin zich bij de neus heeft laten nemen door de VS, waarbij hij tevens onder druk werd gezet door VS vererende pro-Atlantische krachten in de Russische regering…….
De VS heeft in het verleden meermaals de afwezigheid van Putin gebruikt om de situatie in Oost-Europa op scherp te zetten en daarmee Rusland voor het blok te zetten, aldus Roberts, die o.a. wijst op de door de VS geïnitieerde invasie van Zuid-Ossetië, toen Putin de Olympische Spelen in China bezocht.
Nu worden Syrië en Rusland door de media in een groot deel van de wereld beschuldigd van oorlogsmisdaden, terwijl deze klachten geen steek houden…. Neem de gasaanvallen door het reguliere Syrische leger: achteraf bleek telkens weer, dat de ‘gematigde rebellen’ (lees: psychopathische moordenaars) achter deze aanvallen zaten……. Een VN rapport weersprak de feiten nog eens en zo dacht men Syrië voor een paar van de gasaanvallen verantwoordelijk te kunnen stellen, terwijl Syrië onder druk van Rusland haar chemische wapens allang had afgedankt……
Na enige tijd kwam de waarheid naar buiten, de zogenaamde bewijzen voor die gasaanvallen kwamen van de ‘gematigde rebellen’, een mafketel in Engeland (die zichzelf een humanitaire Syrische NGO noemt, aantoonbaar kletskoek verkoopt en volop wordt geciteerd door de reguliere media) en van coalitie militairen, die e.e.a. bevestigen, maar daar nooit de bewijzen voor leverden……. Om over de bedriegers die zich de White Helmets noemen, maar helemaal te zwijgen: meermaals werden deze terroristen (-helpers) gefotografeerd met wapens in de hand en zelfs met het omhoog houden van door hen vermoorden burgers…….
Zoals u al kon lezen: feiten doen er in deze oorlog allang niet meer toe, Assad en Putin moeten hangen, dus blijft men in de politiek en de media de leugens verkondigen over Syrische en Russische oorlogsmisdaden………
De VS heeft Rusland in de val gelokt, met gesprekken over een wapenstilstand en een oplossing van ‘het conflict’ in Syrië, waarvan Putin moet hebben geweten, dat Washington zich hier niet aan zou houden….. Tot nu toe hebben de ‘gematigde’ terreurgroepen zich niet aan één wapenstilstand gehouden, mede onder druk van Saoedi-Arabië, Turkije en…… het VS commando in Syrië/Irak……..
De Russen hebben het agressieve westen meermaals gewaarschuwd, dat het te ver gaat in het oosten van Europa en keer op keer doet het westen net of de neus bloed. Sterker nog: de westerse politici, de NAVO onder aanvoering van de VS en de reguliere westerse media beschuldigen Rusland van agressie in Oost-Europa….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Ja, ze durven godverdomme wel hè, jezus!!
Terecht merkt Roberts op, dat een groot deel van de westerse bevolking denkt dat het niet tot een kernoorlog zal komen met Rusland, terwijl Groot-Brittannië en de VS al een paar maanden geleden hebben aangegeven, een eerste aanval met kernwapens niet uit te sluiten. Het doel werd toen niet genoemd, echter dat dit Rusland moet zijn, staat buiten kijf……
We dansen op de rand van de vulkaan en de VS duwt ons ongezien langzaam over de rand……. Het grootste deel van de westerse politici, ‘opiniemakers’, oorlogshitsers als de Wijk en de reguliere westerse media helpen mee (vaak zelfs gezamenlijk), het grootste deel van de bevolking dom te houden, zodat deze burgers niet door hebben, dat ze bijna in de gloeiendhete vulkaan donderen………
By
Cooperating With Washington On Syria Russia Walked Into A Trap
Paul
Craig Roberts
A
month ago I wrote a column , “He Who Hesitates Is Lost—And Russia
1.
A UN report orchestrated by Washington has accused Syria and Russia
of war crimes in Aleppo. According to the report, “indiscriminate
airstrikes across the eastern part of the city by Government forces
and their allies [Russia] are responsible for the overwhelming
majority of civilian casualties. These violations constitute war
crimes. And if knowingly committed as part of a widespread or
systematic attack directed against civilians, they constitute crimes
against
humanity.” http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=20723&LangID=E
The
UN Human Rights Council has now voted to start an “independent”
investigation. The purpose of the investigation is to indict Russia
and Putin as war criminals and to “bring to justice those
responsible for the alleged abuses.” Moreover, “the situation
should be urgently referred to the International Criminal Court.
Every party to this conflict must know that they will be held
accountable for the international crimes they commit – all, without
selective protection or discrimination.” Keep in mind that
Washington provides the largest share of the UN’s budget, and the
UN will overlook that it was Washington that sent ISIS to Aleppo.
Obviously,
neither Washington nor the UN will be able to drag Putin into the
International Criminal Court, but a war criminal charge can serve
Washington’s purpose by stopping Putin from traveling abroad and
curtailing his diplomatic efforts. The purpose of this orchestrated
exercise is its propaganda value. Among Washington’s many concerns
is that some Eastern European countries, alarmed by the conflict that
Washington is leading them into with Russia, will threaten NATO with
a non-participation statement. If Russia is branded a war criminal,
it becomes even more difficult for countries that foolishly and
thoughtlessly joined NATO to extricate themselves from the
consequences.
2.
Washington has succeeded in bringing to power in Poland the far
right-wing Law and Justice Party. These agents of Washington have
re-opened the matter of the death of Poland’s President Kaczynski
in a plane crash, making wild claims that the crash was a terror
attack by Russia aimed at depriving Poland of its political
leadership. https://www.rt.com/news/363726-polish-plane-crash-conspiracy-tusk/
Despite
massive and convincing evidence to the contrary, the Law and Justice
Party’s claims will find traction thanks to the scary portrait of
Russia painted by Washington’s demonization campaign. The intended
result is to further blacken and isolate Russia and its government.
3.
As the anointed spokesperson for the neoconservative warmongers,
Hillary wants Washington to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria. A no-fly
zone would require Washington to attemp to prevent Syrian and Russian
air strikes against ISIS positions. It seems clear enough that Syria
and Russia would not accept any attempt to deny Syria the use of the
country’s own airspace in the conflict against forces sent by
Washington to overthrow the Syrian government, as happened to Gaddafi
in Libya. Unless Russia and Syria surrender, Hillary’s no-fly zone
would result in military conflict between Russia and the US.
To
advance the no-fly zone proposal, the “use of chemical weapons”
ruse has been resurrected. Fabricated reports are appearing that the
Syrian airforce is guilty of dropping chemical weapons on the Syrian
population. On October 22, the Indian
Express reported
that on October 21 the UN-Led Joint Investigative Mechanism informed
the UN Security Council that the chemical attack on Qmenas “was
caused by a Syrian Arab Armed Forces helicopter dropping a device
from a high altitude which hit the ground and released the toxic
substance that affected the population.” The report concluded that
three of the chemical attacks investigated were made by Syria and one
by the Islamic
State. http://indianexpress.com/article/world/un-says-syrian-army-used-chemical-weapons-in-qmenas-village-in-2015-3096558/
The
fact that the Russians resolved the chemical weapons issue in 2014, a
year before the alleged attack on Qmenas, by taking possession of the
weapons and removing them from Syria means that the report has little
credibility. http://www.wsj.com/articles/removal-of-chemical-weapons-from-syria-is-completed-1403529356 However,
at no time during Washington’s 15-year-old attack on Muslim
countries have facts played any role, and certainly facts have played
no role in Washington’s demonization of Russia.
It
is impossible to imagine a purpose more reckless and irresponsible.
Many members of the Russian government have stated that Washington’s
provocation and demonization of Russia have brought trust between the
nuclear powers close to zero and that Russia will never again fight a
war on her own territory. Sergey Karaganov told the German news
magazine, Der
Spiegal,
that if Washington and NATO move from provocations to encroachments
against Russia, a nuclear power, they will be
punished. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-with-putin-foreign-policy-advisor-sergey-karaganov-a-1102629.html
M
any
foolish people believe that nuclear war cannot happen, because there
can be no winner. However, the American war planners, who elevated US
nuclear weapons from a retaliatory role to a pre-emptive first strike
function, obviously do not agree that nuclear war cannot be won. If
nuclear war is believed to be unwinable, there is no point in a war
doctrine that assigns the weapons the role of surprise attack.
The
Russians are aware and disturbed that Washington has made the
situation between the US and Russia more dangerous than during the
Cold War. Vladimir Putin himself has stated that the West does not
hear his warnings. In an effort to avoid war, Putin wrings everything
possible out of diplomacy. He enters into agreements with Washington
that he must know will not be kept.
So
much has happened to teach him this lesson— the Washington
instigated invasion of South Ossetia by Georgia while he was at the
Beijing Olympics, Washington’s coup in Ukraine while he was at the
Sochi Olympics, Washington’s abandonment of the Minsk Agreement,
the advantage Washington took of the Syrian ceasefire agreements, the
violation of Washington’s promise not to move NATO to Russia’s
border, Washington’s sacking of the Anti-ABM Treaty, the
orchestrated blame of Russia for MH-17, Hillary’s hacked emails,
etc.
Washington
clearly intends to use Russia’s military and diplomatic assistance
to Syria to convict Russia in world public opinion of war crimes. It
was Russia’s hesitancy in Syria that enabled Washington to recover
from the defeat of its ISIS mercenaries and substitute control of the
explanation for defeat on the ground.
Russia’s
air assault on ISIS in Syria caught Washington off guard and quickly
rolled up the Washington-supported ISIS forces, completely reversing
the tide of war. Had Russia finished the job, Syria would have been
cleared of hostile forces before Washington could catch its breath.
Instead,
pressured by the Atlanticist Integrationist element in the Russian
elite, the Russian government withdrew, announcing mission
accomplished and relying on the Syrian Army to complete the job. This
strategic error allowed Washington not merely to replenish the ISIS
munitions that had been destroyed and to muster more mercenaries, but
more importantly to come up with a plan for Russia’s and Assad’s
undoing.
By
the time that the Russian government realized that early withdrawal
was a mistake and re-entered the conflict, Washington had decided
that if Dasmacus could not be “liberated,” Syria could be
partitioned and pressure kept on Assad in that way. Yet the Russian
government continued to postpone victory by cease fire agreements
that Washington used to rearm ISIS and as propaganda weapons against
Russia.
Whatever
the outcome of the military conflict in Syria, Russia faces a war
criminal conviction by the Western media, if not by the UN Human
Rights Council, and a no-fly zone in Syria if Hillary becomes
president of the US.
This
is the huge cost that Putin paid for listening to the unrealistic,
American-worshipping Atlanticist Integrationists who are determined
that Russia be accepted by the West even if it means being a
semi-vassal. If there is nuclear war, the Russian Atlanticist
Integrationists will share the blame with the American
neoconservatives. And all of us will pay the price for the disaster
produced by these few, the neoconservatives demanding war and the
Atlanticist Integrationists demanding appeasement of Washington.
================
Nogmaals mensen, we moeten ons verenigen en een vuist maken tegen de machinaties van de VS, de NAVO (een verlengstuk en wapen van de VS), het militair-industrieel complex en onze lamme volksverlakkers in Rutte 2, voordat we geen vuist meer over hebben, immers als de oorlog met Rusland een feit is, zijn we in Nederland op zeker de klos!!
Klik voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, op één van de labels die u onder dit bericht terug kan vinden, dit geldt niet voor het label ‘Zuid-Ossetië’.
Nederlands
English
Русский
Español
简体中文
Français
Deutsch
हिन्दी
Italiano
Português