Tag: Shahtahmasebi

About Shahtahmasebi

Subscribe Feeds

Poetin verwacht aanval op Rusland en geeft alvast de reactie van Rusland daarop weer: de wereld zal vernietigd worden……

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

In een 2
uur durende documentaire die in Rusland werd uitgezonden, heeft Putin
gezegd dat Rusland de wereld zal vernietigen als Rusland wordt
aangevallen met kernwapens……

De
reactie in Washington laat zich raden, men ziet dit als bewijs voor ‘de ongebreidelde agressie’ van Rusland……. Sterker nog: de persvoorlichter van
het Witte Huis, Sara Huckabee Sanders, stelt dat Rusland de laatste 10
jaar ‘destabiliserende wapens’ heeft ontwikkeld en daarmee verdragen
heeft geschonden……… ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! 

Let wel, Sanders is een vertegenwoordiger van ‘een land’ dat een ‘raketschild’ heeft geplaatst aan de grens met Rusland, een raketschild waarvan de raketten in een mum van tijd kunnen worden veranderd in aanvalsraketten met kernkoppen…… Door VS invloed in de NAVO, is deze uiterst agressieve organisatie nu opgeschoven tot de grenzen van Rusland, volledig in tegengesteld aan de gesloten verdragen met voormalig Sovjet president Gorbatsjov……. Dezelfde VS die Rusland en China heeft omsingeld met een groot aantal militaire bases…… Dit nog naast de grootschalige terreur die de VS in het Midden-Oosten uitoefent…… 

Vergeet niet dat de VS alleen deze eeuw al verantwoordelijk is voor meer dan 2 miljoen moorden: -in door de VS begonnen illegale oorlogen, – in door de VS georganiseerde opstanden (CIA), -in door de VS geregisseerde staatsgrepen (CIA), -geheime militaire acties (o.l.v. de CIA) en -bij een enorm aantal standrechtelijke executies middels drones, executies van verdachten, waarbij meer dan 90% van de slachtoffers niet eens verdacht was!! 

Kortom  de VS
doet niet anders dan de wereld destabiliseren, heeft zich voorts in feite
nooit aan verdragen over wapenbeheersing gehouden en is zelf al meer
dan een decennia bezig met de ontwikkeling van nieuwe wapens en
kernwapens, waar bij die kernwapens opgemerkt moet worden dat de VS nu
beschikt over kernwapens, die het tijdens een oorlog kan en wil
gebruiken op ‘het slagveld………’ 

Putin
zegt dat hij zal ingrijpen na een aanval met kernwapens op Rusland,
terwijl de VS en Groot-Brittannië hebben aangegeven een eerste
aanval met kernwapens niet uit te sluiten, dus niet nadat ze zelf
zijn aangevallen zoals Putin over Rusland stelt…….. Over destabilisatie gesproken……

Putin
Will Destroy the World With Nuclear Weapons If Russia Is Bombed First

March
12, 2018 at 4:43 pm

Written
by Darius
Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) — Russian
President Vladimir Putin has allegedly
said he
will destroy the world with nuclear weapons, but only if Russia is
hit with a nuclear strike first.

In
a two-hour video documentary released
in Russia, Putin reportedly warned he would give the order to launch
Russia’s nuclear weapons if Russia was attacked with nuclear
strikes first.

“This
is called reciprocal strike. If there is this decision to destroy
Russia then we have a legal right to respond,” Putin
told the host of World Order 2018, as quoted by Yahoo
News.

“This
would be a global catastrophe for humanity but I, as a citizen of
Russia and the head of the Russian state would like to ask you this –
what do we need a world for if there is no Russia in it?” he
also added, possibly the most chilling statement of his entire
political career.

Putin
also allegedly
admitted to
giving the order for a civilian plane to be downed in 2014.

In
January of this year, a leaked
draft of
the Pentagon’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) revealed that the U.S.
was aware of Russia’s development of an underwater nuclear drone
capable of carrying a 100 megaton nuclear warhead.

Just
weeks ago, Putin’s annual
state of the nation speech
involved the topic of Russia’s nuclear weapons. The Russian
president wanted the world to take note of Russia’s nuclear-powered
cruise missiles that can reach the American mainland, as well as its
sophisticated nukes that can evade missile defense systems.

Not
only that, but Putin also showed a video of
nuclear missiles striking Florida.

“No
one was listening,” the
Russian President warned. “Now
you will listen.”

“All
[that] you wanted to impede with your policies already happened,” he
also added. “You
have failed to contain Russia.”

Unsurprisingly,
Putin’s American counterparts did not receive his comments well.

“President
Putin has confirmed what the United States government has known all
along, which Russia has denied — Russia has been developing
destabilizing weapon systems for over a decade, in direct violations
of its treaty obligations,” White
House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said at the time.

Unfortunately,
Washington’s simplistic approach to this dilemma continues to
ignore its own nuclear
weapons advancements,
as well as the role it has directly played in pushing the Russian
President to responding with such tough rhetoric, including the zero
media attention paid to the years spent years trying to contain
Russia within a host of NATO allies.
Washington’s foreign policy has essentially put an extensive base
of American
troops and missiles alongside Russia’s border despite
countless assurances at
the end of the Cold War that NATO would expand into eastern Europe
not “one inch.”

The
media has also chosen to ignore Putin’s incessant warnings over the
years, particularly the part that involved noting that the U.S. was
heading down a dangerous road with its Cold War-style anti-Russian
policies and that Russia was preparing a response of its own.

“Today
Russia has reached significant achievements in this field. We have
modernized our missile systems and successfully developed new
generations. Not to mention missile defense systems…” Putin stated
nearly two years ago.

“We
must provide security not only for ourselves. It’s important to
provide strategic balance in the world, which guarantees peace on the
planet.”

For
those of us who have been documenting these developments, the
warnings have always been out in the open. For the anti-Russian
corporate media and status quo-enforcing politicians, Putin is a
madman who wants to blow up the entire world — even while the U.S.
and its NATO allies continue
a dangerous policy
of their own that could lead to Russia feeling far too threatened for
comfort.

Read
more by Darius
Shahtahmasebi:

Op-ed
/ Creative
Commons / Anti-Media / Report
a typo

========================

Zie ook: ‘Rusland zegt superieure kernwapens te hebben, nu komen de ‘deskundigen’ wel met de waarheid over het Russisch defensie budget…….‘

In de kop schrijf ik Putin met ‘oe’, dit vanwege de schrijfwijze die men in Nederland hanteert, heb nooit begrepen waarom men zijn naam zo schrijft, alsof de Nederlander het niet begrijpt als je Putin gewoon schrijft met een ‘u’, zoals dit internationaal gebeurt, je dit uitspreekt als Poetin. (alsof we imbecielen zijn… hoewel..?)

Trumps buitenlandbeleid heeft de wereld naar de rand van WOIII gebracht…….

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

Volkomen
terecht waarschuwt Darius Shahtahmasebi de wereld voor het gevaar van
het ‘buitenlandbeleid’ dat de Trump administratie voert.

Met
veel voorbeelden geeft Shahtahmasebi aan dat de VS ons op de rand van
Wereldoorlog III heeft gebracht en er niet veel voor nodig is om deze
oorlog daadwerkelijk te laten losbarsten……

Waar blijven de demonstraties tegen het terreurbeleid van de VS, die ons steeds dichter bij WOIII brengen???

Verdere
woorden overbodig, lees en oordeel zelf:

How
Donald Trump’s Policies Have Brought Us to the Brink of World War 3

February
20, 2018 at 11:55 

Written
by Darius
Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) — On
February 7, 2018, the U.S.-led coalition in Syria conducted
air and artillery strikes against
what were believed to be pro-government forces in response to an
“unprovoked attack” launched by these pro-regime troops. Not long
after, reports began
emerging that
significant numbers of Russian personnel were included in the over
100 dead and wounded. While Russia denied this at first, eventually,
the accepted version of events on both sides was that there were some
Russian nationals who did lose their lives in Syria. These Russians
are arguably mercenaries and contractors, not official troops.

This
is not the first time the U.S.-led coalition has struck
pro-government forces in Syria. Aside from Donald Trump’s grandiose
strike on
a Syrian airbase in April of last year, U.S. forces also conducted
multiple strikes against
Syrian and Iranian-backed forces as these factions began to encircle
the American military’s presence at a base in al-Tanf.

Donald
Trump has famously relaxed the Obama-era
restrictions on
calling in airstrikes, meaning commanders on the battlefield can call
in airstrikes at their disposal without any oversight. Previously, an
airstrike could not be launched on a whim and was required to go
through certain protocols before it could be delivered. Now, even
associated forces can call in American airstrikes on the battlefield.
The most infamous example of this is when Iraqi commanders called in
a U.S. strike that ended up killing well over 200
civilians in a single bombardment.

Barely
a week after Trump’s Syria strike in April, the U.S.
military dropped a
$450,000 bomb in Afghanistan dubbed the “Mother of all bombs”
(MOAB). It soon transpired that the decision to drop the bomb was not
made by Trump himself as commander-in-chief but by Gen.
John Nicholson,
commander of the U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

It’s
time to ask yourself: Are you comfortable with commanders on the
battlefield calling in airstrikes even if those airstrikes could
potentially kill personnel on the ground belonging to another nuclear
power?

Last
Tuesday, Wisconsin Democrat Mark Pocan told
the Nation that “Congress
has never authorized force against Syrian, Turkish, Yemeni Houthi,
Russian, Iranian, or North Korean forces. Yet reportedly, a secret
administration memo may claim the legal justification to do just
that: attack Syrian, North Korean, and other forces without any
congressional authorization.” [emphasis
added]

According
to Lawfare,
a lawsuit required the government to reveal a list of documents
relating to the April Syria strike, but not the actual documents
themselves. The court-ordered directions forced the government to
reveal that the seven-page secret memo Pocan was referring to was
drafted up by administration lawyers on April 6, 2017, just before
Trump’s infamous strike. The government’s declarations revealed
that only a few of the words on one of the memo’s pages are
classified, and they are related to facts, not legalities. Still, the
administration refuses to disclose the memo to the public, claiming
the document is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

“I
am also concerned that this legal justification may now become
precedent for additional executive unilateral military action,
including this week’s U.S. airstrikes in Syria against pro-Assad
forces or even an extremely risky ‘bloody nose’ strike against
North Korea,” Senator
Tim Kaine (D-Va) said last week.

In
early February, the Pentagon released its much anticipated
2018 Nuclear
Posture Review.
From the Washington
Post’s Katrina
vanden Heuvel’s assessment:

“The
review reaffirms the United States is ready to use nuclear weapons
first in an alarmingly wide range of scenarios. It remains ‘the
policy of the United States to retain some ambiguity regarding the
precise circumstances’ that might lead to a nuclear response. The
United States reserves the right to unleash
nuclear weapons first in ‘extreme circumstances’ to defend the
‘vital interests’ not only of the United States but also of its
‘allies and partners’ — a total of some 30 countries. ‘Extreme
circumstances,’ the review states explicitly, include ‘significant
non-nuclear attacks,’ including conventional attacks on ‘allied
or partner civilian population or infrastructure.’ The
United States also maintains a ‘portion of
its nuclear forces’ on daily alert, with the option of launching
those forces ‘promptly.’ [emphasis
added]

The
U.S. has an active stockpile of at least 4,000 nuclear weapons,
rivaled only by Russia. According
to the Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR),
a “limited” regional exchange of nuclear weapons could force one
billion people to the point of starvation, and a week-long “regional”
encounter could kill far more than died during World War II.

As
Albert Einstein famously
said, “I
know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World
War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

Heuvel
correctly summarized the current nuclear strategy:

“In
sum, the United States is building a new generation of nuclear
weapons and delivery systems, will deploy more usable nuclear weapons
in ‘forward’ areas, remains committed to possible ‘first use’
of nuclear weapons even against non-nuclear attacks in defense of 30
countries, retains missiles on active alert ready to launch, is
skeptical of the possibility of any progress in arms control and is
hostile to the global movement to make nuclear weapons illegal. All
this as tensions with Russia and China rise, relations with North
Korea remain literally explosive, and the nuclear deal with Iran
stays under constant assault from the president.”

One
thing we do know is that the U.S. is openly
considering nuclear strikes in
response to cyber-attacks, which could be conducted by anyone from
lone-wolf hackers to Iran,
North Korea, Russia, or China. We also know that the Trump
administration has been weighing a “limited” strike
on North Korea for
some time now, even as North and South Korea pursue a peaceful
dialogue of their own. Even now, the U.S. continues
to position nuclear-capable
B-52 and B-2 bombers around the Korean peninsula. The B-2 is the most
advanced bomber in the United States air force, capable of dropping
the military department’s biggest bomb, which weighs in at around
14,000 kilograms.

This
is a recipe for disaster. Donald Trump isn’t bringing the troops
home and focusing on “making America great again.” According to
the Department
of Defense,
American troop deployments to the Middle East had increased 33
percent by the end of last year.

It’s
time for both sides of the political coin to confront their delusions
and face reality. Donald Trump is by far the most
hawkish, trigger-happy president to
have ever been sworn into office, which is no easy feat considering
his predecessors. His policies are leading the United States down a
dangerous path that could see a miscalculated strike on Syria,
Russia, Iran, North Korea, or even China — whether by mistake or by
design. Considering that strikes have already been underway in Syria
against the Syrian government and its allies, including Russia, these
policies are likely to lead to something far more explosive down the
line.

Creative
Commons / Anti-Media / Report
a typo

=============================

PS: heb een bericht over de situatie in het Syrische Ghouta in voorbereiding. Ghouta waar de enorme westerse hysterie en hypocrisie in de reguliere media weer eens heeft toegeslagen, dit gesteund door het grootste deel van de westerse politici, terwijl men weet dat de moordenaars, verkrachters en martelbeulen van Al Qaida, al-Nusra (in feite ‘Al Qaida Syrië’) en als het even kan de White Helmets tekeer gaan tegen de bevolking……. Waar is de kritiek op terreurgroep Al Qaida gebleven?? Alle berichten over ‘de slachting’ in Ghouta komen dan ook van die terreurgroepen en van Al Qaida’s White Helmets, met door hen geregisseerde video’s en hoorspelen……. Bij deze (op 25 februari 2018): ‘Oost-Ghouta, wat je niet wordt verteld‘

Rusland heeft geen aanval uitgevoerd op VS troepen in Syrië…..

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

Op 7 februari jl. zouden Syrische troepen, gesteund door Russische adviseurs en huurlingen een basis van de Syrische democratische strijdmacht (SDF, of Syrian Democratic Forces) hebben aangevallen. Het gaat hier om ‘een door de VS gesteunde basis’ waar zich ook VS militairen dan wel adviseurs zouden hebben opgehouden of (nog) ophouden. Met hulp van VS luchtstrijdkrachten werd de aanval afgeslagen……

Vreemd genoeg vielen aan de kant van de aanvallers meer dan 100 strijders, voornamelijk Russen en viel er aan de kant van de door de VS gesteunde strijders (SDF is een terreurorganisatie) en VS militairen niet één slachtoffer, iets dat totaal ongeloofwaardig is.

Darius Shahtahmasebi stelt na ophef in de VS, waar Rusland wordt beschuldigt van het willens en wetens aanvallen van VS militairen, dat Rusland niet van de partij was bij de aanval, daar het hier ging om huurlingen en ‘militaire aannemers’.

Voorts stelt Shahtahmasebi terecht dat Rusland nog steeds op volkomen legitieme basis aanwezig is in Syrië, dit in tegenstelling tot de VS. Daarnaast is het uiteraard een normale zaak dat het reguliere Syrische leger, illegaal bezet Syrisch gebied wil heroveren, zo stelt ook Shahtahmasebi.

Rusland heeft intussen contracten gesloten met de Syrische overheid over de winning van gas en olie, ook in het gebied waar de aanval plaats vond……….. Gezien dat feit zou het niet vreemd zijn te veronderstellen, dat de VS als een bok op de haverkist het gebied koste wat kost wil behouden ‘voor de SDF’ (ofwel voor zichzelf) en daarbij alle ‘vijanden’ zal afslachten, die maar in de buurt durven te komen van dit gebied…….

Eerder in 2017 heeft de VS zich ook al geroerd met aanvallen in dit gebied, toen hielp de VS de SDF met het veroveren van dit gebied en ‘om deze positie te verdedigen’ blijft de VS illegaal gestationeerd in dit gebied….. Lees: de VS blijft aanwezig om olie en gas belangen van oliemaatschappijen in de VS te verdedigen…..

Shahtahmasebi stelt voorts dat wanneer Rusland een olierijk gebied in de VS illegaal zou bezetten en VS troepen zouden zich daartegen verzetten, niemand zou zeggen dat de Russen worden aangevallen (daar zij zich immers illegaal op het gebied van de VS zouden bevinden). Beetje vreemde redenering, daar een aanval nu eenmaal een aanval is, in wat voor omstandigheid dan ook, je spreekt in die gevallen van wel of niet gerechtvaardigd geweld en ja dan kan je ook spreken van (grootschalige) terreur als dit geweld niet gerechtvaardigd is, terreur waar de VS zich keer op keer schuldig aan maakt in Syrië, zoals ook weer in dit geval……

Dat de VS niets te zoeken heeft in Syrië is een feit, zeker als je ziet, dat de VS aan de wieg stond van IS, deze terreurgroep heeft vervoerd en vrije doorgang heeft verleend richting Syrië, waar de VS deze psychopaten ook nog eens deels heeft bewapend, terwijl de VS tegelijkertijd zogenaamd IS bestrijdt en ‘waarvoor de VS het nodig acht in Syrië te blijven……’ (zoals eerder gezegd: dit is vooral in het belang van de oliemaatschappijen in de VS…)

Jammer dat Shahtahmasebi daar geen aandacht aan besteed, zoals hij ook al niets zegt over het ontbreken van slachtoffers aan ‘VS zijde’, bij de hiervoor genoemde aanval..

In één ding heeft hij volkomen gelijk: Rusland heeft geen aanval geopend op de VS militairen. Alle acties van de VS tegen het reguliere Syrische leger en/of de Russen, zijn oorlogsmisdaden en daarmee grootschalige terreur! Je weet wel het soort terreur waar de westerse reguliere media en het grootste deel van de westerse politici zich niet druk om maken, dit gebeurd pas als VS terreur elders terreur uitlokt, zoals wraakacties in de straten van de EU……

Don’t
Be a Moron: Russia Didn’t Attack US Troops in Syria

February
19, 2018 at 10:08 am

Written
by Darius
Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) — On
February 16, 2018, Bloomberg’s Eli
Lake published an
article entitled “Don’t Be Fooled: Russia Attacked U.S. Troops in
Syria.”

For
context, the U.S.-led coalition conducted
air and artillery strikes against
what was believed to be pro-government forces in Syria on February 7,
2018, in response to an “unprovoked attack” launched by these
pro-regime forces. Not long after, reports began
emerging that
significant numbers of Russian personnel were included in the over
100 dead and wounded, though Russia denied this at first. As
the evidence
began to mount,
the accepted version of events on both sides was that those involved
were Russian mercenaries and contractors, not official troops.

When
asked about the incident initially, U.S. Secretary of Defense James
Mattis said he
had “no
idea why they [pro-government forces] would attack there, the forces
were known to be there, obviously the Russians knew.”

“We
have always known that there are elements in this very complex battle
space that the Russians did not have, I would call it, control
of,” he
added.

In
response to this conundrum, Lake wrote:

“Now,
it should be said that Mattis, a retired four-star Marine Corps
general, is a very smart man. His perplexity in this case is probably
what Plato called a ‘noble lie,’ a falsehood spoken by a leader
to achieve a greater social good. If Mattis acknowledges the obvious
— that the Kremlin authorized a direct assault on a U.S.-sponsored
base by non-uniformed personnel — he risks an escalation spiral in
Syria. Better to express bewilderment and give Russian President
Vladimir Putin a chance to back down and deny culpability, which he
ended up doing despite the heavy casualties suffered by his
mercenaries.”

Lake
added:

“But
make no mistake: There is overwhelming evidence that those Russian
contractors were working at the behest of the Kremlin. What’s more,
the Russians knew U.S. military personnel were in Deir Ezzor, which
has been part of successive agreements to separate, or ‘deconflict,’
forces fighting in Syria.”

First,
if the Kremlin did actually give the go-ahead for the advancement of
troops in that particular area, it is already quite apparent that the
aim of the pro-government troops in question, including their Russian
component, was to try to seize a lucrative Syrian oil field in the
vicinity. CBS reported that
according to Pentagon officials, the Russians did, indeed, have their
sights on these oil fields. CNN also
reported this before it was made aware that the Syrian troops
involved Russian contractors.

Russia
was recently granted exclusive
rights over Syria’s oil and gas production, and Deir Ez-zor is
Syria’s most oil-rich region. So, with regard to the perplexity as
to why Syrian and/or Russian personnel would launch an offensive, the
reasoning is already well-known. The U.S. provided air cover for
Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to retain a substantial portion of
this area in 2017 and retains
its military presence there in
order to enable SDF’s occupation to continue.

Second,
and most important, if Syrian forces, backed by Russian forces
(whether they are official troops or not), decide to launch an
offensive to retake one of its oil fields, it is not the U.S. that is
under the attack. The U.S. is an invading force that has been bombing
Syria since 2014 without legal justification and continues to
maintain an illegal military presence in order to carry out its
dangerous foreign policy agenda. It wouldn’t matter if the U.S. had
one troop on the ground in Syria and if Russia had ten thousand —
Russia’s presence has been sanctioned under international law and
America’s hasn’t.

Yes,
Russia knew U.S. personnel were in Deir Ez-zor. But that doesn’t
mean Russia and Syria should be barred from reclaiming the territory
under international law. If Russia had set up an illegal base in an
oil-rich part of the U.S. and American troops launched an offensive
with their allies to retake the territory, no one in their right mind
would try to suggest that Russian troops were subsequently under
attack. In fact, if this particular scenario were to play out, the
NATO charter
would require all
of America’s NATO allies to come to its aid against this
hypothetical Russian aggression.

It
doesn’t matter what one thinks of the Syrian government and the
various allegations against it. Even for the sake of argument, we
should assume that all of the allegations against Bashar al-Assad are
true. It doesn’t make a difference.

The
U.S. has attacked Syria, and it could be the case that Syria and its
allies want to drive them out, as is their right. That’s the only
way to properly view this issue if we want to maintain a workable
system of international mutual respect and cooperation. Right now,
there only appears to be one flawed system: the U.S. and its allies
doing whatever they like until they are eventually confronted by a
formidable adversary that possesses nuclear weapons.

Op-ed
/ Creative
Commons / Anti-Media / Report
a typo

====================================

Zie ook: ‘Syrië: nieuwe gifgasaanval als ‘false flag’ operatie tegen Syrisch bewind in voorbereiding……..‘

        en: ‘Hondsdolle VS valt Russische tank aan in poging de Russen te provoceren……‘

        en: ‘VS geeft toe dat er geen bewijs is voor het gebruik van gifgas ‘door Assad’, ofwel: alweer ‘fake news’ van de massamedia doorgeprikt!‘

        en: ‘Syrië: VS en Israëlische agressie dreigt de wereld in een oorlog te storten……‘


        en:  ‘VS coalitie valt Syrische troepen aan……… Ofwel de strijd van de VS tegen IS, is in feite een strijd tegen de democratisch gekozen regering Assad……..‘

Als de VS niet de VS was, zou de Verenigde Staten dit gestolen land bombarderen………

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

Zoals op deze pek al veelvuldig gesteld: de VS is de grootste terreurentiteit op aarde, het middels de grootste genocide ooit* gestolen land dat alleen al vanaf WOII meer dan 22 miljoen mensen vermoordde……………..

Gisteren kwam Anti-Media met een artikel onder de titel: ‘If America Wasn’t America, the United States Would Be Bombing It’. Hoewel ik de opzet van deze zin begrijp, klopt deze toch niet helemaal. Immers de VS laat andere terreurstaten gewoon hun gang gaan, zolang ze maar de VS steunen…. Neem Israël en Saoedi-Arabië, die zelfs door de VS worden gesteund in de terreur die ze brengen, en door diezelfde VS worden ontzien in de VN Veiligheidsraad, als het om resoluties tegen de smerige, bloederige praktijken gaat waar deze 2 landen zich keer op keer schuldig aan maken……

Maar geen gezeik: zeker niet als je ziet dat de VS haar illegale oorlogen verdedigt door te stellen dat het voor de verdrukte volkeren opkomt en democratie wil brengen**.

Darius Shahtahmasebi schreef het artikel n.a.v. een opiniestuk van voormalig VS regeringsadviseur Edward Luttwak. Deze oorlogshitser stelde in de kop dat het tijd is voor de VS om Noord-Korea te bombarderen.

Lullig genoeg voor Luttwak, gebruikte hij argumenten die nu juist van toepassing zijn op de wandel en handel van de VS… Zo geeft Shahtahmasebi een aantal voorbeelden, zoals het gebruik van atoombommen door de VS tegen Hiroshima en Nagasaki, terwijl deze aanvallen totaal onnodig waren zoals o.a. de hoge VS militairen Nimitz en Halsey destijds betoogden.

Lees het volgende artikel van Shahtahmasebi en oordeel zelf:

If
America Wasn’t America, the United States Would Be Bombing It

February
12, 2018 at 1:00 pm

Written
by Darius
Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) — On
January 8, 2018, former government advisor Edward Luttwak wrote
an opinion
piece for Foreign
Policy titled
“It’s Time to Bomb North Korea.”

Luttwak’s
thesis is relatively straightforward. There is a government out there
that may very soon acquire nuclear-weapons capabilities, and this
country cannot be trusted to responsibly handle such a stockpile. The
responsibility to protect the world from a rogue nation cannot be
argued with, and we understandably have a duty to ensure the future
of humanity.

However,
there is one rogue nation that continues to hold the world ransom
with its nuclear weapons supply. It is decimating non-compliant
states left, right, and center. This country must be stopped dead in
its tracks before anyone turns to the issue of North Korea.

In
August of 1945, this rogue nation dropped two atomic bombs on
civilian targets, not military targets, completely
obliterating between 135,000
and 300,000 Japanese civilians in just these two acts alone. Prior to
this event, this country killed even more civilians in the infamous
firebombing of
Tokyo and other areas of Japan, dropping close to 500,000 cylinders
of napalm and petroleum jelly on some of Japan’s most densely
populated areas.

Recently,
historians have become more open to the possibility that dropping the
atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not actually necessary to
end World War II. This has also been confirmed by those who actually
took part in it. As the Nation explained:

“Fleet
Adm. Chester Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated
in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the
bombings that ‘the
atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military
standpoint, in the defeat of Japan…’ Adm.
William “Bull” Halsey Jr., Commander of the US Third Fleet,
stated publicly in 1946 that ‘the
first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. It
was a mistake to ever drop it…. [the scientists] had this toy and
they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…” [emphasis
added]

A
few months’ prior, this rogue country’s invasion of
the Japanese island of Okinawa also claimed at least one quarter of
Okinawa’s population. The Okinawan people have been protesting this
country’s military presence ever since. The most recent ongoing
protest has
lasted well over 5,000 days in
a row.

This
nation’s bloodlust continued well after the end of World War II.
Barely half a decade later, this country bombed North Korea into
complete oblivion, destroying over
8,700 factories, 5,000 schools, 1,000 hospitals, 600,000 homes,
and eventually
killing off
as much as 20 percent of the country’s population. As the Asia
Pacific Journal has
noted, the assaulting country dropped so many bombs that they
eventually ran out of targets to hit, turning to bomb the irrigation
systems, instead:

“By
the fall of 1952, there were no effective
targets left for US planes to hit.
Every significant town, city and industrial area in North Korea had
already been bombed. In the spring of 1953, the Air Force targeted
irrigation dams on the Yalu River, both to destroy the North Korean
rice crop and to pressure the Chinese, who would have to supply more
food aid to the North. Five reservoirs were hit, flooding thousands
of acres of farmland, inundating whole towns and laying waste to the
essential food source for millions of North Koreans.” [emphasis
added]

This
was just the beginning. Having successfully destroyed the future
North Korean state, this country moved on to the rest of East Asia
and Indo-China, too. As Rolling
Stone’s Matt
Taibbi has explained:

“We
[this loose cannon of a nation] dumped 20 million gallons of toxic
herbicide on Vietnam from the air, just to make the shooting easier
without all those trees, an insane plan to win ‘hearts and minds’
that has left about a million still disabled from defects and disease
– including about 100,000 children, even decades later, little kids
with misshapen heads, webbed hands and fused eyelids writhing on
cots, our real American legacy, well out of view, of course.”

This
mass murder led to the deaths of between 1.5 million and 3.8 million
people, according to
the Washington
Post.
More bombs were dropped on Vietnam than were unleashed during
the entire
conflict in World War II.
While this was going on, this same country was also secretly
bombing Laos
and Cambodia, too, where there are over 80
million unexploded bombs still
killing people to this day.

This
country also decided to bomb Yugoslavia, Panama,
and Grenada before
invading Iraq in the early 1990s***. Having successfully bombed Iraqi
infrastructure, this country then punished Iraq’s entire civilian
population with brutal sanctions. At the time, the
U.N. estimated that
approximately 1.7 million Iraqis had died as a result, including
500,000 to 600,000 children.
Some years later, a prominent medical journal attempted
to absolve the cause of
this infamous history by refuting the statistics involved despite the
fact that, when interviewed during the sanctions-era, Bill Clinton’s
secretary of state,

Madeleine
Albright, intimated that
to this rogue government, the deaths of half a million children were
“worth it” as the “price” Iraq needed to pay. In other words,
whether half a million children died or not was irrelevant to this
bloodthirsty nation, which barely blinked while carrying out this
murderous policy.

This
almighty superpower then invaded Iraq again in 2003 and plunged the
entire region
into chaos.
At the end of May 2017, the Physicians for Social Responsibility
(PSR) released a study concluding
that the death toll from this violent nation’s 2003 invasion of
Iraq had led to over one million deaths and that at least one-third
of them were caused directly by the invading force.

Not
to mention this country also invaded Afghanistan prior to the
invasion of Iraq (even though the militants plaguing
Afghanistan were
originally trained and financed by this warmongering nation). It
then went
on to bomb Yemen,
Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and the Philippines.

Libya famously had
one of the highest standards of living in the region. It had
state-assisted healthcare, education, transport, and affordable
housing. It is now a lawless war-zone rife
with extremism where
slaves are openly
traded like
commodities amid the power vacuum created as a direct result of the
2011 invasion.

In
2017, the commander-in-chief of this violent nation took the
monumental death and destruction to a new a level by removing
the restrictions on
delivering airstrikes, which resulted in thousands upon thousands of
civilian deaths. Before that, in the first six months of 2017, this
country dropped
over 20,650 bombs,
a monumental increase from the year that preceded it.

Despite
these statistics, all of the above conquests are mere child’s play
to this nation. The real prize lies in some of the more defiant and
more powerful states, which this country has already unleashed a
containment strategy upon. This country has deployed its own troops
all across the border
with Russia even
though it promised
in the early 1990s it
would do no such thing. It also has a specific policy of containing
Russia’s close ally, China, all
the while threatening China’s borders with talks of direct strikes
on North Korea (again, remember it already did so in the 1950s).

This
country also elected a president who not only believes it is okay
to embrace
this rampantly violent militarism but
who openly calls other
countries “shitholes”
– the very same term that aptly describes the way this country has
treated the rest of the world for decades on end. This same president
also reportedly once asked three
times in a meeting,
“If
we have nuclear weapons, why don’t we use them?”
and shortly after proposed a policy to remove
the constraints protecting
the world from his dangerous supply of advanced nuclear weaponry.

When
it isn’t directly bombing a country, it is also arming
radical insurgent groups,
creating instability, and directly overthrowing
governments through
its covert
operatives on
the ground.

If
we have any empathy for humanity, it is clear that this country must
be stopped. It cannot continue to act like this to the detriment of
the rest of the planet and the safety and security of the rest of us.
This country openly
talks about
using its nuclear weapons, has used them before, and has continued to
use all manner of weapons unabated in the years since while
threatening to expand the use of these weapons to other countries.

Seriously,
if North Korea seems like a threat, imagine how the rest of the world
feels while watching one country violently take on the rest of the
planet single-handedly, leaving nothing but destruction in its wake
and promising nothing less than a nuclear holocaust in the years to
come.

There
is only one country that has done and that continues to do the very
things North Korea is being accused of doing.

Take
as much time as you need for that to resonate.

Op-ed
/ Creative
Commons / Anti-Media / Report
a typo

==============================================

*    De grootste genocide ooit werd uitgevoerd in Noord-, Midden- en Zuid-Amerika

**  ‘Democratie brengen’, zelfs in landen waar NB een democratisch gekozen regering zat of zit, neem Syrië en Oekraïne (onder Janoekovytsj), waar de CIA eerst een opstand organiseerde, om deze te laten eindigen in een staatsgreep; deze zaak lukte wel in Oekraïne, maar niet in Syrië, waardoor deze landen wel in oorlog raakten en in chaos werden gestort……

*** De oorlog van de VS (NAVO) tegen Joegoslavië vond plaats nadat de VS op 17 januari 1991 onder de oude Bush-slachter (George H.W. Bush) de eerste VS oorlog tegen Irak begon, dit in tegenstelling tot wat Shahtahmasebi daar hierboven over heeft geschreven.

En om nog even te herinneren aan de enorme agressie van de VS, die niet op een illegale oorlog meer of minder kijkt:  ‘VS buitenlandbeleid sinds WOII: een lange lijst van staatsgrepen en oorlogen……….‘ en:  ‘List of wars involving the United States‘

Zie ook: ‘Top VS generaal stelt dat er een grote oorlog met Rusland op komst is, ofwel: WOIII……‘

        en: ‘Trumps atoomknop is groter dan die van Kim Yung-un, bovendien werkt de VS knop wel……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘

        en: ‘VN chef Guterres geeft alarmcode rood af voor de wereld in 2018 en niet alleen vanwege het milieu of klimaat……‘

        en: ‘Trumps uitlating over de atoomknop en de onverschilligheid bij zijn achterban, een dictatuur waardig………‘

        en: ‘VS op weg naar daadwerkelijk gebruik van het kernwapen…………..‘ (plus twee andere Engelstalige artikelen)

        en: ‘VS sluit een nucleaire aanval niet uit als een mogelijke reactie op een ‘cyberaanval…….’‘

        en: ‘NAVO oefent op een nucleaire aanval tegen ‘een denkbeeldige vijand’, ofwel Rusland……….‘ (de NAVO is in feite een organisatie van de VS en is daarmee een organisatie die dan ook precies doet wat de VS wil en de VS helpt in haar grootschalige terreur )

       en: ‘Pompeo (CIA opperhoofd met koperen fluit): heeft alle aanwijzingen dat Rusland de midterm verkiezingen zal manipuleren……‘

En om nog even te herinneren aan de enorme agressie van de VS, die niet op een illegale oorlog meer of minder kijkt:  ‘VS buitenlandbeleid sinds WOII: een lange lijst van staatsgrepen en oorlogen……….‘ en:  ‘List of wars involving the United States‘

Dan nog over het bedreigen van Noord-Korea door Trump met ‘Fire and Fury): ‘Noord-Korea verkeerd begrepen: het land wordt bedreigd door de VS, dat alleen deze eeuw al minstens 4 illegale oorlogen begon……..‘   en: ‘Noord-Korea wil graag overleggen met de VS dat alweer de boot afhoudt………‘

Syrië: VS en Israëlische agressie dreigt de wereld in een oorlog te storten……

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

De door de VS geleidde coalitie heeft met haar aanval op strijders voor het legitieme Syrische leger een grens overschreden die het risico op een oorlog tussen de VS en Rusland een heel stuk dichterbij brengt…… Je zal begrijpen dat wanneer dit gebeurd er sprake zal zijn van de Derde Weredloorlog, immers China zal zich zonder meer achter Rusland scharen tegen de ongebreidelde VS agressie (of zeg maar gerust; terreur)….

De VS heeft intussen 2.000 militairen op Syrisch grondgebied en is daarmee illegaal aanwezig in dit land, het lamme excuus voor de hiervoor genoemde aanval dat het hier om zelfverdediging gaat, is zo bezien al helemaal een gotspe!!

Israël heeft intussen laten zien het niet eens te zijn met de huidige status quo en heeft zich nu volledig in de Syrische oorlog gemengd, dit zogenaamd na een aanval met een drone op ‘Israëlisch grondgebied’, een duidelijke false flag operatie met de bedoeling de eigen terreur in Syrië te rechtvaardigen…… Eerdere bombardementen voerde Israël zogenaamd uit, om Iraanse wapentransporten richting Libanon te voorkomen, echter de grootste schade schijnt toch te zijn toegebracht aan het Syrische leger en groepen die samen met dit leger tegen IS hebben gestreden en strijden……..

De corrupte Israëlische premier Netanyahu heeft de afgelopen tijd wekelijks minstens één keer Syrië en Iran gewaarschuwd voor aanvallen van Israël als men niet zou inbinden en bijvoorbeeld zou proberen gebieden aan de Golanhoogten te heroveren, hetzelfde gebied dat Israël NB aan de andere kant van de grens illegaal heeft bezet …… Eerder lapte Israël IS strijders op in hetzelfde gebied, zodat ze daarna verder konden vechten tegen het reguliere Syrische leger, ook voerde Israël op verzoek van IS bombardementen uit op stellingen van het Syrische leger……

Nu is nog de vraag hoelang Rusland zal blijven toezien, voordat het Israëlische en/of VS jagers zal aanvallen……..

Lees het volgende uitstekende artikel van Darius Shahtahmasebi, zoals weergegeven op Anti-Media:

The
World Is on the Brink of War Once Again as All Hell Breaks Loose in
Syria

February
8, 2018 at 11:53 am

Written
by Darius
Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA) — The
U.S.-led coalition conducted air and artillery strikes against
pro-regime forces in Syria on Wednesday, killing over 100
pro-government fighters, CNN reports.

According
to the coalition’s statement, the strikes were carried out after
forces allied with the Syrian government “initiated
an unprovoked attack”
against
what CNN termed “a
well-established Syrian Democratic Forces headquarters where
coalition advisers were working with US-backed Syrian fighters.”

CNN dubbed
the U.S.-led strike “defensive” even though U.S. forces have no
legal authority to be in Syria in the first place, something the New
York Times was
forced to admit a
few weeks ago. According to official numbers, there are some 2,000
U.S. troops embedded with SDF forces in Syria, and Syria has deemed
these U.S. troops to be an invading
force.
Technically, the act of violating Syria’s sovereignty and killing
over 100 of its troops in a flagrant act of war makes the U.S. the
aggressor — not the defender — in this scenario. (If you are
having trouble understanding this, try reversing the U.S. and Syria
in the scenario and seeing how you would feel if the shoe were on the
other foot).

According to
the Marine
Corps Times,
the coalition service members were acting in an “advise, assist and
accompany capacity” when the attack occurred, eight kilometers east
of the current Euphrates River deconfliction line. However, U.S.
troops in Syria have been doing a lot more than advising and
assisting on the ground. According to
Army Sgt. Major. John Wayne Troxell, one particular Marine
battalion “fired
more rounds in five months in Raqqa, Syria, than any other Marine
artillery battalion, or any Marine or Army battalion, since the
Vietnam war.”

“In
five months they fired 35,000 artillery rounds on ISIS targets,
killing ISIS fighters by the dozens,” Troxell
told Marine
Corps Times in
January.

The Marine
Corps Times called it an “explosive revelation” that
shed light on the “immense level of lethal force brought to
Raqqa and northern Syria,” noting that in comparison, only
34,000 artillery rounds had been fired in the invasion of Iraq.

Moving
back to the matter at hand, CNN reported
that the attack on the U.S. base in Syria involved some 500 pro-Assad
forces using artillery, mortar fire, and Russian-made tanks.
According to the military official CNN quoted,
no U.S. or SDF forces were killed in the attack, but the coalition
still saw it fit to retaliate by killing at least 100 Syrian
government forces. It is indisputably and particularly hypocritical
that there is no international outrage over this act of aggression
when one compares the media
hysteria over
a country like North Korea, which is currently bombing no one.

The
official also stated that the coalition suspected the pro-government
forces attacked because they have their sights set on seizing the
lucrative oil fields in the area, which the SDF had previously taken
after ISIS’ control over the area collapsed.

Despite
the fact that this territory belongs to Syria, the U.S. is providing
air cover for the SDF to take hold of this oil-rich region. The SDF
doesn’t have an air force of its own, but if it can start
generating substantial revenue from
these oil fields, then it may be able to start buying more and more
military equipment from the U.S.

The
other option, of course, is that the U.S. can provide air cover for
the SDF in the region indefinitely, something that could pose a
problem in the distant future if the U.S. military presence has no
determined end in sight. As it stands, the U.S. is proposing it stay
in Syria until a political resolution sees the Assad
government unseated.

The
official also explained that Russia had been informed of the presence
of pro-regime forces in the area before the attack and that Russia
assured the coalition they would not engage with coalition forces.
Russia responded
to the attack almost
immediately, condemning the U.S. military presence in Syria as
“illegal” and accusing the U.S. of trying to steal Syrian oil.

“The
recent incident once again shows that the United States’ illegal
military presence in Syria is actually aimed at taking control of the
country’s economic assets and not at fighting against the ISIS
international terror group,” the
Russian Defense Ministry said in a statement, as quoted by
the Washington
Post (WaPo). It
should also be noted that these incidents of aggression do nothing to
aid Russia’s
current and ongoing attempt to
establish a peace process of its own.

At
around the same time, Turkish media reported that
Turkey’s Prime Minister and its Foreign Minister had been in
contact with both Iran and Russia. This is remarkable because these
communications have preceded a scheduled visit to Turkey this weekend
by U.S. national security advisor H.R. McMaster. Iran and Russia were
also reportedly in contact with each other at around the same time,
as well. Could it be that this triangle
of emerging power brokers in
Syria deciding the fate of Syria without the involvement of the U.S.
has prompted the American military to take drastic measures to
disrupt this developing alliance? Even with opposing aims in Syria —
and even with Turkey’s
recent invasion of Syrian territory —
Iran, Turkey, and Russia have all managed to find some common ground
without resorting to a confrontation with one another.

Accusing
the U.S. of “mission-creep,” former U.S. ambassador to Syria
Robert Ford said “[t]he
Americans have managed through their diplomatic strategy to isolate
themselves to the point where Turkey, Iran and Syria all agree that
what the U.S. is doing in Syria is bad.”

Further,
before the American-led air attack took place, Russia accused the
U.S. of attempting
to partition Syria,
an accusation that appears to be grounded in reality. CNN has
acknowledged that the U.S. did not strike pro-regime forces that
crossed back to their assigned territory of the Euphrates River even
though all of the territory technically belongs to the government
under international law. In other words, the U.S. is happy to leave
Syrian troops to their own devices provided they stay within the
areas the U.S. has assigned to them. How else could this be
described, if not a partition?

Further,
according to the International Crisis Group (ICG), an international
NGO whose mission is to prevent and resolve deadly conflict, Iran
and Israel are only one “miscalculation” away
from war as both sides have been seen to escalate their military
interventions in Syria. The ICG identified Russia as the only real
mediator between the two countries and urged Russia to play a more
active role in averting a potential escalation.

Further,
also on Wednesday, the BBC reported that
Israeli warplanes had attacked a military complex in Damascus. A
Syrian military statement reportedly said its air defense systems had
blocked most of the missiles, but it is not clear if there were any
significant casualties. Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu also reportedly visited the
disputed Golan Heights territory at the same time, warning his
enemies not to test Israel’s resolve. This was a clear reference to
Iran and Hezbollah, which is prominent in both Lebanon and Syria.


In
what can be described as an amazing coincidence, these air attacks by
both Israel and the U.S. have taken
place off the back of a joint military exercise between
the United States and Israel, which simulated a joint U.S.-Israeli
response to a rocket attack by Hezbollah.


Were
these recent attacks by Israel and the U.S. a one-time incident in
response to the threats allegedly posed by pro-Assad forces,
including Hezbollah? Or are both these countries building up to
something more confrontational?

All
things considered, it seems likely we will find out where this
conflict is headed in the not too distant future, especially given
the potential for one miscalculated move to lead to something
extremely volatile. As it stands, it should be noted that in the
meantime, it is not Syria that is attacking any other state or
launching a war against any other country.

With
the assistance of the media, the U.S. and Israel continue to bomb
Syrian territory in direct contravention of international law, now
killing and wounding significant numbers of the Syrian government’s
armed forces without any significant journalistic or international
opposition.

One
can only hope that someone heeds the advice of the ICG and attempts
to de-escalate this conflict before it transforms itself into a
regional powder keg involving at least three or more nuclear
powers.

Creative
Commons / Anti-Media / Report
a typo


Zie ook: ‘VS coalitie valt Syrische troepen aan……… Ofwel de strijd van de VS tegen IS, is in feite een strijd tegen de democratisch gekozen regering Assad……..‘


        en:  ‘VS bewandelt dezelfde weg richting Iran, als die voor de illegale oorlog tegen Irak in 2003, aldus één van de verantwoordelijken voor die oorlog……..‘  


        en: ‘Rusland heeft geen aanval uitgevoerd op VS troepen in Syrië…..‘

        en: ‘Syrië: nieuwe gifgasaanval als ‘false flag’ operatie tegen Syrisch bewind in voorbereiding……..‘

        en: ‘Hondsdolle VS valt Russische tank aan in poging de Russen te provoceren……‘

        en: ‘VS geeft toe dat er geen bewijs is voor het gebruik van gifgas ‘door Assad’, ofwel: alweer ‘fake news’ van de massamedia doorgeprikt!‘

De VS gaf meer dan 1 miljoen dollar uit om protesten tegen Iraans bewind uit te buiten (en te organiseren)

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

Ja, beetje vreemde kop met de toevoeging tussen aanhalingstekens, waarin ik de kop boven het artikel van Darius Shahtahmasebi op Creative Commons en Anti-Media probeer mee te nemen. Volgens hem heeft de VS de koe bij de horens gevat om de protesten in Iran van december 2017 en de eerste week van dit jaar te gebruiken en deze te veranderen in (gewelddadig) protest tegen het Iraanse bewind………

Zo bezien zou je denken dat Shahtahmasebi, die onderzoeksjournalist Nafeed Ahmed meermaals citeert, blijkbaar niet weet dat de VS altijd al (CIA) agenten in Iran had, agenten die niet alleen aan spionage doen, maar ook proberen mensen te winnen voor een opstand tegen het Iraanse bewind. Het is dan ook zeker, dat de CIA aandeel had in het organiseren van de ‘opstand’. Later wordt hier wel aan gerefereerd door Shahtahmasebi. Deze bemoeienis van de VS bestaat al van voor de Iraanse revolutie in 1979, al zal het aantal agenten de eerste jaren na deze revolutie in Iran wel minimaal zijn geweest, als ze al niet de benen hadden genomen naar een ander dan wel hun ‘thuisland’.

Vergeet niet dat er voor de Iraanse revolutie een groot aantal VS beambten werkzaam was in toen nog de Perzische dictatuur van sjah Pahlavi, die in het zadel werd geholpen (1953*) en gehouden door de VS, dezelfde VS (middels de CIA) die de gehate geheime dienst trainde……. Al met al zijn door eerdere VS regeringen vele miljoenen uitgegeven aan Iran, met de bedoeling een verandering van regime te kopen

Shahtahmasebi citeert Ahmed die uitlegt dat uit congressionele documenten Trumps (zijn militaire administratie) bemoeienissen duidelijk worden gemaakt, bemoeienissen waarmee op meerdere manieren gepoogd werd een verandering van bewind in Iran voor elkaar te krijgen (een bewind dat pro-VS zou moeten zijn, zoals je begrijpt)………

Lees hoe ‘de waard’ (de VS) haar gasten vertrouwt en zelf de grote manipulator is van processen in alweer een land waar het niets te zoeken heeft…… Van Rusland kan dit niet gezegd worden, daar er geen bewijzen zijn (zelfs het Volkskrant artikel over Russiagate van afgelopen week blijkt apekool te zijn, later meer daarover), terwijl de reguliere media (zoals de Volkskrant, NRC, Telegrof, radio en tv) en de meeste westerse politici volhouden dat Rusland de grote manipulator is, echter voor de VS manipulaties, waarvoor bewijzen te over zijn, hebben deze media en politici amper of geen aandacht…….. Bewijzen voor de manipulaties van de VS, op een groot aantal manieren toegepast op een evenzo groot aantal landen….. Waar de Vault 7 en 8 gelekte VS overheidsdocumenten op Wikileaks aangeven dat de CIA, NSA en andere geheime diensten in de VS, deze manipulaties in de schoenen van een ander land kunnen schuiven (bijvoorbeeld door een spoor achter te laten dat eindigt bij een IP-adres in een ander land…….)

Revealed:
US Spent Over $1 Million to Exploit Protests in Iran for ‘Regime
Change’

January
25, 2018 at 9:52 am

Written
by Darius
Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) — The
U.S. State Department spent over $1 million to exploit unrest in
Iran, investigative journalist Nafeez Ahmed reported last
week in Le
Muslim Post.

At
the end of 2017 and through the
first week of 2018,
Iran was rocked by protests through its major cities, and the Trump
administration quickly pounced to exploit the dissent. The U.S. even
tried calling an urgent U.N. Security Council meeting that ultimately
backfired because
the rest of the major U.N. players weren’t interested in exploiting
Iran’s protests for personal gain.

However,
the Trump administration’s desire to exploit unrest in Iran may go
much further than mere diplomatic support for anti-regime protesters.
Ahmed explains:

“A
range of recent official documents, from Congressional research to US
foreign aid funding reports, throw new light on the Trump
administration’s approach. The documents reveal the US government’s
continued interest in triggering major political change in Iran to
pull the country into the orbit of American interests. This includes
the possibility of exploiting political unrest and other crises –
including a worsening water crisis – to turn popular opinion
against the regime.” However,
the Trump administration’s desire to exploit unrest in Iran may go
much further than mere diplomatic support for anti-regime protesters.
Ahmed explains:

This
introduction may be no surprise to some, as Anti-Media has previously
explained that
regime change in Iran has become more or less an official Trump
administration policy and that a CIA office has even been established
to complete this nefarious goal.

Ahmed
explains further:

“Iran’s
unrest has mostly been driven by a convergence of domestic
ecological, energy and economic crises. The State Department has
sought to exploit these crises to undermine the legitimacy of the
regime, by funding opposition groups as well as anti-regime
broadcasting to the tune of tens of millions of dollars a year…One
State Department funding document, for instance, refers to a project
to use Iran’s growing water crisis to drum up public anger against
regime “mismanagement”. To
date, US government records show that the Trump
administration has spent over $1m,
at least, since 2016, on financing anti-regime activism within Iran.”

However,
as Ahmed explains, the recent findings are nothing new in terms of
American foreign policy, as “successive
US administrations have invested tens of millions of dollars a year
on ‘democracy promotion efforts’ in Iran.”
This was also detailed
in the book Which
Path to Persia? – a
neoconservative roadmap for targeting Iran for regime change.

“Democracy
production” is a nice way for the U.S. to openly discuss regime
change operations, which ultimately have nothing to do with democracy
by their very nature given the U.S. is the extrinsic driving
force behind proposed changes.

As
Ahmed notes, much of the media programming funded by the State
Department has “focused
on glorifying the reign of the Shah of Iran, the brutal US-UK backed
dictator who was deposed by the 1979 revolution.” As The
Diplomat’s
recently published
article entitled
“Why Iran’s Monarchy Could Unite a Divided Country” concludes:

“[T]he legacy of
the Pahlavis, who themselves come from a humble background, is
‘modernism, secularism, and nationalism’, so perhaps today, a
combination of support from liberals, nationalists, exiles, and the
rural poor tired of being fleeced by clerics can lay the groundwork
for the reestablishment of a constitutional Iranian
monarchy” suddenly
makes a lot more sense in this context.

Despite
this noticeable propaganda effort, the Trump administration’s Iran
strategy ultimately went further than attempting to win the war of
ideas. One document entitled “Iran’s Foreign and Defense
Policies,” dated
February 6, 2017,
allegedly describes how the decision
to place Iran “officially on notice” was
to signal that “the
new Administration might change US rules of engagement to include the
use of deadly force in future incidents.” The
document also notes that these aggressive policies could indirectly
lead to the collapse of the 2015 nuclear accord, known as the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). In order to achieve these aims,
the document seemed to indicate, a continued military relationship
with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states is pivotal.

Further,
a Congressional document entitled
“Iran: Politics, Human Rights and US Policy” dated February 17,
2017, stated the following:

“The
Trump Administration has not stated a position on whether it would
seek to change Iran’s regime, but its characterization of Iran as a
US adversary could suggest that the Administration
might support efforts to oust the Iranian regime should opportunities
to do so present themselves.” [emphasis
added]

However,
the tell-all moment in the document is the paragraph that explains
why the U.S. has not yet directly pursued regime change. The document
states:

“In
the absence of all-out US pursuit of regime change, successive
Administrations and Congress have promoted
political evolution in Iran through ‘democracy promotion’ and
sanctions on Iranian human rights abuses.” [emphasis
added]

As
Ahmed explains, “Iran democracy promotion” funds have
been “obligated through DRL [Bureau of Democracy, Human
Rights and Labor Affairs] and the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs in
partnership with USAID. Some of the funds have also been used for
cultural exchanges, public diplomacy, and broadcasting to Iran.”

The
U.S. government is also reportedly spending at least $33 million a
year on what Ahmed terms “soft propaganda” through its funding of
Radio Farda and the Voice of America (VOA)’s Persian Service to
spread anti-regime sentiment. In early 2017, the son of the late
Shah was actually
broadcast into
Iran via these two stations. He advocated “peaceful regime change”
through protest and civil disobedience. Remember this the next
time the intelligence
agencies release a report stating
Russian-owned media outlets RT and Sputnik are
to blame for landing Donald Trump in the White House.

While
full data for the year 2017 is not yet available, Ahmed argues that
USAID and State Department records reveal the U.S. spent over
$1,146,196 on various opposition groups in Iran from 2016 through the
Trump administration’s first year in office. These funds were
provided by the State Department through the National Endowment for
Democracy (NED).

When
contacted for comment, Ahmed told Anti-Media that
while “much of this figure is undoubtedly attributed to Obama,
the vast majority of the 2017 spend has not been published yet,”
also noting that the 2017 figure already “looks to be in the
order of a million plus.”

According
to Ahmed, from 2014 to 2017, the Obama and Trump administration’s
spent a total of $2,948,733 through the State Department to fund
opposition activists in Iran. NED records describing where the funds
were going outline that the mission was to “engage members of
the Iranian intelligentsia in public deliberation on the social,
economic and political prospects of a democratic Iran.”

Another
document reportedly states that the funds were for the purpose of
building “the capacity of Iranian citizens to conduct
community-level political process monitoring through a focused
training program.”

Ahmed
also highlights that one of the core ways the U.S. has sought to
exploit unrest in Iran is to target Iran’s looming water
crisis (something
we have seen
before in Syria).
While many of the protesters’ concerns about Iran’s current
situation are certainly justifiable, America’s decision to try to
involve itself and exploit unrest for its own gains arguably are not.
As Ahmed explains:

“While
the US government routinely uses Iran’s abysmal human rights record
as a core justification for its anti-regime efforts, its alliance
with similarly abusive Gulf regimes like Saudi Arabia – in the name
of isolating and weakening the Iranian regime – discredits the idea
that US policy is genuinely motivated by humanitarian or democratic
considerations.”

Op-ed
/ Creative
Commons / Anti-Media / Report
a typo

==========================================

* Volgens Wikipedia regeerde de sjah van 1941 tot 1979, echter van 1951 tot 1953 kende Perzië de democratisch gekozen regering Mossadegh, die een groot aantal progressieve sociale hervormingen doordrukte. De CIA zette een coup op tegen Mossadegh en na het slagen van deze staatsgreep werd de sjah weer geïnstalleerd…… Deze bloederige dictator onderhield naast de VS, o.a. hartelijke banden met Nederland ‘(en ‘heel hartelijk. met koningin Juliana en prins Bernhard…..)………

Zie ook: ‘Rutte
3 heeft begrip voor de moord op Soleimani en hoopt dat de VS zich niet
terugtrekt uit Irak, een soeverein land >> westerse
propaganda……‘

        en: ‘KLM vliegt na ‘risicoanalyse’ niet meer in luchtruim van Iran en Irak‘ 

        en: ‘Oorlog tegen Iran: VS heeft lak aan democratie >> Irak wordt gedreigd met sancties en ‘herstelbetaling’‘

        en: ‘VS moord op Qasem Soleimani is een oorlogsverklaring aan adres van Iran…….‘

       en: ‘Iraakse regering pissig over VS beschuldiging dat Iraanse bewind corrupt is‘

       en: ‘Rex Tillerson (VS BuZA) geeft toe dat de VS een staatsgreep wil uitvoeren in Iran…….. Het is nog ‘iets te rustig’ in dat gebied……..‘

       en: ‘Lt. General McInerney says Obama helped build ISIS with Weapons from Benghazi‘

       en: ‘VS liegt schaamteloos om het westen verder op te zetten tegen Iran……..‘

      en: ‘Iraanse protesten allesbehalve compleet spontaan (zoals VS ambassadeur bij de VN Haley durfde te stellen…)….‘

       en: ‘Protesten Iran opgezet door de VS en Israël‘

       en: ‘Iran, de protesten en wat de media je niet vertellen………‘

       en: ‘Het verborgen motief achter de Israëlische agressie tegen Iran en Syrië‘

       en: ‘VS bewandelt dezelfde weg richting Iran, als die voor de illegale oorlog tegen Irak in 2003, aldus één van de verantwoordelijken voor die oorlog……..‘

       en: ‘Netanyahu vergelijkt Iran met nazi-Duitsland en stelt dat Iran een bedreiging is voor de wereldvrede….. ha! ha! ha! ha!‘

       en: ‘Washington uit op oorlog met Iran……‘

       en: ‘Oliemaatschappijen weigeren n.a.v. VS sancties de jet van Iraanse minister af te tanken‘

       en: ‘Israël bezig met voorbereiding op meerdere fronten oorlog…….. (met hulp van de VS‘

       en: ‘John Bolton heeft beloofd dat Iran voor 2019 onder een ander regime zal leven…….‘

        en: ‘Saoedi-Arabië dreigt Iran aan te vallen voor vanuit Jemen afgevuurde ‘raketten’ op Saoedische ‘doelen……….’‘

       en: ‘VS rechter gelast Iran miljarden te betalen aan de families van 911 slachtoffers…..‘

       en: ‘Iran moet hangen en Iran-deal moet van tafel……. Israël speelt wolf in schaapskleren‘

       en: ‘Netanyahu en Bolton stoken het vuur in het Midden-Oosten verder op: Iran moet en zal vallen…..‘

      en: ‘Trump beloofde geen extra oorlog in het Midden-Oosten >> toch heeft hij het pad vrijgemaakt voor oorlog tegen Iran……‘

      en: ‘VS ‘laat zien op vrede uit te zijn’ door dreiging Iran te vermorzelen……‘

Oekraïne, wat de reguliere (massa-) media, ‘deskundigen’ en politici u niet vertellen over dit door een junta geregeerd land

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

Mint
Press News publiceerde gisteren een lang artikel van Darius
Shahtahmasebi over Oekraïne en wat de massamedia (zogenaamd onafhankelijk) u niet vertellen.
Dezelfde media die keer op keer volhouden dat Rusland de VS
presidentsverkiezingen, het Brexit-referendum, het
onafhankelijkheidsreferendum van Catalonië enz. hebben
gemanipuleerd, zonder daar ook maar één steekhoudend bewijs voor te
leveren.

Voor die
zogenaamde Russische bemoeienis wordt ook het beest Trump als
mededader genoemd, terwijl we telkens weer zien, dat Trump
allesbehalve een pro-Russische beleid voert, iets dat Shahtahmasebi
in het volgende artikel uit en te na bewijst.

In het
artikel o.a. De volgende feiten:

  • De
    door de VS georganiseerde opstand in Oekraïne, die tot de
    succesvolle staatsgreep tegen de democratisch gekozen president
    Janoekovytsj moest leiden en leidde, waarna de VS een door haar
    gewilde junta installeerde (met bewijzen van gesprekken daarover
    tussen Nuland (staatssecretaris BuZa onder Obama) en Pyatt, destijds
    ambassadeur voor de VS in Oekraïne ….. Overigens was de VS al
    vanaf 2011 bezig met de voorbereidingen tot die opstand, onder
    eindverantwoording van Hillary Clinton (en Obama), de toenmalige minister van
    Buitenlandse Zaken. Deze coup en de voorbereidingen heeft de VS meer
    dan 4 miljard dollar gekost…… Intussen is duidelijk geworden dat
    Porosjenko ongelofelijk corrupt is en er intussen nog geen 15% van
    de bevolking achter deze juntaleider staat………

  • De
    VS levert zware wapens aan Oekraïne, waarmee de VS de
    ‘burgeroorlog’ in Oekraïne verder aanwakkert en Rusland voor het
    blok zet…. Immers de burgers in Oost-Oekraïne, die niet wensen te
    leven onder de neonazi-dictatuur van Porosjenko, worden al een paar
    jaar gebombardeerd door de neonazi-bataljons van Porosjenko. Rusland
    zou vechten in Oekraïne, een belachelijke weergave van de
    werkelijkheid >> wanneer dit een feit zou zijn, waren deze
    neonazi-bataljons al lang het gebied uit gewerkt. Met deze nieuwe VS
    wapens wordt het steeds moeilijker voor Rusland niet de burgers in
    Oost-Oekraïne te hulp te schieten met militaire hulp……..

  • Het
    door de VS ondersteunen van neonazi’s in Oekraïne. Voordat
    Porosjenko door de VS werd geparachuteerd als ‘president’ van
    Oekraïne, werkte hij al voor BuZa in Washington, hij werd in de VS
    zelfs ‘onze mol’ in Oekraïne genoemd….. Dit alles terwijl de VS
    zogenaamd opkomt voor democratie, waar dit ‘land’ bij herhaling
    democratisch gekozen regeringen aan de kant laat zetten en het
    liefst laat vervangen door fascisten…. Naast Oekraïne: Chili in 1973
    en Honduras in 2009, verder een reeks Midden- en Zuid-Amerikaanse
    landen voor en na 1973, waar de VS uiteraard dikke steun
    verleende aan deze fascistische mensenrechten schendende junta’s……. Voorts nog de staatsgrepen tegen: Syrië (een mislukte poging),
    Brazilië (de staatsgreep tegen president Dilma Rousseff), Libië en
    Iran (waar de staatsgrepen tegen de Braziliaanse president Rousseff
    en president Assad van Syrië, alweer gericht waren tegen democratisch
    gekozen regeringen…….). Om te besluiten met Venezuela waartegen de VS al een aantal jaren een economische oorlog voert en gewelddadige groepen steunt, dit met de opzet president Maduro af te zetten…..

  • De
    uitbreiding van de NAVO, tegen de afspraken in, die in 1991 met
    Gorbatsjov werden gemaakt….. Het niet uitbreiden van de NAVO was zelfs de eis van Gorbatsjov, voor het akkoord gaan met de hereniging van Oost- en
    West-Duitsland……..

Mensen lezenm dit met feiten onderbouwde artikel van
Shahtahmasebi en geeft het door!

What
Trump Is Doing in Ukraine Proves the Mainstream Media Doesn’t Know
Sh*t

January
9, 2018 at 9:38 am

Written
by Darius
Shahtahmasebi

The
Russia-obsessed corporate media continues to peddle the narrative
that Donald Trump has turned the United States into a client-state of
Russia, even while he directly provokes the former Soviet Union by
providing Russia’s foe — Urkaine — with the largest lethal
assistance to a country on its border.

(MPN) — Despite
the mainstream media’s insistence that
U.S. President Donald Trump is some sort of compromised Russian
lackey, the fact is that at the end of last year, his administration
approved the
largest U.S. commercial sale of lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine
since 2014. This is a move that clearly infuriates
and angers Russia,
souring relations between the two countries even more so than
they already
had been under
the Obama administration (and in various
stages throughout
Trump’s first year in office).

According to The
Washington Post,
administration officials confirmed that in December the State
Department had approved a commercial license authorizing the export
of Model M107A1 Sniper Systems, ammunition, and other associated
parts and accessories to Ukraine — a package valued at $41.5
million.

At
first, it was reported there had not yet been approval to export the
heavier weaponry the Ukrainian government had been asking for, such
as anti-tank missiles. However, by the end of

December, reports began
surfacing that the Trump administration was in fact going to
provide 35 FGM-148 Javelin launchers and 210 anti-tank missiles.
The Javelin is allegedly one of the most advanced anti-tank systems
on the market. The total package is now valued at $47 million, and it
wouldn’t be surprising if this figure continues to rise in the
weeks to come.

Even
under the 2014
Ukraine Freedom Support Act,
the Obama administration never authorized large commercial or
government arms sales, thereby making the recent announcement the
first time that the U.S. will provide “lethal” weapons to the
Ukraine military.

One
senior congressional official said that he predicted this would be
just the beginning, stating that the U.S. had “crossed
the Rubicon; this is lethal weapons and I predict more will be
coming,” according
to the Post. Foreign
Policy’s Michael
Carpenter suggested that
NATO countries should follow suit and also provide Ukraine with the
arms it needs to counter the so-called threat of Russia. Considering
that in September 2017 Russia proposed that UN peacekeepers
be deployed to
Ukraine, it should be clear that the U.S. is more bent on escalating
this conflict than on resolving it.

Russia
has already responded in
kind, with Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov stating that the
U.S. has become an accomplice in the war and that these developments
make it impossible for Russia to remain “indifferent,” thereby
forcing Russia to consider retaliation measures in response.

The
U.S. is the world’s
largest arms dealer.
The U.S. arms so many countries so much of the time that most of us
barely blink. And yet, even taking at face value America’s stated
goals of spreading democracy and promoting human rights, the facts on
the ground appear to run contrary to those ideals and the U.S. is
well aware of these contradictions.

In
reality, the United States intervened covertly in Ukraine in 2014
because Russia and Europe were growing
far too close to each other for America’s comfort,
with Russia supplying at least 30 percent of Europe’s gas supply.
This was an issue particularly in relation to Germany’s
growing fondness for Russian gas,
as Germany is set to become
the EU’s major player.

This
is a deal-breaker for Washington, which would rather support known
neo-Nazis and
anti-Semites in order to install a right-wing government capable of
opposing Russia as close to the Russian border as one can get.

U.S.
Installed a Puppet Government in Ukraine

John
McCain, center, speaks as Connecticut senator Chris Murphy, second
left, and Opposition leader Oleh Tyahnybok, right, stand around him
during a rally in Kiev, Ukraine, Dec. 15, 2013. (AP/Dmitry Lovetsky)

On
February 7, 2014, the BBC published a transcript of
a bugged phone conversation between Assistant Secretary of State
Victoria Nuland and the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt.
In this phone call, the U.S. officials were openly discussing who
should form Ukraine’s government even before the president, Viktor
Yanukovych, had been successfully ousted
from power.
In other words, the U.S. was actively doing to Russia’s neighbour
what the corporate media and various elements of the intelligence
communities have accused Russia of doing to the U.S. during the 2016
elections. As The
Nation explained:

“In
the intercepted phone call between U.S. Assistant Secretary of State
for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine
Geoffrey Pyatt, the two were, as Russian expert Stephen
Cohen put
it to Democracy Now, ‘plotting
a coup d’état against the elected president of
Ukraine.’” [emphasis
added]

“Good.
I don’t think Klitsch [opposition leader Vitaly Klitschko] should
go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary, I don’t
think it’s a good idea,”  Nuland said in the call, as
transcribed by the BBC.

Pyatt
responded:

“Yeah.
I guess… in terms of him not going into the government, just let
him stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I’m just
thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead we want to keep
the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok
[Oleh Tyahnybok, an opposition leader] and his guys and I’m sure
that’s part of what [President Viktor] Yanukovych is calculating on
all this.”

Nuland
added:

“I
think Yats [opposition leader Arseniy Yatseniuk] is the guy who’s
got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the…
what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be
talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch
going in… he’s going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk,
it’s just not going to work.”

Oleh
Tyahnybok, who had met with Senator John McCain one
year prior,
is the leader of the right-wing nationalist party Svoboda. When
Svoboda was founded in 1995, the party had a
swastika-like logo. As Business
Insider explains,
Tyahnybok is also a known anti-Semite:

“Tyahnybok
himself was expelled from the Our Ukraine parliamentary faction in
2004 after giving a speech demanding
that Ukrainians fight against a ‘Muscovite-Jewish
mafia’ (he later clarified this
by saying that he actually had Jewish friends and
was only against to ‘a group of Jewish oligarchs who control
Ukraine and against Jewish-Bolsheviks [in the past]’). In 2005 he
wrote open letters demanding Ukraine do more to halt ‘criminal
activities’ of ‘organized Jewry,’ and, even now, Svoboda openly
calls for Ukrainian citizens to have their ethnicity printed onto
their passports.”

When
the protests broke out in Ukraine in 2014, the entire movement was
hijacked by these racist elements.

“You’d
never know from most of the reporting that far-right nationalists and
fascists have been at the heart of the protests and attacks on
government buildings,” reported Seumas Milne of The
Guardian. Just
days ago, thousands
marched in
Kiev to celebrate the anniversary of far-right nationalist Stepan
Bandera’s birthday.

It
is revealing that, when the U.S. decided to make a choice between a
president they viewed as a Russian ally and the various ultra-right
nationalist elements of Ukraine, Washington decided to help oust the
former for the benefit of the latter.

The
State Department Promoting Neo-Nazism in Ukraine


A
photo of the Azov Battalion – a regiment of the National Guard of
Ukraine. (Photo: Twitter)

Eventually,
it was reported that a man named Petro Poroshenko would be taking up
the reins after Yanukovych’s abdication. According to a
cable obtained by
WikiLeaks, Poroshenko previously worked as a mole for the U.S. State
Department. The State Department even referred to Poroshenko as “our
Ukrainian insider.”

For
those who truly believe the U.S. protects and promotes democracy
while challenging tyranny and dictatorships across the globe, the
truth about Washington’s support for puppet regimes that fail to
garner the support of their own people is even worse than
any anti-imperialist
commentator could
ever have imagined. In March last year, Foreign
Affairs reported
that Poroshenko had
an approval rating as low as 17
percent.
In September last year, the Japan
Times reported that
his approval rating had dropped to a single
digit.
Some reportssay
it was as low as 2
percent.
October last year saw his approval rating grow to its highest in
recent times, reaching a
stratospheric 14
percent.

In
other words, the Trump administration is actively propping up a
failed administration in Europe, which does not have the support of
15 percent of its people. Even the far-right militias in Ukraine seem
to have more support than
the current government. Meanwhile, the U.S. has done nothing but its
utmost to tear apart the respective democratically elected
governments in Syria and Iran, both
of which have
far greater
approval ratings than
do Poroshenko and his administration.

Russian
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said Washington’s
recent decision to arm Ukraine will only make the conflict more
deadly and suggested that Russia could be forced to respond. “[The
U.S. is] not a mediator. It’s an accomplice in fueling the war,”
Ryabkov said in a statement. Clearly, Russia has a vested interest in
not seeing another NATO ally on its borders, capable of pointing
American missiles in its face on a daily basis.

As The
National Interest learned at
the end of last year from recently declassified
material, the
U.S. did indeed break a promise at the end of the Cold War that NATO
would expand “not one inch eastward.” George Washington
University National Security Archives researchers Svetlana
Savranskaya and Tom Blanton wrote
in the National
Security Archives:

“The
[recently declassified] documents show that multiple national leaders
were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European
membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991. That
discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations
in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German
territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about
being misled about NATO expansion, were founded in written
contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.”

The
documents appear to confirm Russia’s assertion that Soviet leader
Mikhail Gorbachev accepted the proposal for German reunification
(which Gorbachev could have vetoed) only in reliance upon these
assurances from its American counterparts that NATO would not expand
into Eastern Europe. This history is reminiscent of how Russia was
further duped out of using its veto power on a U.N. Security Council
Resolution in Libya in 2011, after having received
assurances that
the coalition would not pursue regime change.

“I
believe that your thoughts about the role of NATO in the current
situation are the result of misunderstanding,” then-British Prime
Minister John Major told Gorbachev,
according to British Ambassador Rodric Braithwaite’s diary entry of
March 5, 1991:

“We
are not talking about strengthening of NATO. We are talking about the
coordination of efforts that is already happening in Europe between
NATO and the West European Union, which, as it is envisioned, would
allow all members of the European Community to contribute to enhance
[our] security.”

The
documents also show that Russia had received these assurances from a
number of other high-level officials. These officials included
then-Secretary of State James Baker; President George H.W. Bush; West
German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher; West German
Chancellor Helmut Kohl; former CIA Director Robert Gates; French
leader Francois Mitterrand; Margaret Thatcher; British Foreign
Minister Douglas Hurd; and NATO Secretary-General Manfred Woerner.

U.S.
Army soldiers representing units participating in the the Anaconda-16
military exercise, attend the opening ceremony, in Warsaw, Poland,
Monday, June 6, 2016. Poland and some NATO members launched their
biggest ever exercise, involving some 31,000 troops in a show of
force to neighboring Russia.

Since
that time, NATO has clearly expanded into Europe to the detriment of
Russia. Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has grown to include the
Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, Albania and Croatia,
and Montenegro.

These
developments are crucial because, when one is honest about America’s
infamous history since World War II, it is clear that NATO exists
as an entity only
to counter and contain Russian influence. Its sole purpose is to
oppose Russia at every corner and this is no secret even in the
corporate media.

According
to the Telegraph,
NATO was formed in “Washington on 4th April, 1949 after the end of
the Second World War, largely to block Soviet expansion into Europe.”
This can be seen clearly in the complete rejection of the
Soviets’ attempt
to join NATO itself after
Joseph Stalin’s death.

In
a 2016 interview
with The
New Yorker,
 Douglas Lute, a former three-star general and then-U.S.
Ambassador to NATO also patently admitted that:

“…NATO
was founded on the premise of preventing an attack by the Soviet
Union in Central Europe, where the U.S. would have to come to the aid
of Europe … For the first forty years, NATO focussed on its
greatest risk—the threat that the Soviet Union posed to Western
European security.”

At
the time the unrest broke out in 2014, then-NATO Secretary General
Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s comment that
the proposed IMF-EU package presented to Ukraine would have been “a
major boost for Euro-Atlantic security” suggested that NATO had set
its sights on bringing Ukraine into the military alliance. In
July of this year,
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg met with Poroshenko in Kiev
to further discuss this prospect, already pledging support to Ukraine
on some level.

Now
Ukraine’s bid to join NATO seems almost irrelevant, as the U.S. is
formally involving itself deeper in the Ukrainian conflict and
providing arms to a regime that has flirted with an approval rating
lower than 10 percent, all the while provoking Russia to take further
measures in response.

What
could possibly go wrong?

Meanwhile,
the Russia-obsessed corporate media continues
to peddle the narrative that
Donald Trump has turned the United States into a client-state of
Russia, even while he directly provokes the former Soviet Union by
providing lethal assistance to a country on its border. Not only is
Trump maintaining an Obama-era policy, he is aggravating and
converting Obama’s Ukraine policy into a much more dangerous one —
ultimately aimed at provoking an aggressive response from Russia in
the weeks or months to come.

By Darius
Shahtahmasebi / Creative
Commons / MintPress
News / Report
a typo

Trumps uitlating over de atoomknop en de onverschilligheid bij zijn achterban, een dictatuur waardig………

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

Trump
stelde onlangs dat hij een veel grotere atoomknop heeft dan Kim
Yung-un van Noord-Korea*, waarbij hij ook nog eens toegaf te weten,
dat de raketten van Noord-Korea niet werken en dat de atoombom van
Noord-Korea ofwel niet bestaat, of dat deze nog lang niet op een raket
kan worden gemonteerd (niet klein genoeg), of zelfs dat Noord-Korea niet eens een atoombom heeft……**

Uiteraard
een uiterst infantiele manier van spreken (de mijne is groter en beter dan die
van jou), maar tevens een teken dat hij wat betreft z’n achterban
alles kan zeggen en doen, het maakt ze niet uit zolang het hun Donald
maar is…… Een houding die men vooral aantreft in dictaturen……..

Daniel
Ellsberg, eertijds een legeranalist, die de klok luidde over de
leugens waarmee het volk van de VS werd meegesleept in de Vietnam
oorlog, stelt dat e.e.a. nog veel verder gaat. Met de vraag van Trump
in gedachten: “We hebben kernwapens, waarom gebruiken we ze niet?” (iets
dat hij tot 3 keer toe herhaalde), stelt Ellsberg dat Trump daarmee
een gevaarlijk punt is gepasseerd. Hij gebruikt het atoomwapen als
een pistool dat hij richt op een, in zijn ogen, ‘gevaarlijke
vijand…..’

Ellsberg
is waarschijnlijk vergeten dat Obama als president in 2016 al heeft
gesteld, het atoomwapen niet langer als afschrikkingswapen te zien,
maar als een wapen dat gebruikt kan worden bij een eerste
aanval…….. Ofwel bij één van de illegale oorlog de de VS keer
op keer begint……..

Lees
het uitstekende artikel van Darius Shahtahmasebi hieronder, hij legt
de schuld voor de onverschilligheid bij de achterban van Trump tevens
bij de reguliere media, die deze achterban nooit serieus heeft
genomen (zoals hare kwaadaardigheid Clinton, die Trumps achterban
wegzette als een zootje niet nadenkende imbecielen….)….

Lees
en oordeel zelf:

Trump
Is a Madman Threatening Nuclear Annihilation and His Supporters Don’t
Care

Afbeeldingsresultaat voor Trump Is a Madman Threatening Nuclear Annihilation and His Supporters Don’t Care

January
5, 2018 at 7:49 am

Written
by Darius
Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) — Donald
Trump’s speeches, interviews, and warmongering escapades on Twitter
are the markings of a madman. In a recent Twitter
tirade, the
president openly threatened nuclear war with North Korea, writing the
following:

“North
Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the ‘Nuclear Button is
on his desk at all times.’ Will someone from his depleted and food
starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button,
but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my
Button works!”

The
threat of nuclear war would typically send shivers down the spines of
those of us with the normal amount of empathy required to be a
well-adjusted human. According to whistleblower and former defense
analyst Daniel Ellsberg, Trump’s threats go further than mere empty
gestures. They are tantamount to actually using nukes indirectly.
As he recently stated
in an interview with Democracy
Now!:

“It’s
not a question of whether the president might use them. He’s using
them the way you use a gun when you point it at somebody in a
confrontation, whether or not you pull the trigger. And both Trump
and Kim are using their weapons in that encounter right now, as many
presidents have done…We use them on the hip.”

Why
would someone want to use the threat of nuclear annihilation that
way? Can they be trusted to operate the most powerful office in the
world?

At
the end
of December,
Donald Trump did an interview with New
York Times’
reporter Michael Schmidt, and the corporate media immediately
lambasted his comments. Trump’s nonsensical ramblings — on the
face of it — arguably portray someone who is by all accounts
mentally unfit to hold the office of the president. Whether or not
Trump is taking everyone for a ride as the master of manipulation,
the corporate media certainly holds the view that he is simply
cognitively incompetent.

“Incoherent,
authoritarian, uninformed: Trump’s New York Times interview is a
scary read,” Vox opined.
“Trump’s rambling New York Times interview reveals a mind in
denial,” wrote Vanity
Fair.
“Trump’s New York Times interview is a portrait of a man in
cognitive decline,” Esquire asserted. CNN highlighted the
“47 most outrageous lines in Donald Trump’s New York Times
interview.” The Washington
Post lamented a
lesser “11 curious quotes from Trump’s New York Times interview.”

By
all accounts, if you care about verifiable facts and integrity, it
should be evident that the president is lying through his teeth
throughout his interview with Michael Schmidt. When he isn’t lying,
he’s barely making practical sense. Yet this was a man who the
American people saw suited to take up the nuclear codes in the
presidential hot-seat with full knowledge that this was how he
presented himself on a daily basis.

This
is a man who, like a petulant child, challenged his
secretary of state to an IQ test after this official
reportedly called
the president a
“fucking moron” in response to Trump asking three times in a
meeting, “If
we have nuclear weapons, why don’t we use them?”

Despite
all of this ridiculous behavior, no matter how many times the media
explains how much Donald Trump behaves like an incoherent buffoon,
their criticisms do absolutely nothing to exact serious change on the
people who matter most: his supporters. In fact, Trump’s ludicrous
behavior is likely intentionally directed at his support base, which
seems to love every narcissistic challenge he presents to the
neoliberal establishment and its media cohorts.

As
Charles J. Sykes wrote for
the New
York Times in
February of last year, Donald Trump “understands
that attacking the media is the reddest of meat for his base, which
has been conditioned to reject reporting from news sites outside of
the conservative media ecosystem.”

This
dynamic, unfortunately, swings both ways. If Trump attacks the media,
his support base will rally behind him. Equally, if the mainstream
media attacks Trump in the manner they have become so accustomed to,
his support base stays largely immune to it. These attacks only
strengthen their diehard support for Trump. Sykes explains further:

“For
years, as a conservative radio talk show host, I played a role in
that conditioning by hammering the mainstream media for its bias and
double standards. But the price turned out to
be far higher than I imagined. The cumulative effect of the attacks
was to delegitimize those outlets and essentially destroy much of the
right’s immunity to false information. We
thought we were creating a savvier, more skeptical audience. Instead,
we opened the door for President Trump, who found an audience that
could be easily misled.” [emphasis
added]

The
effects of this paradigm go far beyond that of people being simply
misinformed and needing to attain more credible research. As Sykes
points out, it “also means that the more the fact-based
media tries to debunk the president’s falsehoods, the further it
will entrench the battle lines.”

In
other words, all of the articles attempting to criticize the New
York Times interview are completely pointless (it’s not
clear whether the media’s true aim is to change the hearts of
Trump’s core support base or simply pander to the anti-Trump crowd,
anyway). The people who read those articles and agree with them do
not require further proof that Trump is a madman; they can see it
quite clearly for themselves. The people who need convincing are
almost completely untouchable by the mainstream media, who they have
grown to completely distrust. In that context, the media is merely
preaching to the choir while the rest of us have to put up with the
potential horror of a nuclear winter simply because some Americans
love a president who is ‘strong’ and will stand up for America
(unlike that liberal Muslim commie we had a few years back, some
reason).

Sykes
explains that discrediting outlets that attack the president “helps
insulate him from criticism and it allows him to create his own
narratives, metrics and ‘alternative facts.’”

Sound
familiar?

If
you don’t believe me, take a look at this tweet from
January 2, 2018, where Donald Trump stated that “[s]ince
taking office I
have been very strict on Commercial Aviation. Good news – it was
just reported that there were Zero deaths in 2017, the best and
safest year on record!”

This
is by no stretch of the imagination, completely
false,
and Donald Trump never presented any evidence that he had been strict
on commercial aviation – ever. Yet, this tweet has 83,514 likes and
15,192 retweets.

To
most of us, Donald Trump has the brain of a rambling, jealous child
who constantly takes credit for the good work done by other people
(or flat out lie instead). But to his support base, any attack on him
is automatically uncredible, and as Sykes reported, what we are now
witnessing in the age of Trump is nothing short of an “attack on
credibility itself.”

As
Sykes aptly explained:

“The
Russian dissident and chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov drew upon long
familiarity with that process when he
tweeted:
‘The point of modern propaganda isn’t only to misinform or push
an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate
truth.’

“Mr.
Kasparov grasps that the real threat is not merely that a large
number of Americans have become accustomed to rejecting factual
information, or even that they have become habituated to believing
hoaxes. The real danger is that, inundated with ‘alternative
facts,’ many voters will simply shrug, asking, ‘What is truth?’
— and not wait for an answer.

“In
that world, the leader becomes the only reliable source of truth; a
familiar phenomenon in an authoritarian state, but a radical
departure from the norms of a democratic society. The
battle over truth is now central to our politics.” [emphasis
added]

Creative
Commons / Anti-Media / Report
a typo

===========================================

* Zie: ‘Trumps atoomknop is groter dan die van Kim Yung-un, bovendien werkt de VS knop wel……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘

** Er is immers nooit nucleaire straling gemeten bovengronds, op de locatie waar de Noord-Koreanen hun ‘kernproeven’ uitvoeren. Dit kan de dagen na zo’n kernproef worden gemeten, zelfs middels overgaande satellieten en dat zijn er in het geval van Noord-Korea ‘meer dan een paar…..’ Het lijkt dan ook om een potje blufkoker van het Noord-Koreaanse regime te gaan, een regime dat dom genoeg blij is met de onmiddellijke erkenning van het hebben van een atoombom door de internationale gemeenschap…… Dom genoeg, daar als dit inderdaad zo is, de afschrikking van een aanval op Noord-Korea niet werkt en daar was het dit land tenslotte wel om te doen…….

Zie ook: ‘VS sluit een nucleaire aanval niet uit als een mogelijke reactie op een ‘cyberaanval…….’‘

        en: ‘VS op weg naar daadwerkelijk gebruik van het kernwapen…………..‘ (plus 2 extra Engelstalige artikelen)

       en: ‘VN chef Guterrez geeft alarmcode rood af voor de wereld in 2018 en niet alleen vanwege het milieu of klimaat……‘

       en: ‘NAVO oefent op een nucleaire aanval tegen ‘een denkbeeldige vijand’, ofwel Rusland……….‘

       en: ‘Top VS generaal stelt dat er een grote oorlog met Rusland op komst is, ofwel: WOIII……‘

       en: ‘Trumps atoomknop is groter dan die van Kim Yung-un, bovendien werkt de VS knop wel……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘

       en: ‘VN chef Guterrez geeft alarmcode rood af voor de wereld in 2018 en niet alleen vanwege het milieu of klimaat……‘

       en: ‘Trumps beleid t.a.v. kernwapens brengt de VS staatsveiligheid in gevaar (en die van de rest van de wereld)‘

Dan nog over het bedreigen van Noord-Korea door Trump met ‘Fire and Fury): ‘Noord-Korea verkeerd begrepen: het land wordt bedreigd door de VS, dat alleen deze eeuw al minstens 4 illegale oorlogen begon……..‘

En om nog even te herinneren aan de enorme agressie van de VS, die niet op een illegale oorlog meer of minder kijkt:  ‘VS buitenlandbeleid sinds WOII: een lange lijst van staatsgrepen en oorlogen……….‘ en:  ‘List of wars involving the United States‘    

Over de zogenaamde Russische dreiging: ‘NAVO uitbreiding in Oost-Europa is bewezen tegen gesloten overeenkomst met Rusland…….‘

VS commando’s vechten o.a. in Midden- en Zuid-Amerika, aldus het VS ministerie van oorlog………

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

In
het volgende bericht van Darius Shahtahmasebi geeft de VS letterlijk
toe ook speciale troepen te hebben in Midden- en Zuid-Amerikaanse
landen….. Dit was al bekend, maar een officiële bevestiging daarvoor was er tot nu toe niet. Waar deze speciale troepen (commando’s) zijn, adviseren ze niet alleen, maar vechten ze ook en in dit geval zou dat tegen acties van Al Qaida of IS zijn…….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! En dat door een ‘land’, de VS, dat het beste is aan te duiden als de
grootste terreurentiteit op aarde………..

Shahtahmasebi legt in zijn artikel uit, dat de VS ook de gewone
troepen wil gaan inzetten als speciale troepen, ofwel de geheime terroristische acties van de VS, zullen worden uitgebreid met
gebruikmaking van onderdelen uit het gewone leger als speciale commando’s………. Dit naast de openlijke terreur die de VS uitoefent middels illegale oorlogen…..

In Afrika zou de VS in 20 landen bezig zijn met speciale troepen, wat tot nu toe tot 100 operaties heeft geleid……

Arme mensen, die met deze gehersenspoelde (en onder invloed van o.a. psychofarmaca), psychopathische moordenaars te maken krijgen……..

Overigens zou de NAVO intussen een militaire bases in Zuid-Amerika hebben (Colombia), uiteraard onder direct bevel van het Pentagon….. Zo mogen wij via de NAVO meebetalen aan VS-terreur in steeds meer landen…… Eén van de redenen waarom meer van de door ons opgebrachte belastinggelden naar de NAVO moeten…….

Department
of Defense Announces Major Changes to US Military Operations in 2018

January
4, 2018 at 2:00 pm

Written
by Darius
Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA) — An
interesting overlooked development taking place within the U.S.’
ever-expanding military is the recent announcement that conventional
forces will begin blurring their roles with those of Special Forces,
according to the Department
of Defense.

At
the end of last year, Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis
told Pentagon reporters that the experiences of war since the 9/11
attacks have blurred the lines between the two forces, noting that
general purpose forces will eventually shoulder missions of their
Special Forces counterparts.

“I
anticipate more general purpose forces being used for some of the
missions,” he said. “In
the past, we used only special forces to do it. The general purpose
forces can do a lot of the kind of work that you see going on and, in
fact, are now.”

Specifically,
Mattis expects this to happen within Iraq and Syria (bear in mind
that U.S. troops, whether or not they are Special Forces, do not have
the legal basis to operate in Syrian territory).

“I
mean, there was a time when the only people who ran drones were the
Special Forces,” Mattis
also said,
as quoted by Military.com.
He said the use of drones is now widespread in the conventional
force.

Special
Operators have complained that they are overstretched, having
been deployed
almost everywhere across the globe.
In 2017, fourteen of the 33 U.S. troops killed
were assigned to
Special Forces operations, several of whom died in battle arenas
where the Trump administration has expanded counter-terrorism
operations over the past year.

“We
are not the ultimate solution to every problem, and you will not hear
that coming from us,” Gen.
Raymond “Tony” Thomas (III), SoCom commander, told the
Senate Armed Services Committee in May 2017.

“We
operate and fight in every corner of the world,”  Thomas
also reportedly
said. “On
a daily basis, we sustain a deployed or forward stationed force of
approximately 8,000 across 80-plus countries. They are conducting the
entire range of SOF [Special Operations Forces] missions in both
combat and non-combat situations.”

Special
Forces are typically
tasked with
carrying out 12 core missions, including counterinsurgency and
unconventional warfare to hostage rescue. As the Washington
Post established,
these Special Forces are frequently on the ground to coordinate fire
support, acting as an “observation
element for what appears to be US airstrikes carried out by A-10
ground attack aircraft.” According
to a report by Vice
News,
at any given time, U.S. Special Forces are conducting nearly 100
missions across 20 African countries. According to the Nation, Thomas
also said:

“Special
Operations Forces are the main effort, or major supporting effort for
US VEO-focused operations in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen,
Somalia, Libya, across the Sahel of Africa, the Philippines, and
Central/South America—essentially, everywhere Al Qaeda (AQ) and the
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) are to be found…”

The
recent change seems likely to indicate that the U.S. will be stepping
up its involvement in areas it deems hotbeds of terrorism, perhaps
opening up the door to something
more confrontational.

It
also seems likely that we will see the increased presence of Special
Forces — as well conventional forces who have been trained to act
like Special Forces — in places well outside the Middle East and
Africa, including the
Philippines.

According
to Mattis, this change will most likely affect the dynamics in the
Afghanistan theater, as well. The Army’s new “Security Force
Assistance Brigades” (SFAB) is expected to deploy in the spring to
Afghanistan to train, advise, and assist the duties of the Special
Forces with the conventional Afghan forces.

“We’re
going to be putting more American forces, advisers, in the more
conventional force in the Afghan army. As you know, they have not had
them, and they’ve not — they were not ready to fight in the way
we want them to,” Mattis
said.

Creative
Commons / Anti-Media / Report
a typo

==========================================

‘9 ‘ex-FARC rebellen’ vermoord door leger Colombia: FARC-EP opgericht‘

‘Mensenrechten- en milieuactivisten worden massaal vermoord in Brazilië en Colombia, waar het laatste land NAVO bases heeft…….‘

‘Koenders heeft vrijlating gegijzelde Spoorloos makers in Colombia bewerkstelligt……. AUW!!!‘

‘Paus Franciscus in Colombia om vrede te prediken……‘

‘People of Brazil: my sincere condolences with ‘your’ fascistic, psychopathic president Bolsonaro……‘

‘NAVO gaat VS helpen in Zuid-Amerika terreur uit te oefenen: Colombia lid van de NAVO………‘

‘NAVO naar Zuid-Amerika? Weg met dit agressieve, terroristische bondgenootschap, NU!!!‘

‘Bolton geeft toe dat de VS een fascistisch beleid voert……‘

‘Bolsonaro, de fascistische nieuwe president van Brazilië, werd volgens Avaaz en fake news brengers als de NYT gekozen door manipulatie via WhatsApp‘

‘Bolsonaro wint Braziliaanse verkiezingen >> weer zijn we een fascistisch geleid land ‘rijker…’‘

‘Braziliaanse verkiezingen: democratie versus (neo-) fascisme, ook een groot gevaar in Europa‘

‘Katy Sherriff (Radio1 correspondent Z-Amerika) brandt socialistische partij Brazilië af……‘

Voor meer grootschalige VS terreur zie:

‘VS buitenlandbeleid sinds WOII: een lange lijst van staatsgrepen en oorlogen……….‘

‘List of wars involving the United States‘

‘VS vermoordde meer dan 20 miljoen mensen sinds het einde van WOII……..‘

‘NAVO gaat VS helpen in Zuid-Amerika terreur uit te oefenen: Colombia lid van de NAVO………‘

‘De war on drugs is veel dodelijker dan over het algemeen gedacht‘

‘NAVO militair bevelhebber wil verdere uitbreiding troepen in Europa in kader van oorlogvoering tegen Rusland…………‘

‘Terreuraanslag in Iran moet acties uitlokken die de VS tot een oorlog met Iran ‘dwingen’‘

PS: vergeet niet de coup tegen de democratisch gekozen regering van Honduras in 2009, dit o.l.v. de VS (Hillary Clinton speelde ook daar een heel smerige rol) en de economische oorlog tegen Venezuela, waar de VS directe banden heeft met gewapende groepen in dat land en hen ondersteunt……..

VS staat deel Syrië af na overleg met Rusland, geen nieuws voor de reguliere westerse media……….

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

De kop
op dit bericht is, niet zoals die boven het artikel van Creative
Commons, waarvan ik het overnam. Volgens CC heeft de VS een deel van
Syrië afgestaan aan de Russen. Echter dat is natuurlijk kul, oké de
VS zal zogenaamd niet direct willen overleggen met de
democratisch gekozen regering Assad, maar uiteraard gaat dit deel
gewoon naar de ‘de rechtmatige eigenaar’ en dat is nog altijd de huidige
regering Assad en daarmee het Syrische volk……

Het
geeft wel aan dat de VS inziet eigenlijk niets meer te zoeken
te hebben in Syrië. Niet voor niets dus dat de Britse generaal-majoor
Felix Gedney, plaatsvervangend hoofd militaire operatie ‘Inherent
Resolve’, de media probeerde te halen met het verhaal dat hij IS
troepen dwars door een gebied zag trekken dat in handen is van het Syrische leger, zonder dat hen een strobreed in de weg werd
gelegd door datzelfde leger…….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

De
zak Gedney denkt blijkbaar dat iedereen dom is, het Syrische leger laat geen kans onbenut om IS te bestrijden en mocht zoiets gebeuren, het laten lopen van vijanden, is dit om
verder bloedvergieten onder de bevolking te voorkomen…….
Overigens hebben de VS en Irak grote groepen IS strijders met wapens
en al richting Syrië laten vertrekken, al voor de val van West-Mosul
en ook uit Raqqa heeft de VS duizenden bewapende IS strijders laten
vertrekken met wapens en al…… 


Het is de VS dan ook niet voor niets van meet af aan te doen Assad ten val te brengen, vandaar ook dat de VS vooralsnog aangeeft te
blijven in Syrië om IS te bestrijden, terwijl de VS volkomen illegaal op Syrische
grondgebied is en IS zo goed als verslagen is……. Gelukkig dat de VS in ziet dat haar aanwezig zijn in Syrië onhoudbaar is. Blijkbaar dacht Gedney de VS te hulp moeten schieten met zijn lullige opmerking, waarvoor hij zelfs geen bewijzen kon aandragen, zo van: “Gelooft u mij maar op m’n blauwe ogen……..” Natuurlijk deed Gedney dit met de opzet de VS in Syrië te houden…….Te zot voor woorden!

De
reguliere westerse (massa-) media hebben aan deze overdracht van
grondgebied door de VS aan Syrië geen aandacht besteed, logisch immers dit
geeft eens te meer aan dat ze partijdig ‘nieuws’ hebben gebracht en
dat hun claim dat de VS terecht op Syrische bodem was, niet wordt
gestaafd door de werkelijkheid!

Daarnaast
hebben die media de ene leugen na de andere verteld over de strijd in
Syrië, men sprak over gematigde rebellen, terwijl dit psychopathische
moordenaars, verkrachters en martelbeulen zijn… Ook daar is men bij de media intussen achtergekomen en je hoort geen hond nog over de dappere ‘gematigde
rebellen’, nou ja, op een enkele oprisping na, meestal als het Syrian
Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) weer leugens rondstrooit*, het SOHR dat geleid en bemand wordt door
een gewezen Syrische misdadiger die het land moest ontvluchten
vanwege een terechte veroordeling…… Echter ook de White Helmets worden nog steeds graag opgevoerd als een humanitaire ngo, terwijl dit door GB opgezette orgaan een onderdeel is van Al Qaida Syrië……… (dat op haar beurt door de VS van de zwarte lijst werd gehaald…..)

Het
AD durfde vorig jaar te stellen dat bij de laatste gifgasaanval op
Khan Sheikhoun Rusland al van te voren op de hoogte was van die
aanval…… Dit terwijl iedereen kan weten dat Syrië geen gifgas in
het bezit heeft, precies zoals in het geval van Irak (onder Saddam Hoessein), ook dit land had geen massavernietigingswapens (iets dat de media destijds ook bleven
herhalen, ‘zelfs’ de NRC…)… Toch begon de VS in 2003 een oorlog tegen dat land, dit alweer gesteund door de reguliere westerse (massa-) media……. Deze illegale oorlog heeft tot nu toe meer dan 1,5 miljoen doden (vermoord) gekost……


Moet je nagaan, die media hebben een enorme grote bek over ‘fake news’ (of ‘nepnieuws’), terwijl ze zelf de absolute meesters zijn in het brengen van ‘fake news….’


Uiteindelijk bleek er in Khan Sheikhoun een opslag van
gifgas te zijn getroffen, een opslag in het bezit van Al Qaida Syrië, maar van
zenuwgas was geen sprake, het was chloorgas…. ‘Uiteraard’ werd dit bericht niet gebracht door de westerse media, ook aan het feit dat
de ‘gematigde rebellen’ voorraden gifgas hadden en hebben, besteedden en besteden de westerse
reguliere media geen aandacht……. 

Nog
even terugkomend op het laten lopen van IS en ander geteisem: telkens
als Rusland en Syrië wat van die lui laten lopen heeft men een grote
bek in de media, echter als de VS hetzelfde overduidelijk doet en dat met grote aantallen terroristen, wordt
er amper of geen schande van gesproken (en dan liet men deze psychopaten, zoals gezegd, ook nog eens gaan met wapens en
al)……… 

De
schrijver van het volgende artikel, Darius Shahtahmasebi vermoedt dat
de VS haar aandacht volledig op Iran zal richten en ‘ik vrees dat hij
gelijk heeft…’ (dat is gewoon een feit en niet van vandaag of
gisteren, al is die aandacht de laatste maanden wel flink geïntensiveerd…..)

US
Quietly Ceded Part of Syria to Russia Last Week and Nobody Is Talking
About It

January
2, 2018 at 9:08 am

Written
by Darius
Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA) — The
U.S. has quietly ceded some arenas of the war in Syria to Russia and
its allies,according to
the Military
Times.

The
U.S. and Russia have been supporting opposing factions on the ground
to claim as much territory as possible along the Euphrates River
Valley in eastern Syria in the last few months of the war. Even so,
the U.S. has apparently given up its longstanding bid to confront the
Syrian government directly, though not without taking a political
stab at Syria and Russia first.

“We
are seeing the movement of limited numbers of ISIS militants
westward,” said
British Army Maj. Gen Felix Gedney, deputy commander for strategy and
support for Operation Inherent Resolve. “They
seem to be moving with impunity through regime-held territory showing
that the regime is either unwilling or unable to defeat [ISIS] within
their borders.”

Gedney’s
accusation is surprising considering it recently
emerged that
the U.S. intentionally allowed safe passage for thousands of ISIS
fighters leaving Raqqa unscathed. His accusation also runs contrary
to the reality that the Syrian regime is the most
heavily engaged entity fighting
in Syria.

That
being said, Gedney’s allegations detract from the real development
that has gone largely unnoticed — the U.S.-led coalition has
announced it has “no intention to operate in areas that are
currently held by the regime.”

As
the Military Times notes, this decision came as
Russia announced its plans to enter  into a long-term agreement
with Syria for a permanent military presence. The agreement will
entail that Russia will expand its naval base at Tartus, with Russian
land and air forces remaining at Hmeymim Air Base.

The
decision also comes on the heels of Russia’s call for U.S. forces
to leave the country completely.Approximately
a week ago,
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s envoy for Syria, Alexander
Lavrentiev, said there was no longer a reason for the U.S. to
maintain a military presence in Syria and that Washington’s reasons
for staying were baseless.

“Any
reasons cited by the Americans to justify their further military
presence … are just excuses and we think their presence must
end,” Lavrentiev
allegedly told reporters.

In
other words, Russia’s permanent military presence means that
Washington has been forced to admit its movements in Syria will be
completely restricted. The two military superpowers essentially
have no-fly zones of
their own established in different parts of the country, but only one
of them has the authority to fly there, and the U.S. is well
aware of
this legal disparity.

However,
according to Gedney, the U.S. will continue to remain in Syria –
illegally – to defeat ISIS in the areas its partnered forces
control on the ground. Even with Washington’s stubborn approach to
occupying Syrian territory, the recent admission suggests the U.S.
knows there is little they can do in Syria without taking on Russia
directly.

Perhaps
this is why the attention is being
diverted from
Syria towards Iran — another longtime American adversary —
 instead.

Creative
Commons / Anti-Media / Report
a typo

========================================

* SOHR komt voor het grootste deel met leugens, die moeten aantonen hoe slecht Assad bezig is. Echter regelmatig brengt het SOHR berichten die wel kloppen, berichten die te controleren zijn. Blijkbaar vinden de reguliere media (en een groot deel van de westerse politici) dat dit laatste genoeg is, om alles maar over te nemen wat het SOHR durft te brengen……… Oh ja dom van mij, zeker de politici weten dondersgoed wat te verwachten van het SOHR, maar het past gewoon ‘mooi in het ingeslagen leugenpad…….

nl Nederlands
nl Nederlandsen Englishru Русскийes Españolzh-CN 简体中文fr Françaisde Deutschhi हिन्दीit Italianopt Português