Vladimir Putin has issued his strongest warning yet of fresh military interventions in the Middle East, with lawless Libya and war-torn Yemen in the Kremlin’s crosshairs.
The Russian president said his priority was to protect citizens living abroad, regardless of where they were.
That could include action to safeguard Russians living in the North African state of Libya, which has been ravaged by violent ISIS terrorists since the fall of dictator Colonel Gaddafi.
Speaking at the fifth World Congress of Compatriots in Moscow, Mr Putin said: “People who are not in Russia due to various reasons should be firmly sure: we will always protect your interests.”
“Moreover, in difficult and crisis situations, such as in Libya, Syria or Yemen.”
Russia has been providing humanitarian aid to Yemen since the outbreak of the civil war in March
At the final plenary session of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club on October 22, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said that Washington relies not on diplomacy, discussion, and compromise, but on lies and coercion and treats its allies not as allies but as vassals. Putin described the folly of Washington’s plan to “fight terrorism” while using the terrorists to overthrow governments that refuse to be Washington’s vassals.
Every time I read a Putin speech, I encounter a highly intelligent and moral person who is trying to lead the world to peace and away from war.
This topic of this year’s Valdai conference is Societies Between War and Peace: Overcoming the Logic of Conflict in Tomorrow’s World. In the period between October 19 and 22, experts from 30 countries have been considering various aspects of the perception of war and peace both in the public consciousness and in international relations, religion and economic interaction between states.
* * *
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen,
Allow me to greet you here at this regular meeting of the Valdai International Club.
It is true that for over 10 years now this has been a platform to discuss the most pressing issues and consider the directions and prospects for the development of Russia and the whole world. The participants change, of course, but overall, this discussion platform retains its core, so to speak – we have turned into a kind of mutually understanding environment.
We have an open discussion here; this is an open intellectual platform for an exchange of views, assessments and forecasts that are very important for us here in Russia. I would like to thank all the Russian and foreign politicians, experts, public figures and journalists taking part in the work of this club.
This year the discussion focusses on issues of war and peace. This topic has clearly been the concern of humanity throughout its history. Back in ancient times, in antiquity people argued about the nature, the causes of conflicts, about the fair and unfair use of force, of whether wars would always accompany the development of civilisation, broken only by ceasefires, or would the time come when arguments and conflicts are resolved without war.
I’m sure you recalled our great writer Leo Tolstoy here. In his great novel War and Peace, he wrote that war contradicted human reason and human nature, while peace in his opinion was good for people.
True, peace, a peaceful life have always been humanity’s ideal. State figures, philosophers and lawyers have often come up with models for a peaceful interaction between nations. Various coalitions and alliances declared that their goal was to ensure strong, ‘lasting’ peace as they used to say. However, the problem was that they often turned to war as a way to resolve the accumulated contradictions, while war itself served as a means for establishing new post-war hierarchies in the world.
Meanwhile peace, as a state of world politics, has never been stable and did not come of itself. Periods of peace in both European and world history were always been based on securing and maintaining the existing balance of forces. This happened in the 17th century in the times of the se-called Peace of Westphalia, which put an end to the Thirty Years’ War. Then in the 19th century, in the time of the Vienna Congress; and again 70 years ago in Yalta, when the victors over Nazism made the decision to set up the United Nations Organisation and lay down the principles of relations between states.
With the appearance of nuclear weapons, it became clear that there could be no winner in a global conflict. There can be only one end – guaranteed mutual destruction. It so happened that in its attempt to create ever more destructive weapons humanity has made any big war pointless.
Incidentally, the world leaders of the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and even 1980s did treat the use of armed force as an exceptional measure. In this sense, they behaved responsibly, weighing all the circumstances and possible consequences.
The end of the Cold War put an end to ideological opposition, but the basis for arguments and geopolitical conflicts remained. All states have always had and will continue to have their own diverse interests, while the course of world history has always been accompanied by competition between nations and their alliances. In my view, this is absolutely natural.
The main thing is to ensure that this competition develops within the framework of fixed political, legal and moral norms and rules. Otherwise, competition and conflicts of interest may lead to acute crises and dramatic outbursts.
We have seen this happen many times in the past. Today, unfortunately, we have again come across similar situations. Attempts to promote a model of unilateral domination, as I have said on numerous occasions, have led to an imbalance in the system of international law and global regulation, which means there is a threat, and political, economic or military competition may get out of control.
What, for instance, could such uncontrolled competition mean for international security? A growing number of regional conflicts, especially in ‘border’ areas, where the interests of major nations or blocs meet. This can also lead to the probable downfall of the system of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (which I also consider to be very dangerous), which, in turn, would result in a new spiral of the arms race.
We have already seen the appearance of the concept of the so-called disarming first strike, including one with the use of high-precision long-range non-nuclear weapons comparable in their effect to nuclear weapons.
The use of the threat of a nuclear missile attack from Iran as an excuse, as we know, has destroyed the fundamental basis of modern international security – the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The United States has unilaterally seceded from the treaty. Incidentally, today we have resolved the Iranian issue and there is no threat from Iran and never has been, just as we said.
The thing that seemed to have led our American partners to build an anti-missile defence system is gone. It would be reasonable to expect work to develop the US anti-missile defence system to come to an end as well. What is actually happening? Nothing of the kind, or actually the opposite – everything continues.
Recently the United States conducted the first test of the anti-missile defence system in Europe. What does this mean? It means we were right when we argued with our American partners. They were simply trying yet again to mislead us and the whole world. To put it plainly, they were lying. It was not about the hypothetical Iranian threat, which never existed. It was about an attempt to destroy the strategic balance, to change the balance of forces in their favour not only to dominate, but to have the opportunity to dictate their will to all: to their geopolitical competition and, I believe, to their allies as well. This is a very dangerous scenario, harmful to all, including, in my opinion, to the United States.
The nuclear deterrent lost its value. Some probably even had the illusion that victory of one party in a world conflict was again possible – without irreversible, unacceptable, as experts say, consequences for the winner, if there ever is one.
In the past 25 years, the threshold for the use of force has gone down noticeably. The anti-war immunity we have acquired after two world wars, which we had on a subconscious, psychological level, has become weaker. The very perception of war has changed: for TV viewers it was becoming and has now become an entertaining media picture, as if nobody dies in combat, as if people do not suffer and cities and entire states are not destroyed.
Unfortunately, military terminology is becoming part of everyday life. Thus, trade and sanctions wars have become today’s global economic reality – this has become a set phrase used by the media. The sanctions, meanwhile, are often used also as an instrument of unfair competition to put pressure on or completely ‘throw’ competition out of the market. As an example, I could take the outright epidemic of fines imposed on companies, including European ones, by the United States. Flimsy pretexts are being used, and all those who dare violate the unilateral American sanctions are severely punished.
You know, this may not be Russia’s business, but this is a discussion club, therefore I will ask: Is that the way one treats allies? No, this is how one treats vassals who dare act as they wish – they are punished for misbehaving.
Last year a fine was imposed on a French bank to a total of almost $9 billion – $8.9 billion, I believe. Toyota paid $1.2 billion, while the German Commerzbank signed an agreement to pay $1.7 billion into the American budget, and so forth.
We also see the development of the process to create non-transparent economic blocs, which is done following practically all the rules of conspiracy. The goal is obvious – to reformat the world economy in a way that would make it possible to extract a greater profit from domination and the spread of economic, trade and technological regulation standards.
The creation of economic blocs by imposing their terms on the strongest players would clearly not make the world safer, but would only create time bombs, conditions for future conflicts.
The World Trade Organisation was once set up. True, the discussion there is not proceeding smoothly, and the Doha round of talks ended in a deadlock, possibly, but we should continue looking for ways out and for compromise, because only compromise can lead to the creation of a long-term system of relations in any sphere, including the economy. Meanwhile, if we dismiss that the concerns of certain countries – participants in economic communication, if we pretend that they can be bypassed, the contradictions will not go away, they will not be resolved, they will remain, which means that one day they will make themselves known.
As you know, our approach is different. While creating the Eurasian Economic Union we tried to develop relations with our partners, including relations within the Chinese Silk Road Economic Belt initiative. We are actively working on the basis of equality in BRICS, APEC and the G20.
The global information space is also shaken by wars today, in a manner of speaking. The ‘only correct’ viewpoint and interpretation of events is aggressively imposed on people, certain facts are either concealed or manipulated. We are all used to labelling and the creation of an enemy image.
The authorities in countries that seemed to have always appealed to such values as freedom of speech and the free dissemination of information – something we have heard about so often in the past – are now trying to prevent the spreading of objective information and any opinion that differs from their own; they declare it hostile propaganda that needs to be combatted, clearly using undemocratic means.
Unfortunately, we hear the words war and conflict ever more frequently when talking about relations between people of different cultures, religions and ethnicity. Today hundreds of thousands of migrants are trying to integrate into a different society without a profession and without any knowledge of the language, traditions and culture of the countries they are moving to. Meanwhile, the residents of those countries – and we should openly speak about this, without trying to polish things up – the residents are irritated by the dominance of strangers, rising crime rate, money spent on refugees from the budgets of their countries.
Many people sympathise with the refugees, of course, and would like to help them. The question is how to do it without infringing on the interests of the residents of the countries where the refugees are moving. Meanwhile, a massive uncontrolled shocking clash of different lifestyles can lead, and already is leading to growing nationalism and intolerance, to the emergence of a permanent conflict in society.
Colleagues, we must be realistic: military power is, of course, and will remain for a long time still an instrument of international politics. Good or bad, this is a fact of life. The question is, will it be used only when all other means have been exhausted? When we have to resist common threats, like, for instance, terrorism, and will it be used in compliance with the known rules laid down in international law. Or will we use force on any pretext, even just to remind the world who is boss here, without giving a thought about the legitimacy of the use of force and its consequences, without solving problems, but only multiplying them.
We see what is happening in the Middle East. For decades, maybe even centuries, inter-ethnic, religious and political conflicts and acute social issues have been accumulating here. In a word, a storm was brewing there, while attempts to forcefully rearrange the region became the match that lead to a real blast, to the destruction of statehood, an outbreak of terrorism and, finally, to growing global risks.
A terrorist organisation, the so-called Islamic State, took huge territories under control. Just think about it: if they occupied Damascus or Baghdad, the terrorist gangs could achieve the status of a practically official power, they would create a stronghold for global expansion. Is anyone considering this? It is time the entire international community realised what we are dealing with – it is, in fact, an enemy of civilisation and world culture that is bringing with it an ideology of hatred and barbarity, trampling upon morals and world religious values, including those of Islam, thereby compromising it.
We do not need wordplay here; we should not break down the terrorists into moderate and immoderate ones. It would be good to know the difference. Probably, in the opinion of certain experts, it is that the so-called moderate militants behead people in limited numbers or in some delicate fashion.
In actual fact, we now see a real mix of terrorist groups. True, at times militants from the Islamic State, Jabhat al-Nusra and other Al-Qaeda heirs and splinters fight each other, but they fight for money, for feeding grounds, this is what they are fighting for. They are not fighting for ideological reasons, while their essence and methods remain the same: terror, murder, turning people into a timid, frightened, obedient mass.
In the past years the situation has been deteriorating, the terrorists’ infrastructure has been growing, along with their numbers, while the weapons provided to the so-called moderate opposition eventually ended up in the hands of terrorist organisations. Moreover, sometimes entire bands would go over to their side, marching in with flying colours, as they say.
Why is it that the efforts of, say, our American partners and their allies in their struggle against the Islamic State has not produced any tangible results? Obviously, this is not about any lack of military equipment or potential. Clearly, the United States has a huge potential, the biggest military potential in the world, only double crossing is never easy. You declare war on terrorists and simultaneously try to use some of them to arrange the figures on the Middle East board in your own interests, as you may think.
It is impossible to combat terrorism in general if some terrorists are used as a battering ram to overthrow the regimes that are not to one’s liking. You cannot get rid of those terrorists, it is only an illusion to think you can get rid of them later, take power away from them or reach some agreement with them. The situation in Libya is the best example here.
Let us hope that the new government will manage to stabilise the situation, though this is not a fact yet. However, we need to assist in this stabilisation.
To be continued.
Ruling the country for for 41 years until his demise in October 2011, Muammar Gaddafi did some truly amazing things for his country and repeatedly tried to unite and empower the whole of Africa.So despite what you’ve heard on the radio, seen in the media or on the TV Gaddafi did some powerful things that were not very reminiscent of a vicious dictator.
Here are ten things Gaddafi did for Libya that you may not know about…
1. In Libya a home is considered a natural human right
In Gaddafi’s Green Book it states: ”The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not be owned by others”. Gaddafi’s Green Book is the formal leader’s political philosophy, it was first published in 1975 and was intended reading for all Libyans even being included in the national curriculum.
2. Education and medical treatment were all free
Under Gaddafi’s reign Libya could boast one of the best healthcare services in the Arab and African world. Also if a Libyan citizen could not access the desired educational course or correct medical treatment in Libya they were funded to go abroad.
3. Gaddafi carried out the worlds largest irrigation project
The largest irrigation system in the world also known as the great manmade river was designed to make water readily available to all Libyan’s across the entire country. It was funded by the Gaddafi government and it said that Gaddafi himself called it ”the eighth wonder of the world”.
4. It was free to start a farming business
If any Libyan wanted to start a farm they were given a house, farm land and live stock and seeds all free of charge.
5. A bursary was given to mothers with newborn babies
When a Libyan woman gave birth she was given 5000 (US dollars) for herself and the child.
6. Electricity was free
Electricity was free in Libya meaning absolutely no electric bills!
7. Cheap petrol
During Gaddafi’s reign the price of petrol in Libya was as low as 0.14 (US dollars) per litre.
8. Gaddafi raised the level of education
Before Gaddafi only 25% of Libyans were literate. He bought that figure up to 87% under his rule with 25% earning university degrees.
9. Libya had It’s own state bank
Libya was the only country in the world to have a bank owned by the state meaning they were able to give loans to citizens at zero percent interest by law and they had no external debt.
10. The gold dinar
Before the fall of Tripoli and his untimely demise Gaddafi was trying to introduce a single African currency made of gold. Following in the foot steps of the late great pioneer Marcus Garvey who first coined the term ”United States of Africa”. Gaddafi wanted to introduce and only trade in the African gold Dinar – a move which would have thrown the world economy into chaos.
The Dinar was widely opposed by the ‘elite’ of today’s society and who could blame them. African nations would have finally had the power to bring itself out of debt and poverty and only trade in this precious commodity. They would have been able to finally say ‘no’ to external exploitation and charge whatever they felt suitable for precious resources. It has been said that the gold Dinar was the real reason for the NATO led rebellion, in a bid to oust the outspoken leader.
Who can save us if we are all too busy, and when so many of our institutions collectively oppose us?
[ Editor’s note: Christopher Black, international criminal lawyer, focuses on the Western and NATO wars of aggression in Ukraine and Syria, pointing out that the public is complicit in such crimes against humanity since they turn their backs to it. That is a bit harsh in a way, and then not. The public push back in it is nil, but then what can it really do?
The distinction between NATO and the major Western combatants has become purposely blurred. Anything that NATO cannot do at a particular time due to a temporary technicality can be done by one of the member countries. NATO can then be brought in later down the road to drag the member countries along, including the unwilling.
The NATO coalition has taken on a life of its own, and despite most of its funding, equipment and especially its reserves being American, the average taxpayer has no more control over what it does than the man in the moon. This is no accident, as these complex international coalitions are designed to free them from public input and influence through a very long chain of command.
Mr. Black’s article got lost in the shuffle after our VT trip to Syria, due to our being buried under when we got back, and the Russian war drums beating for the starting of their counter terrorism effort in Syria. But I wanted to go back and still run this piece, as getting the legal side of the Syrian war from a criminal attorney versus a commentator should be part of our information mix to our readers.
The charade of the Western coalition against ISIL has been exposed for all to see. Once again, I have to use one of my favorite lines, “Never has so little been owed by so many to so few”, than this Western coalition and the NATO command. More and more, people, including many in the military and Intel community, are beginning to view them in a surprising new light… as major national security threats in themselves. And to make it even worse, we actually get charged for their services.
Right now, we don’t see much we can do to roll back the disconnect between us and them, as we could be viewed as an occupied people in terms of how little control we have over what they do. The whole area of international affairs could be put into that category, like the super trade bill that is being pushed upon us in total secrecy.
When Jimmy Carter said that we don’t really have much of a democracy any more, that did not generate even a whimper among the grassroots folks. Who can save us if we are all too busy, and when so many of our institutions collectively oppose us?… Jim W. Dean ]
– First published … September 24, 2015 –
The news that the United States asked both Greece and Bulgaria to block Russian flights over their airspace headed for Syria is a logical extension of the criminality of the aggression against Syria being conducted by the NATO powers and their allies in the region.
The NATO alliance has been conducting a war of aggression against Syria since 2011 when it succeeded in destroying Libya and it was responsible for the waves of humanity who fled the NATO bombing and who now flee the Takfiri militants NATO used as their auxiliaries.
These actions are clearly war crimes of the highest order, contemptuous violations of the UN Charter, international law and of all morality. The resulting misery of the peoples of the countries under attack, who are forced to flee and become refugees in the heart of the very alliance that is attacking them, is beyond words.
The images bombard us daily. But the images are not placed in the western media to create a call for peace in the region. Instead, as we see from the recent statements of the British, French and American leaders, they are used to manipulate the emotions of the citizens of the NATO countries to justify a call for more military aggression against Syria which will create more misery, more death and more refugees.
That the flood of stories in the western press about the Syrian refugees is being used as a propaganda tool to is easy to see when we compare the situation regarding refugees from Libya and Ukraine. The Libyan people have been fleeing the hell that NATO created for four years now, with thousands of people arriving in Europe, mostly on the shores of Italy.
But there has been no call to attack the vicious thugs that NATO installed in place of the progressive socialist Libyan Republic; no call to bring back the civilized society that existed before Gaddafi was brutally murdered by the same forces; no call for regime change in Tripoli. Instead, chaos and gangsterism prevail, and all is well.
In Ukraine over a million people have fled the Kiev junta’s massive armed attacks on its own people — the type of attacks that NATO countries alleged Gaddafi had used on his own people to justify their attack on Libya.
The US puppets in Kiev have used bombing raids on civilians, white phosphorus shells, cluster bombs and other banned weapons, and they have used them not on military targets of the people’s resistance forces but on civilian houses, shops, schools, hospitals, power stations and other civilian infrastructure. Food and medical supplies are blockaded.
The people of the Donbas are under siege. All these actions are war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Yet the western media says not a single word about them. There is no call from Washington or London or Paris or Ottawa to bomb Kiev and remove Poroshenko. Instead they supply him and his Nazi friends with weapons, supplies and money and send in their own forces to assist in these criminal attacks.
The double standards applied and the deep hypocrisy and cynicism displayed by the NATO governments and the western news media that provide the information flow to the people, must shake anyone’s belief in the viability of western civilization.
In stark contrast, Russia has taken in over a million refugees so far from Ukraine without complaint while the EU countries argue bitterly amongst themselves as to who should take the refugees they have created and while they fan the flames of xenophobia among their own populations.
But then the motivations are completely different. The Russians want to help the people being attacked by NATO and its puppet regime in Kiev. The Europeans only want to use the refugees as a means of creating hysteria in Europe so that their people will support a combined NATO attack on Syria.
Since these EU countries in one way or another support the forces attacking Syria they are responsible under international law for receiving and caring for the refugees they have created. They must follow certain humane standards in the treatment of them, but instead we see images of them being fed like animals or being kicked and tripped up by the very media sent to report on the crisis.
But now the situation has escalated further with the United States demanding that Greece and Bulgaria block relief supplies from Russia from using their air space, an attempt to completely block these supplies. Greece has found the courage to refuse the request. Bulgaria to its shame has decided to lick their boots.
The Americans try to justify their demand by claiming that some of those flights are used to deliver military supplies to Syria. Yes, and so what? Russia has every right to support the Syrian government in its fight against the NATO-Saudi, Israeli auxiliaries who are fighting in Syria under the acronyms ISIS or ISIL or Al Qaeda and has been openly doing so since the beginning.
There is no UN-approved arms embargo against Syria and the United States and its allies are daily dropping supplies to these same groups and have let it be known that their special forces are operating on the ground alongside those forces.
Just the other day another story broke of the Israeli Army airlifting wounded from these groups for treatment in Israeli occupied zones and one must wonder if those selectively helped are not indeed Israeli special forces themselves.
The Americans and Bulgarians are not just worried about more Russian military supplies from being delivered. They also want the Syrian people to experience the maximum state of misery and despair to punish them for their support of their government and to try to force them to turn against it.
Indeed, the Russian and Syrian governments affirm that many of those flights are delivering much needed humanitarian relief including medical supplies, generators for hospitals, food, tents for internal refugees, and related supplies to relieve the distress of the Syrian people in the face of the American provoked attacks on them.
One has to ask, where are the American and European relief supplies for the Syrian people? Where are the ships and planes that should be carrying the same supplies the Russians are delivering?
If they had delivered them and if they had insisted that the attacks on Syria stop there would not be any refugees. But they want the refugees to generate war propaganda and so they do not want relief supplies to get through.
The attempt to blockade the delivery of humanitarian assistance amounts to a war crime under international law, including the the Geneva Conventions, the Nuremberg Principles and the Statute of Rome that sets out the definitions of war crimes under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
The attempted blockade of humanitarian assistance constitutes murder, inhuman treatment, collective punishment, an action designed to bring about the physical destruction of the population and the nation, and other related crimes committed against the Syrian civilian population.
Every European leader who takes part in this criminal conspiracy should be charged with war crimes. The American president should be Number One in the dock.
But international criminal law continues to be administered by criminals and we watch with disbelief the complete silence of the prosecutor at the International Criminal Court who sits in her office in The Hague and twiddles her thumbs while Damascus, Aleppo and Donetsk burn. The cartloads of the dead overflow the cemeteries. The misery of the living mounts.
The hope that is left for peace and security, even for a little kindness in this life, drips out of our veins with every drop of blood shed by the victims of these NATO wars. It is very easy to despair. I despair. But we must resist. We must demand these wars stop.
We must stop sitting around facebooking and surfing the internet, get out of these artificial worlds they have built to turn us into zombies of the living and get back on the streets where we still count, where they still fear us and where we can shout our demands so loud they will shake the walls of the state itself.
Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto, he is a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada and he is known for a number of high-profile cases involving human rights and war crimes, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Let us start with an historical fact. Treason and betrayal by the highest levels is a common feature of history, whether it is Judas vs Jesus, Brutus vs Julius Caesar, Benedict Arnold, the Rosenbergs, Jonathan Pollard, Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen. It is just a fact of life. It does happen.
Back in 1996, when Bill Clinton was running for re-election, he authorized the transfer of highly sensitive technology to China. This technology had military applications and allowed China to close the gap in missile performance with the United States. The transfers were opposed and severely criticized by the Defense Department.
At the same time Bill Clinton was transferring this technology to China, huge donations began to pour into his re-election campaign from the US companies allowed to sell the technology to China, and from American citizens of Chinese descent. The fact that they were US citizens allowed them to donate to political campaigns, but it later emerged that they were acting as conduits for cash coming in from Asian sources, including Chinese Intelligence Agencies! The scandal eventually became known as China-gate!
A close associate of Indonesian industrialist James Riady, Huang initially was appointed deputy secretary of commerce in 1993. By 1995, however, he moved to the Democratic National Committee where he generated hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal contributions from foreign sources. Huang later pleaded guilty to one felony count of campaign finance violations.
Like John Huang, Trie raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal contributions from foreign sources to Democratic campaign entities. He was a regular White House visitor and arranged meetings of foreign operators with Clinton, including one who was a Chinese arms dealer. His $450,000 contribution to Clinton’s legal defense fund was returned after it was found to have been largely funded by Asian interests. Trie was convicted of violating campaign finance laws in 1998.
Gave more than $366,000 to the Democratic National Committee prior to the 1996 campaign, but it was returned after officials learned it came from illegal foreign sources. Chung later told a special Senate committee investigating 1996 Clinton campaign fund-raising that $35,000 of his contributions came from individuals in Chinese intelligence. Chung pleaded guilty to bank fraud, tax evasion and campaign finance violations.
Chinagate, documented by Judicial Watch, was uncovered by Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman. Technology companies allegedly made donations of millions of dollars to various Democratic Party entities, including President Bill Clinton’s 1996 re-election campaign, in return for permission to sell high-tech secrets to China. Bernard Schwartz and his Loral Space & Communication Ltd. later allegedly “helped China to identify the cause of [a rocket failure], thereby advancing China’s missile program and threatening U.S. national security, according to records.
This establishes a history of the Clintons treating US secrets as their own personal property, and selling them to raise money for campaigns!
Is history repeating itself? It appears so!
Let us consider a private email server with weak security, at least one known totally open access point, no encryption at all, and outside the control and monitoring systems of the US government, on which are parked many of the nation’s most closely guarded secrets (as well as those of the United Nations and other foreign governments)! It is already established that Hillary’s email was hacked. One hacker named Guccifer provided copies of emails to Russia Today, which published them. The company that manages Hillary’s server was the victim of a very sophisticated hack attack as well! Another hacker is reported to be offering 32,000 of Hillary’s emails for the sum of $500,000.
Security experts agree that Hillary’s server had worse security than the Ashley Madison website!
Now, consider a charitable foundation owned by the Clintons (which actually does very little charitable work). Being a charitable foundation, it is allowed to accept “donations” from foreign sources, and roughly 40% of the cash that has poured into the Clinton Foundation has come from foreign sources. The identities of many of these foreign sources were concealed using a shall company in Sweden!
Many of those foreign sources received preferential treatment from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sufficient for attorney Larry Klayman to file a RICO lawsuit against the foundation (which as of last report was thrown out of court by a Clinton-appointed judge who refused to recuse himself over the obvious conflict of interest)! Some nations, repeating the 1996 scandal, were granted permission to acquire US weapons after donating to the Clinton “charity!”
Easy means of delivering secrets using the weak private email server. Easy means of accepting payment through a “charitable” foundation!
This is a perfect setup to repeat the 1996 selling of secrets for cash. In other words, a perfect espionage operation, running out the US State Department, with the weak email server providing the secrets and a charitable foundation to accept and launder the payments! Hillary doesn’t have to physically steal the files, the way Jonathan Pollard did. Hillary doesn’t have to scratch an X on a mailbox, the way Aldrich Ames did. Hillary doesn’t have to tape bundles of stolen documents underneath a park bridge, like Robert Hannsen did!
Is this the reason Bryan Pagliano, who set up Hillary Clintojn’s email server, pled the Fifth Amendment when questioned by Congress?
It is time to look past the small scandal of the private email server at what may be a far larger scandal hidden behind it!
Do not count on the Federal Government or corporate media to ask the qwuestion that must be asked. In politics there are two kinds of secrets. There are the small secrets that can be used against political opponents, such as adulterous affairs, or pyaola.
Then there are the great secrets that could bring down the entire governmenmt, such as the truth beind the JFK assassination, the truth behind 9-11, … and the truth behind a serving Secretary of State betraying her country!
By Brother Nathanael Kapner, Copyright 2011
THE BRUTAL MURDER of Muammar Gaddafi by Zionist-owned Libyan insurgents is an example of what happens to political leaders who defy international Jewish bankers.
• A Gaddafi-Centered African Union With A Common Currency Here & Here
• A Gaddafi-Run Central Bank Of Libya Here
• A Gaddafi-Holding Of 150 Tons Of Gold Here
• A Gaddafi-Run Libyan Oil Industry Here
• A Gaddafi-Run ‘Blue-Gold’ Water Reserves Here
IN JULY OF 2011, the son and heir apparent of Muammar Gaddafi, Saif al-Islam, stated that it wasn’t just Libya’s ‘black gold’ (oil) that the Zionist West wants, but Libya’s ‘blue gold’ (water) – the some 500 miles of the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System that lies beneath Libya’s surface.
The Nubian Aquifer is the only fresh water source that remains in North Africa and thus is the focus of what has become known as “Water Wars.”
Two French water firms, the largest in the world, Veolia and Suez SA,” says al-Islam, want to own the Nubian Aquifer, since they will make countless billions in profit from food grown from the water.
Both Veolia and Suez SA, like all multinational corporations, are doubtless funded by Jewish finance capital. And Louis Dreyfus International, a Jewish French firm, would apparently be the food broker.
Al-Islam points out that every IMF and World Bank loan, both controlled by Zionist Jewry, is issued on the condition that the victim-nation sells its water supplies to private investors. View Entire Story Here, Here, Here & Here.
It appears that Saif al-Islam’s testimony against Zionist Jewry has been silenced forever as he has been reportedly encircled by the Zionist-owned Libyan insurgents on October 20, 2011, the same day his father was captured and mercilessly murdered.
Gaddafi’s main threat to International Jewry’s Banking Cartel was his plan for a common African currency—the gold-backed Libyan dinar—which would have replaced the all fiat-issued US dollar, British pound, and French franc as the main currency in Africa.
Jewish banking interests were clearly at stake as the US dollar is maintained by the Jewish-run Federal Reserve Bank; the British pound by the Jewish-run Central Bank of England; and the French franc by the Jewish-run Banque de France.
Is it any surprise then that the three major invaders of Libya — America, England, and France — whose Zionist-bought leaders: Obama, Cameron, & Sarkozy, are praising the brutal and slow murder of Libyan chief, Muammar Gaddafi?
In a quick follow-up to Haass’ blood thirsty call, Jewish neocon Philip Zelikow, former US State Department Counsellor and 9/11 Commission Head, wrote that “Gaddafi’s fall” would spark a “Democratic Spring” (read Jewish puppet governments) throughout the Arab world.
Leading the Zionist fray, it was the same Jewish sleaze balls who brought us the Iraq War through their lies about Saddam’s ‘weapons of mass destruction,’ namely, the “Project for a New American Century,” now reincarnated as, “The Foreign Policy Initiative,” who urged in their June 2011, “Open Letter To House Republicans,” the toppling of Muammar Gaddafi.
THE SIGNATORIES to the Letter read like an invitation to a Bar Mitzvah…this time a very bloody one indeed:
Elliott Abrams, John Podhoretz, Robert and Fred Kagan, Lawrence Kaplan, Robert Lieber, Michael Makovsky, Eric Edelman, Kenneth Weinstein, Paul Wolfowitz, Randy Scheunemann. View Entire Story Here & Here.
And of course, the leader of the Zionist rat pack, Jewish neocon William Kristol, apparently dictates US military policy as evinced in this Fox News interview: “No we cannot leave Gaddafi in power and we won’t leave Gaddafi in power.”
Kristol and his fellow blood-thirsty Jews have now seen their dream come true.
The Zionist Plan For Libya by Brother Nathanael Kapner
The Jews Behind NATO’s Rape Of Libya
The REAL Tribe SEEKING Regime Change In Libya
By Brother Nathanael Kapner, Copyright 2007-2010
Articles May Be Reproduced Only With Authorship of Br Nathanael Kapner
& Link To Real Jew News (SM)
Support Brother Nathanael! HERE
4 REVOLUTIONS WERE ENGINEERED BY WORLD JEWRY.
The first was the English Revolution in 1649 which was financed by Jews from Holland, in which Cromell committed regicide. As the Jewish financiers dictated, Cromwell opened the doors for the return of the ousted Jews to England in 1656.
Building from this, World Jewry initiated, financed, and agitated the French Revolution beginning in 1788, resulting again in regicide and the Jewish subverting of the established Christian order. And Jews profited once again, for in 1789, all civil disabilities against the Jews in France were lifted and the Great Emancipation of the Jews took place.
The third Revolution was the Bolshevik uprising in Russia, of which this treatise focuses. The Bolshevik Revolution was financed by Jewish bankers, led by Jacob H Schiff of the Jewish Banking house, Kuhn, Loeb Co. Jews gained prominent roles in the Soviet government, and for the 3rd time, regicide of a Christian ruler was perpetrated by the Jews.
Dr. Fahey, in his authenticated work, The Rulers Of Russia quotes an American missionary stationed in St Petersburg from 1907 to 1918: “In October 1918, out of 388 members of the revolutionary government only 16 happened to be real Russians. All the rest were Jews with the exception of one negro. Many of these Jews came from the Lower East Side of New York.”
The fourth Revolution was the Spanish Civil War of 1936, financed by Bolshevik Jewry, but successfully opposed by Franco and Germany.
A FIFTH REVOLUTION on an International scale is now at work and headquartered in America. This is the Zionist agenda to create a New World Order whose oligarchs are Jews with names that include: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and William Kristol, the Zionist neocon advisors to the Jewish-bought President George Bush.
The Israel Lobby known as AIPAC is the organizational apparatus of the 5th Revolution now in the making.
IN THE DARK NIGHT OF JULY 16 1918, Tzar Nicholas II and his pious Christian family were shot and bayoneted in cold blood by these Cheka Jews:
1. Jacob Yurovksy, a Jewish Czech
2. Sergei Medvedjev
3. Lev Nikulin, a Jewish Czech
4. Peter Yermakov
5. Fyodor Vaganov, a New York Jew
6. Jacob Sverdlov, (Yankel Solomon), the first President of the Soviet Union. He gave the order to murder the Royal Family. Sverdlov began his Anti Christian career when he joined the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party in 1902.
b) Grigory Apfelbaum (Zinoviev), Director, Soviet Secret Police, seized Church-owned property, murdered tens of thousands of Orthodox Christians.
c) Maxim Wallach (Litvinov), Soviet Foreign Minister.
d) Solomon Lozovsky, Deputy Soviet Foreign Minister.
e) Yuri Andropov, Jewish Director of the Soviet KGB
A PROMINENT JEWISH JOURNALIST now admits that in 1934, 38% of those holding high office in Stalin’s murderous regime were Jews:
1. Lazar Moiseyevich Kaganovich: Millions of Orthodox Christians were murdered by order of Kaganovich. He orderered the destruction of hundreds of Christian churches including Christ The Saviour Cathedral in Moscow.
In 1991, after living the life of a prince, Kaganovich committed suicide in fear of the “open society,” that is, “glasnot” which would have exposed his murderous deeds.
2. Ilya Ehrenburg: Minister of Soviet Propaganda for Stalin. He wrote, “The Germans are not human beings. Nothing gives us greater joy than corpses of Germans.”
3. Yevgeny Khaldei: Red Army photographer. Born in the Ukraine of Jewish parents. He staged the raising of the Hammer & Sickle Flag in the German Reichstag in Berlin in 1945, the emblem of the slaughter of millions of peasants and Christians, describing it as “the Russian national symbol of justice, triumph, and revenge.”
4. Bela Kun (Cohen): Dictator of Hungary in 1919. Kun was later Stalin’s chief terrorist in the Crimea. Kun’s eventual successor was Matyas Rakosi, a Jewish Communist mass murderer of Christians in Hungary.
5. Moshe Pijade: Commander, Yugoslav Communist People’s Army. Tito’s top butcher of hundreds of thousands of Yugoslavian Christians.
ALSO SEE: Bloody Jew Kaganovitch
In a recent statement to Russian Orthodox Christians in America, Putin said, “You now have a believer at the head of Russia’s government.”
Putin has put his money where his mouth is by refusing the request of Russian Jewish scientists to discontinue Russian Christian Orthodoxy 101 in public schools. AndThe International Gay Rights Movement packed its bags in retreat whenÂ Putin consistently banned their Gay Parades in the streets of Moscow ever since his reign began in 2000.
ON NOVEMBER 5 2007, a rally was staged in Moscow celebrating Russian Unity Day. Slogans against Jews were shouted out including, “Death To The Jews!” World Jewry is now criticizing Putin for both allowing the rally and not repudiating it.
See Jerusalem Post’s Russia Slow To Act Against Anti Semitism
Bottom Line: The clock is now ticking before a huge backlash against the Jews occurs both here in America and abroad. Whenever Jews arrogate to themselves overwhelming power, history has taught us that a reaction by the host nations eventually takes place. In order for the Jews to prevent a conflagration, they must place the host nation’s interests before their own Zionist agenda.
For More See: “Pasternak: ‘Jews Must Become Christians’” Click Here
And: “Christians NOT Jews Are God’s Chosen People!” Click Here
And: “How Jews Think” Click Here
CLICK: Brother Nathanael! Street Evangelist!Support Brother Nathanael! HERE
Via Real Jew News
NO OTHER DOCUMENT IN WORLD HISTORY has done more in creating a political class with a distinct racial agenda than the Balfour Declaration.
Succumbing to Jewish pressure in the midst of WWI due to its need for funding from Jewish banks, Britain surrendered its autonomy and eventually its empire when a letter addressed to ‘Lord’ Walter Rothschild from British Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, was made public:
“His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object…” View Balfour Declaration Here.
The key visible figure maneuvering the British government into this commitment was Jewish chemist, Chaim Weizmann, who rose to prominence in England for developing a method of producing acetone from maize which was needed for the production of artillery shells.
Weizmann, like many of his Jewish co-religionists, promoted the initiative to transfer all Arab residents out of Palestine in spite of contradicting the Balfour Declaration’s proviso insuring the “civil rights of existing non-Jewish communities.”
The ethnic cleansing of Palestinians (and the ethnic perpetuation of Jewry) was now in place.
By 1930, specific plans for “the transfer of Palestinians” were refined by leaders such as Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, and Moshe Allon. Meeting for years on a biweekly basis in the “Red House” in Tel Aviv, these leaders agreed on the ‘necessity’ of carrying out the following steps:
• Killing Palestinian Leadership
• Assassinating Palestinian Political & Financial Supporters
• Damaging Palestinian Transportation
• Poisoning Palestinian Wells ( View Entire Story Here, Here, Here, Here, & Here.)
With their plan fulfilled all that was left for International Jewry to embark upon was to ensure the maintenance and propagation of their ‘master race.’
Building on the foundation of Disraeli’s racial views, key Jewish figures during the makings of the Balfour Declaration and long before Hitler’s rise to power, proposed a “eugenics” program to ensure “racially healthy” reproduction among their own: “the best of people.”
Jews played an active role in early eugenics from 1916 thru 1947. Names such as Rabbi Max Reichler, Richard Goldschmidt, and Hermann Muller, were part of a movement that praised the Jews for being of “uniquely superior stock” and possessing a “native endowment of brains.”
According to the National Library in Jerusalem, between 1920 and 1950, some two hundred Parents’ Manuals for Jewish couples were published in Palestine. These publications contained a Zionist worldview of which eugenics formed an integral part, subjecting Jewish mothers to an unremitting program of education, indoctrination and regulation.
One of the most prominent Jewish eugenicists of this period was Dr Joseph Meir, for whom the hospital in Kfar Sava is named, exhorted his co-religionists in 1934 to embrace the idea of racial engineering:
When Israel declared itself an official State in 1948, Jewry no longer saw itself primarily as a “religious group” but also as a “political-racial” entity.
Thus the state of Israel defines itself as a “Jewish state” — not religiously, but racially. Any Jew who can prove his birth from a Jewish mother regardless of whether he goes to synagogue or not can instantly become a citizen of Israel.
Every state wants to expand its power for political reasons.
But for Israel, (in its quest for a Greater Israel), with Palestine being the crossroads of Europe, Asia and Africa — as its strategic center for world control — is doing what no other state throughout history has ever done before.
And that’s to ever-expand its frontiers so as to advance though a nuclear-armed military the anti-Christ cause of a Jewish borderless entity spread throughout the world. And that’s scary…
A sure fire way for a politician in the West to kill their political career is to be labeled as being anti-Semitic. It seems the general popular understanding of the meaning of the word “anti-Semitic” means someone who hates Jews for being Jewish. This ignores the meaning of the word “Semitic” and, in reality, is meaningless.
The word “Semite” does include Jews. HOWEVER, it also includes many other people, including Arabs. Is is incorrect for someone to label someone as being anti-Semitic when they really mean they are anti-Jewish.
The war-mongering for Israel and Judaism father of the neoconservative movement who believed the world should be based on the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, Leo Strauss (who was a Jew), wrote regarding the term “anti-Semite” in his speech/essay Progress or Return?, “… Once progress was indeed achieved, hatred of the Jews could no longer present itself among educated or half-educated people as hatred of the Jews. It had to disguise itself as ‘anti-Semitism,’ a term invented by some bashful German or French pedant of the nineteenth century. It is certainly a most improper term.”
To understand Jewish thought it is necessary to go to the source of Judaism which is the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. There we see a stated desire for the Jewish state of Israel to rule over the world, which makes the US Department of State mistaken by referring to this fact as a myth. The ancient Hebrews/Jews who wrote the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament had a priority on their agenda: land. As leaders of the Jewish people they knew that their own personal power, wealth and influence would increase when the land the Hebrews/Jews controlled increased. This type of thinking is expressed at Deuteronomy 7:1-6 in which the Hebrew/Jewish writers put these words in God’s mouth:
When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee…thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them…For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.
This genocidal Bible teaching makes very clear that those who wrote it, the Jewish clergy who were pretending they were writing for The Supreme Intelligence/God, ordered their fellow Hebrews/Jews to slaughter their neighbors who were all Semitic people. Also revealed in these Bible verses is the motive for the Jewish clergy to issue such orders: job security for the clergy. They portray God as an insecure and fearful entity who is afraid that if the Jews don’t commit genocide against their neighbors, then their neighbors will turn the Jews away from following God. Of course in reality this means if the Jews start to follow a religion other than Judaism, they will stop supporting Judaism with their tithes and offerings and the Jewish clergy will suffer. And after ordering the destruction of these people and their religions the Jewish clergy pumps up the self-image of the Jews with a false sense of Jewish superiority by claiming God chose them “above all people that are upon the face of the earth.”
Deuteronomy 28:1 delivers another blow to the US Department of State’s belief that it is a myth that Judaism teaches Jews that they will rule over the world. It reads, “And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth:” By hearkening diligently to the voice of the LORD thy God in actuality means listening to the voice of the Jewish clergy. God has nothing at all to do with the Bible and its brutality. And this verse makes clear the aim of Judaism is not only for Jews and Israel to rule over Israel and the Middle East, but over “all nations of the earth.”
The Jewish clergy who wrote the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament were aware that not all Gentile people will voluntarily surrender to them. This realization inspired them to put a threat against the Gentile nations who refused to submit to them in their Bible. This threat is found at Isaiah 60:12. In this verse the Jewish clergy put this threat in the mouth of The Supreme Intelligence/God: “For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.” On its face this threat seems far-fetched. However, when you realize that Israel has a growing and unchecked nuclear arsenal that it has been building for decades and also has a growing fleet of high-tech submarines that can deliver nuclear warheads virtually anywhere on our planet, this Biblical threat is getting more and more real by the day.
Thomas Paine understood the purpose of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and warned us about it in his outstanding book on God, Deism and religion, The Age of Reason. In it he wrote things that the US Department of State would probably classify as anti-Semitic. For example he wrote, “The Jews made no converts; they butchered all.”
Paine also wrote in The Age of Reason:
Could we permit ourselves to suppose that the Almighty would distinguish any nation of people by the name of His chosen people, we must suppose that people to have been an example to all the rest of the world of the purest piety and humanity, and not such a nation of ruffians and cut-throats as the ancient Jews were; a people who, corrupted by and copying after such monsters and impostors as Moses and Aaron, Joshua, Samuel and David, had distinguished themselves above all others on the face of the known earth for barbarity and wickedness.
If we will no stubbornly shut our eyes and steel our hearts, it is impossible not to see, in spite of all that long-established superstition imposes upon the mind, that the flattering appellation of His chosen people is no other than a lie which the priests and leaders of the Jews had invented to cover the baseness of their own characters, and which Christian priests, sometimes as corrupt and often as cruel, have professed to believe.
Thomas Paine called on Deists to take a stand against “revealed”/hearsay religions for The Supreme Intelligence/God when he wrote, “It is a duty incumbent on every true Deist, that he vindicate the moral justice of God against the calumnies of the Bible.”
[Slightly Edited to suit the Modern Attention Span]
This article marshals evidence for the proposition that “Israel did it”.
- 1 Acknowledgments
- 2 Control of World Trade Center Complex
- 3 Prior Knowledge
- 4 Mossad connections
- 4.1 U.S. Army Study: On Mossad
- 4.2 Israeli espionage around 9/11
- 4.3 After 9/11 – More detentions of Israelis
- 4.4 Five Dancing Israelis
- 4.5 “We are not your problem”?
- 4.6 Truck Bomb Destined for George Washington Bridge
- 4.7 Mural Van
- 4.8 Urban Moving Systems
- 4.9 Israeli Intelligence and P-tech
- 4.10 MITRE corporation (computer software)
- 4.11 Precision guided plane?
- 4.12 Rabbi Dov Zakheim and Systems Planning Corporation
- 5 The US Military Knows Israel did it
- 6 Cover Up
- 7 Zionist 9/11 Personalities
- 8 Who was on board flight 11?
- 9 Bush Speech Writers Grossly Inflate Number of Israeli Casualties
- 10 Mohammed Atta Leads Us Directly To Jewish Crime Network Doorstep
- 11 Al Qaeda = Mossad Playing Dress Up
- 12 Netanyahu Openly Gleeful of 9/11 Terror Attacks
- 13 Likely Architect of 9/11
- 14 Connected Events Lead to Israel
- 15 Quotes From Prominent People
- 16 Related Documents
- 17 See Also
- 18 References
Read More @ Source: Israel and 9/11 – Index of What Really Happened
PCR 9/11 Fourteen Years Later Millions of refugees from Washington’s wars are currently over-running Europe.
Millions of refugees from Washington’s wars are currently over-running Europe. Washington’s 14-year and ongoing slaughter of Muslims and destruction of their countries are war crimes for which the US government’s official 9/11 conspiracy theory was the catalyst. Factual evidence and science do not support Washington’s conspiracy theory. The 9/11 Commission did not conduct an investigation. It was not permitted to investigate. The Commission sat and listened to the government’s story and wrote it down. Afterwards, the chairman and cochairman of the Commission said that the Commission “was set up to fail.” For a factual explanation of 9/11, watch this film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsoY3AIRUGA&feature=youtu.be
Read More @ Source: 9/11 Fourteen Years Later – PaulCraigRoberts.org
By Jews for Justice in the Middle East
Published in Berkeley, CA, 2001
As the periodic bloodshed continues in the Middle East, the search for an equitable solution must come to grips with the root cause of the conflict. The conventional wisdom is that, even if both sides are at fault, the Palestinians are irrational “terrorists” who have no point of view worth listening to. Our position, however, is that the Palestinians have a real grievance: their homeland for over a thousand years was taken, without their consent and mostly by force, during the creation of the state of Israel. And all subsequent crimes — on both sides — inevitably follow from this original injustice.
This paper outlines the history of Palestine to show how this process occurred and what a moral solution to the region’s problems should consist of. If you care about the people of the Middle East, Jewish and Arab, you owe it to yourself to read this account of the other side of the historical record.
If Americans Knew is dedicated to providing Americans with everything they need to know about Israel and Palestine.
Dissecting the Propaganda
An Israeli publication reported that Russian air power would be increasing in Syria with “Russian jets in Syrian skies,” as the headline read. While all the information came from unnamed “western diplomatic sources,” and was accompanied by little more than assertions of fact without any tangible evidence, the media outcry began almost immediately, with literally hundreds of news outlets reporting the same information. Within 24 hours however, a Russian military source denied the allegations, saying, “There has been no redeployment of Russian combat aircraft to the Syrian Arab Republic…The Russian Air Force is at its permanent bases and carrying out normal troop training and combat duty.”
First appeared: http://journal-neo.org/2015/09/11/western-media-hype-russian-aggression-in-syria/
Read More @ Source: Western Media Hype ‘Russian Aggression’ in Syria | New Eastern Outlook
In this March 13, 1964 file photo, President Lyndon Johnson, right, talks with Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, center sitting, after McNamara returned from a fact-finding trip to South Vietnam, at the White House in Washington. Fifty years ago Sunday, Aug. 10, 2014, reacting to reports of a U.S. Navy encounter with enemy warships in the Gulf of Tonkin off Vietnam, reports long since discredited, Johnson signed a resolution passed overwhelmingly by Congress that historians call the crucial catalyst for deep American involvement in the Vietnam War. (AP Photo/File)
KITCHENER, Ontario — As this is being written, Congress is experiencing extensive and dramatic hand-wringing as it decides between doing what is best for the country and the world or doing what is best for the American Israel Political Affairs Committee. This is no easy task for members of Congress, especially Democrats who, on the one hand, want to assure a “victory” for President Barack Obama, but who are also loathe to displease the Israeli lobby. Whether preventing a war factors into their deliberations is not known.
AIPAC and its countless minions in Congress are painting the recent agreement reached between Iran and the P5+1 (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, plus Germany), as nothing short of the end of Israel.If this deal preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is approved, they warn darkly, Iran will secretly develop nuclear weapons. This will mean the destruction of Israel, they say. But if it isn’t approved, Iran will develop such weapons. This, they say, will also mean the destruction of Israel. Feel free to re-read those sentences whenever time allows.
From this point of view, the only alternative is war, with the ostensible purpose of destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities — capabilities that the Islamic Republic has always said are for peaceful energy purposes. Yet the risk of Iran ever having nuclear weapons is too great. If it did obtain them, then Israel would have a hostile nation to counterbalance its power in the Middle East, and, of course, it doesn’t want that competition. And whatever Israel wants, the U.S. wants. Hence the fear-mongering.
This is a tried-and-true method in the U.S. of getting wars started: Tell lies about some situation that can be construed as a threat to U.S. security (or in this case, Israel’s national security, which seems to be threatened by just about everything), get the populace riled up with jingoistic fervor, watch pompous politicians proclaim their great patriotism on the evening news, and then go bomb some country or other.
Read More @ Source: American False Flags That Started Wars
“Since mankind’s dawn, a handful of oppressors have accepted the responsibility over our lives that we should have accepted for ourselves. By doing so, they took our power. By doing nothing, we gave it away. We’ve seen where their way leads, through camps and wars, towards the slaughterhouse.” ? Alan Moore, V for Vendetta
Read More @ Source: “Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death”: The Loss Of Our Freedoms In The Wake Of 9/11