Maar al te vaak spreekt Henk Hofland namens 'we.' Wantrouw elke journalist en elke politicus die namens alle anderen spreekt.
We zien weer iedere avond op de televisie beelden van lijken, snikkende mensen, verwoeste dorpen, alles wat een oorlog met zich meebrengt. Na de annexatie van de Krim en het begin van de burgeroorlog is dit de derde fase van het drama. Maar de grote vraag is of dit de publieke opinie bereikt. We hebben de hele ontwikkeling op de voet kunnen volgen. Gesteld dat de aanvallers moslims waren geweest, dan had het hele Westen zich waarschijnlijk in een toestand van totale mobilisatie bevonden. Nu het drama zich in ons eigen werelddeel afspeelt, heerst in kringen van de politieke leiding tot dusver een verlammende onenigheid terwijl het publiek de ontwikkelingen lethargisch volgt.
Zo is deze oorlog in Oost-Europa ook een groot probleem voor het Westen geworden…
Op het ogenblik is het niet de vraag hoe de strijd in Oekraïne verder zal verlopen – die wordt voortgezet – maar hoe het met de fundamentele tegenstelling in het Westen verder zal gaan. Zal Obama besluiten wapens te leveren en daarmee een splitsing in de westelijke buitenlandse politiek riskeren? In Amerika ontwikkelt zich de verkiezingsstrijd. De Republikeinen zijn altijd voorstander van een buitenlandse politiek met spierballen. Dat maakt de wapenleveranties waarschijnlijker. Europa heeft meer last van ‘de moslims’. Indirect treft Poetin de Atlantische eenheid.
'We'? Wantrouw elke journalist en elke politicus, die namens alle anderen spreekt. 'We' is een retorische truc van de obscurantist, die doelbewust ernaar streeft andere mensen in onwetendheid te houden en zelfstandig denken te verhinderen. Hij legt de lezer, kijker of luisteraar woorden in de mond. Hoflands 'we' spreekt van een 'fundamentele tegenstelling' tussen 'Amerika' en de 'Europa,' zonder duidelijk te maken over wie hij het precies heeft. De nestor van de polderpers verzwijgt dat het hier handelt om 'fundamentele' economische en dus politieke belangenverschillen tussen enerzijds Washington en Wall Street en anderzijds de EU. Wil de neoliberale economie van Europa werkelijk aantrekken dan heeft het Rusland en China nodig, zowel qua grondstoffen en productie als wat markten betreft. Daarentegen vreest de macht in de VS dat zij haar hegemonie zal verliezen door de opkomst van China als wereldmacht en de economische wedergeboorte van Rusland. Ondertussen excelleert de Amerikaanse industrie alleen nog in de ontwikkeling en productie van wapentuig.
Dit wetende is de vraag: waarom heeft de neoconservatieve vleugel van de Obama-regering de afgelopen jaren, volgens eigen zeggen, 5 miljard dollar geschonken aan de zogeheten 'democratische oppositie' in Oekraïne, terwijl volgens officieel Amerikaans onderzoek 'Half of our nation, by all reasonable estimates of human need, is in poverty'? Het is tekenend dat een land als Oekraïne wordt klaar gestoomd voor dezelfde neoliberale ideologie die in de VS heeft geleid tot algehele verpaupering onder de bevolking, zoals ondermeer blijkt uit 'A recent Bankrate poll,' waarbij werd vastgesteld
that almost two-thirds of Americans didn't have savings available to cover a $500 repair bill or a $1,000 emergency room visit. A related Pew survey concluded that over half of U.S. households have less than one month's income in readily available savings, and that ALL their savings -- including retirement funds -- amounted to only about four months of income. And young adults? A negative savings rate, as reported by the Wall Street Journal. Before the recession their savings rate was a reasonably healthy 5 percent. Over half of Americans have good reason to feel poor. Between 2007 and 2013 median wealth dropped a shocking 40 percent, leaving the poorest half with negative wealth (because of debt), and a full 60% of households owning, in total, about as much as the nation's 94 richest individuals.
Welk belang hebben de EU-lidstaten, die sinds de kredietcrisis van 2008 en de daarop volgende economische neergang op de eigen bevolking blijven bezuinigen, om het failliete en corrupte Oekraïne, waarvan de president een miljardair is, lid te willen maken van de Europese Unie? Waarom is voor de Europese elite het EU-lidmaatschap van Oekraïne een burgeroorlog waard, en het gevaar van een oorlog met Rusland, terwijl in bijvoorbeeld het EU-land Spanje het percentage jeugdwerklozen meer dan 51 procent is? Zou een verstandig mens niet eerst orde op zaken stellen in eigen huis voordat hij nog meer landen lid maakt van een wankele unie? En waarom verzwijgen Hofland en zijn 'politiek-literaire elite' deze vragen? Wat is hun belang? Zij steunen allen het neoliberale kapitalisme dat 58 miljardairs zo rijk heeft gemaakt dat zij nu evenveel bezitten als de helft van de totale wereldbevolking. De motivering voor de corrupte houding van de polderpers is simpel: zij verdient eraan, en ontleent er status aan. Tegelijkertijd is niet langer meer te negeren dat er een 'fundamentele tegenstelling' bestaat tussen de belangen van het Amerikaans militair-industrieel complex en de belangen van de Europese economie. 'Poetin' is weliswaar de aanleiding, maar zeker niet de oorzaak van de 'fundamentele tegenstelling.' Het verzet van Rusland tegen het verder oostwaarts oprukken van de NAVO is onvermijdelijk geweest. Geen enkel land wil volledig omsingeld worden door een vijandig militair bondgenootschap. En zeker niet door de NAVO, onder aanvoering van de de VS, de zwaarst bewapende staat in de geschiedenis der mensheid, waarvan de troepen al in 1918 Rusland binnenvielen om tegen het Rode Leger te vechten, en die na 1945 de meest expansionistische mogendheid is geworden. Maar ook dit verzwijgt opiniefabrikant Henk Hofland, een propagandist voor de, in zijn woorden, 'Atlantische eenheid.' Wat verzwijgt de 87-jarige spreekbuis van de gevestigde orde nog meer? Onder andere het volgende:
Former Ambassador to USSR Matlock Lambastes U.S. Policy on Russia
Jack Matlock, who served as U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, 1987-91, was the featured speaker at an event sponsored by the Committee for the Republic, at the National Press Club in Washington Feb. 11. Here is a transcript of his opening remarks. A video is available on YouTube.
De Amerikaanse oud-ambassadeur in Rusland, Jack Matlock, verklaarde onder meer:
as we negotiated an agreement to end the Cold War, first President [George H.W.] Bush, at a Malta meeting in 1989, and then later, in 1990, almost all the Western leaders, told Gorbachov: If you remove your troops from Eastern Europe, if you let Eastern Europe go free, then we will not take advantage of it.
Now, there’s no way, by moving an alliance that was originally designed to protect Western Europe from the aggression of the East, you move it to the East — how are you going to keep a Europe whole and free? If you have a Europe whole and free, Russia and all the others have to be part of the system… we started expanding NATO.
The Russian reaction at first was not that negative, but then other things began to happen. After 9/11, then-President Putin was the first foreign President to call President [George W.] Bush, and offer cooperation and support. And we got it when we invaded Afghanistan. We got their vote in the UN. We got intelligence support and other support, logistics support, in getting there.
What did they get in return? He [Putin] also removed, without our request, a base, a listening station, in Cuba, and one in Cam Ranh Bay [Vietnam].
We walk out of the ABM Treaty, which was the basis of all of our arms control treaties, and the one in which we could deal with each other as equals. We keep on expanding NATO, and not only expand it, we begin to talk about bases there, about deploying anti-ballistic missiles, for no good reason at all. Supposedly it was to defend the Europeans against the Iranians — the Iranians at that point didn’t have missiles that could attack them, nor was it apparent to many of us why the Iranians would ever want to attack the Europeans. What are they going to get out of that?
The Russian reaction was again to be increasingly hostile. And, of course, we had the outburst in Munich, in 2007, by President Putin… we were simply ignoring the Russian reaction, the inevitable Russian reaction… the process was, that we developed an atmosphere, which, even before this Ukrainian crisis broke upon us, was one of alleged hostility, perceived hostility, I should say, between us. Something that we had, which, at the end of the Cold War, we had ended. And an attitude on both sides that we were facing each other not only as competitors, but adversaries, and that we were in what you call a zero-sum game. Anything that the U.S. wanted, would be to Russia’s detriment. Anything that Russia wanted, is to the U.S. detriment. That was precisely the attitude that we put an end to, to end the Cold War…
How the Russians See It. Now, what do we see has happened? I can give you a lot of details when you ask questions about it, but obviously, we’re in an entirely different mode with Russia. And I would say it’s not just the President — in fact, the worst offender by far is the U.S. Congress. And what Russia has been reacting to is what they consider insufferable arrogance and humiliation for several years… The Russians feel that we intend to create a world empire, if not an empire, at least hegemony, and that our goal is to hem them in, to surround them, and to keep them as simply suppliers of raw materials, and determine not to treat them as, you might say, equals. They know their economy is not up, they know they don’t have the military that we do, but is that what we are supposed to respect when we deal with other people? Is there a gradation that the more powerful you are, the more right you are? Our actions, in many cases, descend to that.
Stop the Personalization. Let me add another element now, which I find particularly disturbing, and that is the personalization of the whole relationship. It’s hard to read anything in most of our press that doesn’t attribute all the Russian actions to one man, and that man is usually characterized in the most unflattering terms, with various names. This is true both of the media, which, of course, can call things as they wish, but also, of our officials. You know, it seems to me that if you really want to settle the situation, you don’t set up, in effect, a public duel between your President and another person, particularly when the other President has most of the marbles in the nation at issue.
When President Putin says we’re not going to allow the Ukrainian situation to be resolved by military means, he means it. And no amount of shouting about this is going to change that. And for the President of the United States to appear to challenge him to do other things, simply has a negative effect.
Now, I’m one who actually... I thought the President did a fine State of the Union address, as long as he was dealing with domestic issues. I know Congress is not going to approve it, but that’s going to be a good platform for whoever runs on the Democratic ticket in 2016. But his comments about President Putin, it seems to me, were totally out of place, and can only have a negative effect.
So, I think that one thing that we need to do, is to get this personal debate at the top of government out. We really have to stop that, because it’s got a negative effect! When you say, 'I’ve isolated him, he’s losing. Look, you didn’t like what I was doing, but this guy’s losing.' What’s his reaction? 'I’ll show him if I’m losing!' So, who wins from that sort of exchange?
An Autistic Foreign Policy. But the biggest problem really hasn’t been the President. He’s been much better on many of these issues than Congress. And I would say one of the most outrageous things, that did much to create the atmosphere that we are in, which is one that nobody is going to benefit from, was the Magnitsky Act. Here you have the United States Congress, which, in that year [2012], could not even pass a budget, passing a law about a court case in Moscow, where it was alleged that the lawyer was mistreated, and he died while he was in detention. That was potentially a real scandal in Moscow.
So, what does the U.S. Congress do? They pass legislation requiring the Administration to identify publicly, and take action, to deny visas to specific people who might have been involved. One of the things, when I was ambassador in Moscow, I would talk about a lot, is how we really need to respect the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Here we have a case, in another jurisdiction — there may have been a scandal there, there may not have been — a law is passed, limited to Russia, by name, and when, I know, one Congressman was asked about it, he said, 'Oh, it’s not about Russia, it’s about human rights.'
If it’s not about Russia, why did you limit it to Russia? And I would point out, that was at a time when the United States had torturers and was not prosecuting them. Was that any concern to the American Congress? It was a time that, since then, we have learned that were several prisoners on death row who were proved to be innocent. And so on. It would seem to me that the U.S. Congress should pay a little more attention. And I would just say, on the whole human rights issue, I think we Americans have to understand: yes, human rights are important, very important. But you do not protect them by public pressure on another country, particularly when you are unwilling to judge yourself.
The State Department, now for decades, has to report on human rights in every country in the world, but one — want to guess which one that is?
And what sends the Russians up the wall is the language we use, which we don’t understand how it’s understood outside. When we say, we are an exceptional people, we’re capable of doing good things, protecting other people, and so on — they read it as saying that the rules don’t apply to us, unless we want them to. And we act that way.
I’ll just make one more addition here, and then we can go to questions, and that is, it seems to me when I really looked at what our policies have been — given their reaction, and this is not something the U.S. has created singlehandedly — what we have gotten has been action/reaction, insults followed by insults answered, and so on. I wonder, when I think about how the policy is made, I was wondering, how do you characterize this?
We’ve heard a lot recently about autism, and whether there’s any connection with vaccination and so on. And suddenly, I said, you know, we have an autistic foreign policy! Let me read you — I went back and looked at the actual definition of autism:
'Autism is characterized by impaired social interaction, verbal and non-verbal communication, and restricted and repetitive behavior.'
When the Congress of the United States votes over 30 times in a legislation they know is never going to become law, I would say that is restricted and repetitive behavior, and the problem is really an autistic foreign policy.
Hoe is het te verklaren dat een insider als Jack Matlock wel in staat is om zich in de positie van de Russische machthebbers te verplaatsen en een outsider als Henk Hofland niet? Waarom lijdt een hier zo bewonderde kleinburgerlijke opiniemaker aan autisme dat 'is characterized by impaired social interaction, verbal and non-verbal communication, and restricted and repetitive behavior,' terwijl een cosmopolitische Amerikaanse deskundige er niet aan lijdt? Het antwoord ligt in de vraagstelling opgesloten. Hofland is een betaalde propagandist die niet in staat is zich boven de partijen op te stellen. Zijn werk is daardoor vaak weerzinwekkend. Als een hoogbejaard kind speelt hij met vuur, ten koste van de gemeenschap. Nauwelijks geïnformeerd schrijft hij de waan van de dag op, in navolging van de rest van de mainstream-pers. Ideologisch bevlogen figuren hebben door de geschiedenis heen bloedbaden verkocht als noodzakelijke ingrepen, als humanitair ingrijpen, als opdracht van de westerse beschaving, of als verspreiding van het ware geloof of van de Vooruitgang, met hoofdletter. Hoe krankzinnig de dwazen zijn blijkt opnieuw uit de Engelstalige editie van het doorgaans goed geïnformeerde Duitse weekblad Der Spiegel, dat op 13 februari 2015 onder de kop 'The Ukraine crisis has increased the risk of a nuclear confrontation between Russia and the West' op het feit wees dat:
The Ukraine crisis has dramatically worsened relations between NATO and Russia. With cooperation on nuclear security now suspended and the lack of a 'red telephone,' experts at the Munich Security Conference warn any escalation in tensions could grow deadly…
'Five or six minutes can be enough time, if you have trust, if you have communication and if you can put this machinery immediately to work,' former Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said on the sidelines of last weekend's Munich Security Conference. Unfortunately, he argued, this machinery works very poorly today, and there is great mistrust.
When asked what would happen today if the 1995 missile incident happened again, Ivanov responded, 'I cannot be sure if the right decision would be taken.'
Deep mistrust has developed between the West and Russia, and it is having a massive effect on cooperation on security matters.
In November 2014, the Russians announced that they would boycott the 2016 Nuclear Security Summit in the United States. In December, the US Congress voted, for the first time in 25 years, not to approve funding to safeguard nuclear materials in the Russian Federation. A few days later, the Russians terminated cooperation in almost all aspects of nuclear security. The two sides had cooperated successfully for almost two decades. But that is now a thing of the past.
Instead, Russia and the United States are investing giant sums of money to modernize their nuclear arsenals, and NATO recently announced that it was rethinking its nuclear strategy. At the same time, risky encounters between Eastern and Western troops, especially in the air, are becoming more and more common, a report by the European Leadership Network (ELN) recently concluded.
'Civilian pilots don't know how to deal with this,' explains ELN Chair Des Browne, a former British defense minister. 'One of these incidents could easily escalate. We need to find a mechanism in which we can talk at the highest level.'
Brown, together with Ivanov and former US Senator Sam Nunn, a veteran of international disarmament policy, published an analysis in early February. The trio recommends 'that reliable communication channels exist in the event of serious incidents.' In other words, these channels currently do not exist. Recently Philip Breedlove, the head of NATO Allied Command Operations in Europe, even called for a new 'red telephone,' alluding to the direct teletype connection established in 1963 between the United States and the Soviet Union after the Cuban missile crisis. A direct line had been set up between NATO and the Russian military's general staff in February 2013, but it was cut as a result of the Ukraine crisis.
'A Very Dangerous Situation'
'Trust has been eroded to the point of almost being destroyed,' said Nunn. 'You got a war going on right in the middle of Europe. You got a breakdown of the conventional forces treaty, you got the INF (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces) treaty under great strain, you got tactical nuclear weapons all over Europe. It's a very dangerous situation.'
In late January, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists set its 'Doomsday Clock' to three minutes to midnight. The last time it was set to that time was in 1983, 'when US-Soviet relations were at their iciest point,' as the group of scientists explained. The only other time when the situation was even worse was in 1953, when the clock was set to two minutes to midnight. Unchecked climate change and the 'nuclear arms race resulting from modernization of huge arsenals' pose 'extraordinary and undeniable threats to the continued existence of humanity,' the group's statement read.
'It makes everything more dangerous,' said Nunn, 'It makes tactical nuclear weapons more dangerous, and it makes weapons material more dangerous.' It is common knowledge that some of these weapons are also stationed in Germany. Up to 20 B61 aerial bombs, now being updated at great expense, are stored at the Büchel Air Base in the Eifel region of western Germany. They are under US command, but German Tornado fighter jets would drop the bombs in the event of a war.When asked if hybrid warfare could raise the danger of nuclear weapons being used, US diplomat Richard Burt -- who, in his role as chief negotiator, helped put together the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, between the United States and the Soviet Union -- answered in the affirmative. 'The simple answer is yes. Both American and Russian nuclear arms are essentially on a kind of hair-trigger alert. Both sides have a nuclear posture where land-based missiles could be authorized for use in less than 15 minutes.' In the situation of hybrid warfare, he warns, 'that is a dangerous state of play.'
'In the Cold War, we created mechanisms of security. A huge number of treaties and documents helped us to avoid a big and serious military crash,' says former Foreign Minister Ivanov. 'Now the threat of a war is higher than during the Cold War.'
In wezen maakt de éminence grise van de polderpers de weg vrij voor het nieuwe 'fascisme,' waarover de gezaghebbende Angelsaksische onderzoeksjournalist John Pilger op 27 februari 2015 schreef:
Why the Rise of Fascism is Again the Issue
The recent 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz was a reminder of the great crime of fascism, whose Nazi iconography is embedded in our consciousness. Fascism is preserved as history, as flickering footage of goose-stepping blackshirts, their criminality terrible and clear. Yet in the same liberal societies, whose war-making elites urge us never to forget, the accelerating danger of a modern kind of fascism is suppressed; for it is their fascism.
'To initiate a war of aggression…,' said the Nuremberg Tribunal judges in 1946, 'is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.'
Had the Nazis not invaded Europe, Auschwitz and the Holocaust would not have happened. Had the United States and its satellites not initiated their war of aggression in Iraq in 2003, almost a million people would be alive today; and Islamic State, or ISIS, would not have us in thrall to its savagery. They are the progeny of modern fascism, weaned by the bombs, bloodbaths and lies that are the surreal theatre known as news.
Like the fascism of the 1930s and 1940s, big lies are delivered with the precision of a metronome: thanks to an omnipresent, repetitive media and its virulent censorship by omission. Take the catastrophe in Libya.
In 2011, Nato launched 9,700 'strike sorties' against Libya, of which more than a third were aimed at civilian targets. Uranium warheads were used; the cities of Misurata and Sirte were carpet-bombed. The Red Cross identified mass graves, and Unicef reported that 'most [of the children killed] were under the age of ten.'
The public sodomizing of the Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi with a 'rebel' bayonet was greeted by the then US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, with the words: 'We came, we saw, he died.' His murder, like the destruction of his country, was justified with a familiar big lie; he was planning 'genocide' against his own people. 'We knew... that if we waited one more day,' said President Obama, 'Benghazi, a city the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.'
This was the fabrication of Islamist militias facing defeat by Libyan government forces. They told Reuters there would be 'a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda.' Reported on March 14, 2011, the lie provided the first spark for Nato's inferno, described by David Cameron as a 'humanitarian intervention.'
Secretly supplied and trained by Britain's SAS, many of the 'rebels' would become ISIS, whose latest video offering shows the beheading of 21 Coptic Christian workers seized in Sirte, the city destroyed on their behalf by Nato bombers.
For Obama, Cameron and Hollande, Gaddafi's true crime was Libya's economic independence and his declared intention to stop selling Africa's greatest oil reserves in US dollars. The petrodollar is a pillar of American imperial power. Gaddafi audaciously planned to underwrite a common African currency backed by gold, establish an all-Africa bank and promote economic union among poor countries with prized resources. Whether or not this would happen, the very notion was intolerable to the US as it prepared to 'enter' Africa and bribe African governments with military 'partnerships.'
Slachtoffer van Amerikaanse atoombom op Hiroshima.
Putin Predicted Washington Would Employ Assassination Tactic Against Russia — Paul Craig Roberts
Putin Predicted Washington Would Employ Assassination Tactic Against Russia
Paul Craig Roberts
The Saker provides a one minute video with translation of Putin explaining two years ago the Russian government’s concern that an overseas entity would use a false flag assassination within Russia in order to create an “involuntary martyr” that the Western media would use to demonize Russia.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41124.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41124.htm
According to this report by The Saker, http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-boris-nemtsov-assassination-russias-non-system-opposition-refuses-to-blame-the-kremlin/5434206 , the Washington-financed Russian opposition has not, as Washington hoped it would, joined the Western anti-Putin media campaign. Possibly the Washington-financed Russian NGOs have wised up from observing events in Ukraine. In place of “more democracy,” they got a Washington stooge government squandering Ukraine’s last cent on a losing war.
The most likely explanation of Nemtsov’s murder is that the CIA decided, as Nemtsov was completely marginalized as an opposition politician with 5% as against Putin’s 85%, that Nemtsov was worth more dead than alive. But the ploy, if that is what it is, has not worked inside Russia.
Part of the circumstantial evidence that Nemtsov’s murder was a CIA tactic to destabilize Russia is the orchestrated US media. The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, NPR, and the rest of the presstitutes were ready on cue with reports insinuating that Putin was responsible. Stephen Lendman has done a good job tracking the US media’s unquestioning adherence to Washington’s propaganda line. http://sjlendman.blogspot.com
On February 28 NPR’s report consisted of a sound bite from a dissident Russian in exile who implied that Nemtsov was actually a rival to Putin with the population split between the two and that Putin eliminated his rival. No counterview to this abject nonsense was offered. At one time NPR was an alternative voice. Today NPR belongs to the Republican Party and the corporations whose advertising revenues are larger than listener donations.
If the Russian investigation discovers CIA involvement, the Russian government will keep it quiet. The audacity of Washington murdering a washed-up Russian politician in order to blame the Russian government bespeaks of war. Putin, unlike Washington, does not want war. If the culprit(s) is not found, it will look like a coverup. So someone has to be blamed. The Russian police have already suggested that possibly the key to the murder is the attractive young woman with Nemtsov when he was shot down. Nemtsov might have been trespassing on the property of a dangerous man, possibly a member of the Russian mafia.
Like everything else that happens, Americans will be given by the presstitutes an explanation that coincides with the interests of Washington. All who rely on the US media will never know why Nemtsov was murdered, or anything else for that matter.
The Boris Nemtsov Assassination: Russia’s “Non-system” Opposition Refuses to Blame the Kremlin
Honestly, I never thought the day would come where I would have anything good to say about the Russian “liberal” or “democratic” “non-system” opposition but apparently this day has come today. To my surprise, all the leaders of this opposition have so far made very moderate and reasonable statement and all those which I have heard have apparently dismissed the notion that the Kremlin was behind the murder. Now this might be self-evident for most of us, but for the Russian “liberal” or “democratic” “non-system” opposition this is quite a change of tone. Many have even said that this murder was a “provocation” (which in this context means “false flag”!) to destabilize Russia and create a crisis. Even Irina Khakamada, normally a real crackpot, has said that this was either a “provocation” or the action of a small group of extremists.
Maybe they are aware that the Russian public will not “buy” it, maybe MH17 was too clearly a false flag, or maybe they simply had a momentary moment of decency, but as far as I know nobody pointed the finger at Putin (okay, somebody somewhere probably did, I am just not aware of it). Again, this is quite remarkable.
Everybody, pro and anti Kremlin, agree that it is absolutely essential that this crime be solved. Since I personally believe that this was a US/UK organized false flag, I fully expect that somebody will be found and, as we say in Russian, that the “(trail) end will end in the water” meaning that there will be no proof of western involvement. If fact, even if the FSB *does* come across such proof, the Russians will most likely not make it public but use it behind the scenes. As for those who organized it, they also need somebody to get caught because if nobody ever gets caught, then this looks way too professional, but if a small cell of, say, rabid anti-Semitic nationalists, does get caught, then that exculpates all other possible suspects. Considering that the crime happened 200m away from the Kremlin, and that the city center is laced with cameras, I fully expect an arrest in the next 48 hours, a week max.
The bottom line is that in Russia this false flag is already a clear failure, not even the notorious Russian “liberal” or “democratic” “non-system” opposition wants to touch this thing. This is very good news indeed. In the West, of course, this is a different story, the AngloZionist will use that to a max, no doubt here at all.
The Saker
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-boris-nemtsov-assassination-russias-non-system-opposition-refuses-to-blame-the-kremlin/5434206
“The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.” Unfortunately his words ring true for dozens of successful false flags in history. But once in awhile one will backfire. In the early 1950’s an Israeli terrorist cell planted evidence and set bombs off in several buildings including the US Embassy in Egypt to blame Egypt. But one of the bombs was accidentally detonated early enough for the Egyptian authorities to link Israel to the attacks, resulting in a scandal that brought down the then Israeli government.
“False Flag Terrorism” to Sustain America’s “Humanitarian” Agenda
Sustaining the US Empire’s Killing Machine. The Modus Operandi of US Led Wars
In late May 2014, President Obama rolled out his foreign policy initiatives at West Point and said nothing new. Every lie he uttered is just a retread cover for the same old, same old disastrous foreign policy the US has engaged in since the cold war began shortly after World War II. The fact is Washington has been regularly practicing this same modus operandi for over sixty years.
Through constant use of false flags deceptively blaming the designated enemy of the United States, starting with the dual threat of the Soviet Union and China’s spreading Communism in the early 1950’s, then in this century fabricating the al Qaeda enemy’s spreading terrorism and now back to a revitalized cold war stopping the expansionist spread of Russia and China again, the US has been busily justifying its aggressive interventionist policy throughout the world.
For nearly seven decades the US Central Intelligence Agency has been the chief operating engineer and primary culprit covertly orchestrating this entire diabolical front engaging in acts of terrorism to ensure that Obama’s unabashed exceptionalism in the form of an overstretched, morally bankrupt, imperialistic American Empire in decline reaches every corner of the planet.
Though false flag terrorism has been utilized throughout human history, including Nero’s Great Fire as the Roman Empire literally went down in flames, its deployment in modern times has been increasingly frequent. By definition a false flag operation involves a government or organization committing egregious acts of violence on its own citizens or members in order to deceitfully blame its enemy and initiate wars. Though this presentation shall focus primarily on the US government’s false flag events committed within the last 60 years, many nations other than America have also engaged in false flag operations.
The term originated when wooden ships would purposely fly the enemy flag in order to launch an attack on another ship belonging to the same navy. Hence, falsely blaming the designated enemy for terrible murderous events unfortunately ever since as a common US tactic deployed to terrorize and sway public opinion has been used as a justified excuse to declare war on many nations and groups. A few passing historical examples are presented here, the first of which was the jingoistic media-induced frenzy “Remember the USS Maine!” after it sank in the Havana harbor in 1898. Though an internal explosion ripped open the hull causing the vessel to sink killing 270 sailors, it was then used to unfairly accuse Spain for a crime it clearly did not commit in order to trigger the start of the Spanish American War.
Though President Franklin D. Roosevelt was credited with lifting America out of the despair of the Great Depression, FDR willfully withheld information he had been privy to months in advance of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Instead he chose to sacrifice most of the Pacific fleet though he ensured the fleet’s crucial three aircraft carriers were safely relocated. But most importantly the US President knowingly permitted the murder of 2,403 Americans and the wounding of another 1,178. All because he felt too weak to oppose the strong anti-war sentiment of the American public, FDR let the war come to him and all those dead and suffering Americans just to enter World War II. His deceitful actions willfully ensured that mass numbers of Americans would be murdered just to start America’s involvement in the most deadly war in human history.
Roosevelt’s false flag crime against humanity as the first and only attack on American soil since the War of 1812 ranks despicably high. That said, sixty years later the second and only other attack on the US homeland since resulted in the loss of even more American lives and ranks as the biggest, most disgraceful false flag of them all in the entire US history – 9/11. But more on that false flag later.
To demonstrate that the US does not have the cornerstone on such shameful human atrocities, Hitler regularly employed false flags. In Operation Himmler he ordered SS troopers to attack his own people among them a German radio station as antecedent events that led to blaming the Poles and invading their homeland in 1939 to ignite the Second World War. Six years earlier Hitler was responsible for setting fire to the German parliament building in order to pave his way to seizing power and suspending all liberties.
As false flag architects and firm believers in their effectiveness to stir national opinion, Gestapo commander Hermann Göring has an infamous quote illustrating this point:
Operation Gladio emerged and flourished throughout the cold war period from the early 1950’s through the 1980’s in reaction to both a potential Soviet invasion and the very real growth of the Communist Party within pockets of Western Europe, particularly Italy where at one time one third of the voting electorate consisted of Communists. Gladio evolved into right wing state sponsored terrorism funded by NATO and the American CIA. A strategy of tension designed to instill fear into the general population was created by carrying out various false flag events such as planting bombs in crowded public markets, train stations and targeted buildings killing dozens of innocent Italian citizens then blaming it on the leftist Red Brigade.
The CIA’s active involvement in staging terrorism, coups and assassinations around the world has been proven beyond a doubt despite the US government’s standard official policy to cover-up, lie and deny. These state sponsored acts of terror were not limited to just Italy only but evidence exists that they were also committed in France, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Germany and Switzerland and later expanded heavily in the 1990’s with Gladio B in Turkey and Central Asia as well. For many decades US State Department personnel along with CIA operatives covertly working behind the scenes with NATO and various right wing reactionary groups have included high ranking European politicians, judges, security forces, military officers and organized crime drug lords to repeatedly kill hundreds of innocent civilians en masse.
In 1997 declassified documents unveiled Operation Northwoods, among the most damaging evidence to date indicating just how low and pathologically ill US military megalomaniacs running America’s armed forces really are. The psychopathic killers who were the five Joint Chiefs of Staff, the very top generals of each of the military services back in 1962, conspired to execute terrorist attacks on innocent American civilians in order to blame it on Fidel Castro, thereby gaining public approval to start a war against Cuba. Perturbed over the failed Bay of Pigs debacle, the generals colluded with the CIA to propose highjacking and shooting down commercial airliners, attacks on both US Navy ships and other military targets, and bombing US citizens in Washington DC and Miami. When President John F. Kennedy learned of this sinister false flag plan just prior to its implementation, he cancelled it.
President Kennedy had inherited the CIA’s Bay of Pigs fiasco leftover from the Eisenhower administration. The president’s rejection of Operation Northwoods on top of his refusal to deploy the US military in the infamously botched attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro left in its wake a number of angry anti-Castro Cubans as well as miffed CIA agents and the highest ranking military officers. Conversely, the humiliating bitter pill that the Bay of Pigs forced Kennedy to swallow left a sour aftertaste, setting into motion a conflict between all parties that in retrospect have been cited as strong provocation behind Kennedy’s own demise.
Further recent evidence suggests that JFK was moving to reduce the CIA’s power by restructuring, not escalate a war in Vietnam and reduce the power of the privatized Federal Reserve Board that was/is the oligarch banking cabal and that these preeminent plans were the basis for his enemies within the government to assassinate him. Clearly enough evidence exists to incriminate elements within the CIA as major players in his untimely death. A number of recent investigators implicate elements of false flag operations through use of patsies in not only JFK’s but his brother Robert and Martin Luther King’s assassinations as well. Blaming a lone gunman with known ties to Communist enemies the Soviet Union and Cuba was used as a means to cover up the true perpetrators who were American agents within the US government.
Kennedy’s successor Lyndon B. Johnson with circumstantial links to the JFK assassination himself wasted no time as Commander-in-Chief in August 1964 employing another false flag to begin yet another war. The Gulf of Tonkin incident became LBJ’s immoral excuse to declare a bogus war against North Vietnam. Yet he, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and then military analyst later turned whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg knew it was a lie that North Vietnamese gunboats fired on the destroyer the USS Maddox that was sent by Washington on the mission to the Tonkin Gulf purposely to bait Hanoi into taking aggressive action. Johnson’s boldface lie that “our boys are floating in the water” swept America into its then longest running war in US history. 58,213 American lives lost later with an astounding total of between nearly one to over three million human additional lives violently ended, the Vietnam War was a total tragic waste in every aspect of the word. Absolutely nothing positive came out of the first official American war defeat in US history. But the senseless slaughter and shattered lives of so many innocent Southeast Asians who never deserved such an unforgivable horrendous fate based on another US president’s lie is impossible to fathom much less accept. No one can blame innocent war victims for never forgiving America for its countless brutal sins that only continue to rage against humanity uninterrupted to this very day.
To demonstrate that America is not alone as the only heavy using of false flags and that other current leaders also employ false flag operations on their own people, the September 1999 bombings of Russian apartment buildings killing 300 innocent people were falsely blamed on Chechen terrorists in order to bring about another war against Chechnya. A 2002 book written by former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko exposing the 9/99 false flag likely resulted in his poisoning death by Russian intelligence in 2006. A report from a Johns Hopkins study additionally concluded that the KGB and Russian government were in fact guilty of planting the bombs in order to ensure that Vladimir Putin would be elected the next Russian Federation president.
But perhaps the most unforgivable false flag crime against the human race committed by the most evil humans still alive on earth – the neocon insiders of the Bush-Cheney administration – pulled off the all time most egregious terrorist act of our lifetime – the inside job that is the horror of the 9/11 attacks. Massive evidence has been accumulating over the past 13 years since the attacks on New York’s World Trade Center twin towers and the Pentagon that highly incriminate the US government. President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney and their cast of neocon characters were responsible for murdering nearly 3000 Americans on September 11th, 2001 in order to justify their preplanned agenda of a permanent war on terror starting in Afghanistan and Iraq and the subsequent systematic dismantling of the US Constitution. Their day of infamy turns out far more diabolical than FDR’s own infamy day. A coup took place where a handful of neocons single handedly overthrew what was left of democracy in America, and overnight replaced it with a fascist despotic oligarchic dictatorship. With the Patriot Act and executive orders America woke up and found itself living in a real life Orwellian nightmare of tyranny from the top on down that now appears to be reigning even more supreme under the Obama regime.
Obviously books have been written offering far more detailed accounts covering the hundreds of discrepancies that point to the sinister inside job. However, for the sake of brevity here a condensed version presenting only the most salient and glaring facts are included.
Hundreds of engineers analyzing how the twin towers came down concluded that they collapsed from internal explosionsfrom within, falling at an acceleration rate of two thirds that of freefall. Seven hours later at 5:20PM on 9/11 near the fallen towers, Building 7 never hit by a plane and only slightly damaged from fallen tower debris at half the height of the towers suddenly collapsed at absolute freefall in just 6.5 seconds. This strongly indicates that the buildings were brought down by detonations set off by explosives placed near the steel girders, and clearly not from the damage caused by jet fuel explosions near the top stories of the towers. If two planes flying into the top floors of the towers (one at the 78thfloor and the other between the 93rd and 99th floors) were to cause the buildings to collapse, which in itself is virtually impossible, the speed at which they came down would have been much slower and they would never have totally collapsed into all the dust and rubble that was left. Simple laws of physics prove that two planes and their fires could never have brought down those towers but only internal explosives carefully planted on every floor would cause the collapses the way all three buildings fell.
Larry Silverstein who leased the World Trade Center mistakenly referenced the collapse of Building 7 as “pulled it,” a common expression used in building demolitions. Silverstein who had only leased the towers six months before their collapse, stood to gain a quick 1.4 billion in profit on his six month turnaround investment. Also the head of security of the World Trade Center happened to be President Bush’s cousin. Additionally lots of illicit insider trading just before and after 9/11 prove certain unrevealed insiders were aware of the coming events.
Larry Silverstein who leased the World Trade Center mistakenly referenced the collapse of Building 7 as “pulled it,” a common expression used in building demolitions. Silverstein who had only leased the towers six months before their collapse, stood to gain a quick 1.4 billion in profit on his six month turnaround investment. Also the head of security of the World Trade Center happened to be President Bush’s cousin. Additionally lots of illicit insider trading just before and after 9/11 prove certain unrevealed insiders were aware of the coming events.
Not unrelated, a BBC correspondent named Jane Standley actually reported the collapse of Building 7 over twenty minutes prior to its collapse.
Explosions resulting from burning jet fuel at near 800 degrees cannot possibly melt steel which requires temperatures of at least 1600 degrees. Yet the red-gray dust from the fallen rubble and debris shows that explosives that burn at far higher temperatures than jet fuel were used to cause the buildings to collapse. Overwhelming amounts of nano-thermite dust were detected at ground zero providing conclusive evidence that nano-thermite burning at high enough temperatures to effectively melt steel was the key ingredient in the explosives that must have been planted weeks prior to the planes colliding into the towers. The nano-thermite material in the planted explosives clearly brought the buildings down in a controlled demolition, and definitely not the planes.
Explosions resulting from burning jet fuel at near 800 degrees cannot possibly melt steel which requires temperatures of at least 1600 degrees. Yet the red-gray dust from the fallen rubble and debris shows that explosives that burn at far higher temperatures than jet fuel were used to cause the buildings to collapse. Overwhelming amounts of nano-thermite dust were detected at ground zero providing conclusive evidence that nano-thermite burning at high enough temperatures to effectively melt steel was the key ingredient in the explosives that must have been planted weeks prior to the planes colliding into the towers. The nano-thermite material in the planted explosives clearly brought the buildings down in a controlled demolition, and definitely not the planes.
Additionally there were survivors like Brian Clark who at the time of impact were on floors higher than the floor the plane flew into, yet they experienced no level of heat that prevented them from moving past the burning floor all the way down to ground level to escape to safety. This totally defies the official explanation that it was the jet fuel explosion and ensuing fire that caused the entire buildings to collapse a short time after the planes impact.
Another fact that strongly supports the contention that the buildings were brought down by an explosive demolition is the eyewitness testimony of hundreds of survivors who all heard a series of loud explosions at the ground floor level. Planes burning at the upper floor levels could never cause those explosions.
The Pentagon was never hit by a plane. No pieces or parts of the plane were ever found. And then the hole in the Pentagon was only 16 feet wide, far smaller than the size of a commercial aircraft. This provides indisputable evidence that Flight 77 never impacted the Pentagon building but that more than likely a missile did. Furthermore, the hard turn required for the alleged jetliner flown by an inexperienced terrorist could not possibly maneuver a large plane into the Pentagon. Lastly, the airspace over Washington DC is the most heavily guarded in the entire world and no plane could crash into the most defended military building on the planet. Far too much concrete evidence taken together makes the official story impossible.
With nearly a trillion dollar budget spent each year on defending the United States with the most sophisticated and powerful military and air defense in the world, yet the four jet airliners that supposedly were crashed by terrorists were somehow never intercepted by any fighter planes. There were 35 Air Force bases within close proximity on 9/11 to the four hijacked planes. Within minutes after planes go off the air traffic controller system an air defense protocol is in place to immediately release military fighter jets to intercept highjacked airliners. Yet not one fighter jet was on the scene the entire time. This implausible explanation that they could not respond in time is simply preposterous.
Another questionable phenomenon was all the military officers in charge of air defense operations near Washington on 9/11 that by tragic outcome clearly showed that they all failed to do their jobs properly. Yet to a man they were all mysteriously promoted just days after 9/11 when they ordinarily should have been demoted for clearly gross negligence… of course unless they were actually being rewarded for their complicit roles in the inside job.
Just three days after 9/11 the FBI had miraculously identified all nineteen of the alleged hijackers without providing any evidence that any were actually on the four flights. In contrast after the Pan Am flight went down over Lockerby, Scotland, two years into the investigation indictments were finally made. Then one day after 9/11 Attorney General Ashcroft announced that the intact passport of one of the alleged terrorists had been found a few blocks from ground zero. Yet the planes allegedly caused molten steel to pulverize and meltdown everything in sight into a fine powdery dust but somehow not even a burned and entirely intact undamaged passport was found. These lies would be laughable if they were not used to cover up the truth of how 2,977 victims’ deaths resulted from the worst false flag in history.
The official report would lead the public to believe that fifteen of the nineteen hijacking terrorists were Saudi fundamentalist Islamists practicing the strictest form of Islam called Solafist. Yet the former American girlfriend of their alleged ringleader Mohammed Atta and his fellow terrorists were always drinking alcohol and using cocaine. While staying in Florida near NSA offices Atta is on record as an actual roommate of a CIA pilot who flew drugs during the Iran-Contra scandal in South America. While living in Hamburg Atta is also known to have met with German intelligence.
Atta and another alleged hijacker flew from Florida to Boston a couple days prior to 9/11 and left a known trail of traveling onto Portland Maine and staying out late partying and drinking at a club in Portland the night of September 10th. On the morning of 9/11 they then flew from Portland into Boston on a flight that landed a mere half hour before their alleged flight they supposedly hijacked was taking off. The FBI released a photo of them captured on an airport camera the FBI claimed was proof that they boarded the flight at Boston’s Logan Airport. However, it was actually a photo of the two boarding their flight in Portland. Thus no evidence showed them ever on the flight of the plane they were purported to crash into the New York tower. In fact no evidence of any of the 19 alleged terrorists ever boarding any of the four flights on 9/11 was ever produced.
In the days and weeks following 9/11, the UK’s Telegraph and CBS news tracked down several of the identified terrorists still alive in Morocco and Saudi Arabia. Newsweek reported that Atta was on record of having had a phone conversation with his father on September 12th. One by one a number of the supposed dead hijackers began showing up alive and well faraway from the 9/11 crash sites. All of these pieces of damning evidence make the official US government accounts of the September 11th attacks even more suspect and weak, only adding to the mounting strength proving that a cover-up to a very sloppy inside job was perpetrated on the American public.
The fact is the neocon network is far more America’s enemy than any so called al Qaeda network. Long before 9/11, the Bushes (with roots traced back to financing Nazi Germany), Cheney and Rumsfeld all had their indelible grubby fingerprints all over US foreign policy as far back as the 70’s and 80’s. George Bush senior was CIA Director during the mid 1970’s and on 9/11 met with the bin Laden family in another major business transaction. Later when all planes were grounded in the US, the bin Ladens were safely flown home to Saudi Arabia. There is a more than casual linkage between Osama’s family and the neocons responsible for 9/11.
Donald Rumsfeld was Defense Secretary during the Ford administration. And Dick Cheney began working for Rumsfeld in 1969. From 1979-89 Cheney served as a Wyoming Congressman until President George Bush senior promoted Cheney to Secretary of Defense where he oversaw military operations in both Panama and the first Gulf War, rewarded by his boss with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. From 1995 Cheney was CEO at Halliburton, a huge and corrupt defense contractor until 2000 when he became George junior’s Vice President and more the front end mastermind behind 9/11 and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars than less endowed figurehead George junior. Their lives and careers have long been intertwined in government and corporate cronyism. Along with a handful of other notable neocons like Paul Wolfowitz who was Deputy Secretary of Defense under Rumsfeld and later World Bank President. These 9/11 figures saw the opportunity to use Osama bin Laden as their wanted milk carton face to their global war on terror.
The label al Qaeda was eventually attached to Osama’s Islamic freedom fighters whose mission was to support fellow Moslems everywhere oppressed by Western imperialism. As the young emerging leader of the Mujahideen fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, the US with CIA support had been financing, arming and training Osama and his randy brand of terrorists since the late 1980’s and continued sponsoring their terrorist activities throughout the 1990’s in Bosnia and Kosovo. Many of the Mujahideen fighters were on the US payroll. A Pentagon subcontractor called Military Professional Resources, Inc. (MPRI) employed many of the Mujahideen terrorists in the Balkans.
Michael Springman, Chief of Visa Section at the US General Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia from 1987 to 1989 disclosed that many CIA personnel worked undercover issuing US visas to a number of the same terrorists later allegedly involved in the 9/11 attacks. The CIA was sponsoring state supported terrorism bringing them to the US and training them at various US military schools, fine tuning their terror skills. After 9/11 from an LA Times article Springman recognized a number of the terrorist hijackers amongst those freely receiving visas years before and promptly informed the FBI. In fact 15 visas belonging to the alleged 9/11 terrorists had been attained in Jeddah. But not surprisingly, the FBI never bothered getting back to Springman.
Michael Springman, Chief of Visa Section at the US General Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia from 1987 to 1989 disclosed that many CIA personnel worked undercover issuing US visas to a number of the same terrorists later allegedly involved in the 9/11 attacks. The CIA was sponsoring state supported terrorism bringing them to the US and training them at various US military schools, fine tuning their terror skills. After 9/11 from an LA Times article Springman recognized a number of the terrorist hijackers amongst those freely receiving visas years before and promptly informed the FBI. In fact 15 visas belonging to the alleged 9/11 terrorists had been attained in Jeddah. But not surprisingly, the FBI never bothered getting back to Springman.
A similar story was heard from Sibel Edmonds a former FBI translator and government whistleblower who became aware of an Iranian FBI informant who had been on the payroll for ten years in April 2001 warning the FBI that al Qaeda terrorists were planning to fly airplanes into key buildings in several US cities.
Two FBI agents independent of each other, one in Arizona and the another in Minnesota, also contacted central FBI headquarters in Washington reporting a flurry of activity involving a number of Arabs enrolling in flight schools. Attorney General Ashcroft in August 2001 was approached by the FBI over reports of increasing signs of potential terrorism and Ashcroft emphatically replied that terrorism was lowest on his priority list and did not want to hear any more about impending threats. There were numerous warnings that had been reported to the federal government but obviously went unheeded. Meanwhile, since 1999 the Air Force had been doing training exercises four times a year in preparation for just such a scenario of terrorists flying planes into buildings.
Bush and Security Council Condoleezza Rice have both repeatedly gone on record denying that there were any advance warnings to alert and possibly prepare them for planes used by terrorists for this purpose… more lies. But then since 9/11 was a false flag operation, of course the neocons would ignore all warnings however obvious and blatant that the attack was about to occur… like another day of infamy.
The Patriot Act was written before 9/11 and signed into law on October 26th, 2001. Congressman Ron Paul asked about it being prepared so quickly and was told it had been sitting in the Justice Department waiting for the right time to be brought to a vote for the last twenty years.
Many in US Congress both past and current members along with numerous retired US military officers and scientists and professors from academia have questioned publicly the whitewashed bogus findings of the 9/11 Commission that the Bush administration resisted for well over a year before it was finally formed. Then he and Cheney resisted having to even testify. Yet that said, the government has conveniently dismissed those believing Washington insiders bear culpability and responsibility for 9/11 by calling them “conspiracy theorists.” The derogatory name calling designed to eliminate credibility over time is offering less credence to their stonewalling lies and cover-up cracks. Instead more Americans are realizing the depth of moral depravity and evil in their resistance to truth. Movement to ultimately hold the war criminals accountable at the Hague are in process.
Two weeks after 9/11 General Wesley Clark learned of the neocon agenda formulated prior to 9/11 to take down seven sovereign nations in the Middle East and North Africa within five years. Americans learned that the myth of Saddam Hussein holding weapons of mass destruction was a complete lie. That willful deception along with the other false accusation that Hussein had direct links to terrorism became the basis for invading Iraq in March 2003. Lies perpetrated on both America and Iraq resulted in a million and a half Iraqi citizens dying in a decade long war under US occupation that has left the nation permanently embroiled in sectarian civil war violence the last two and a half years since US departure. Al Qaeda holds more of the country’s territory now than ever before. Genetically deformed babies and cancer rates have soared exponentially due to US military deploying depleted uranium and flesh burning white phosphorus chemicals. US blood for oil wars decimate and destroy nations, installing regime changes with weak, corrupt puppet governments, indefinite sectarian violence and untold human misery. Meanwhile, shut out of the nation with the world’s fifth largest oil reserves until the US invasion, now ExxonMobil, BP and Shell are making huge profits.
Though fortunately no US false flag has come close to reeking the same level of damage, human suffering and horrible consequences since 9/11, the US government has persisted in engaging in more recent false flag operations. Last August 21st in a Damascus suburb a chemical weapons attack launched by US and Saudi backed al Qaeda militants killed many innocent Syrian civilians with many children among the casualties. At the time, President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry were aggressively pushing to launch air strikes on Syria convinced that it was Assad’s government forces that committed the attack. Yet they refused to produce any evidence because they had none. They were giving it their best psychopathic shot to inflict more death and destruction on more innocent humans knowing they were spewing more lies of deception in their thinly veiled imperialistic would-be intervention. Obama was willing to risk starting World War III as Russia and China moved their naval fleets into the area in support of their allies Syria and Iran. And Syria and Iran remain the last of those seven nations on that neocon list for regime changes.
Fortunately Kerry made an offhand rhetorical comment that Russian President Putin opportunistically seized to successfully broker a face saving deal where Assad has now turned over 92% of his chemical weapons. Of course no one ever insisted that the al Qaeda rebels who were responsible for the heinous atrocity turn over their chemical weapons likely shipped to them from Saudi Arabia.
Despite Obama’s weakened position as a world leader from his grandstanding fiasco, he has not given up his goal to remove Assad from power with a recent renewed commitment to supplying al Qaeda militants with even more sophisticated weaponry that at some point risks being used against Americans. Meanwhile, the Syrian government forces are gaining the upper hand in a stalemate that has perhaps killed over 160,000 and displaced over 2.58 millionSyrian refugees from their homes. The number in Lebanon alone is up to 1.3 million in a growing international humanitarian and political crisis.
In this last year several other false flags have occurred with US-NATO involvement and support. Two months ago a planned false flag operation was uncovered when a few months earlier the Turkish Foreign Ministry Undersecretary, a National Intelligence Organization staff and a Turkish general were secretly taped while openly discussing a proposed false flag attack on its own citizens and soil in Turkey that would then be falsely blamed on Syrian government military as a precursor to a Turkish invasion into Syria. There also has been a Turkish government representative making reference to being repeatedly asked by John Kerry about whether a false flag had been executed.
Al Qaeda rebels fighting in Syria have also been instructed to destroy and desecrate holy mosques in order to be able to blame Assad forces, thereby swaying the Syrian population against their government. All these incidents demonstrate continued US commitment to using the false flag strategies with US-NATO allies as proxy perpetrators.
Finally, in every sovereign nation targeted by the US for destabilization and regime change, as recently in Ukraine, Venezuela and Syria among other nations, the US-NATO secret security and intelligence forces have trained mercenarysnipers on using the false flag tactic by posing as enemy personnel and murdering their own citizens as well as police. Back in February in both Ukraine and Venezuela during the weeks leading up to the US-NATO supported Ukrainian fascist coup and the violent unrest in Venezuela, snipers shot and killed protestors in the streets. In both situations the cold-blooded killing was designed to turn public sentiment against the alleged oppressive government security forces that were being falsely blamed. Then in both nations photos were quickly posted on social media websites to enflame citizens to openly oppose and actively overthrow their existing government, which of course with US backing did occur in Ukraine. This same tactic continues currently in Ukraine where in Odessa several weeks ago murderous thugs posing as pro-Russian militants killed many victims in a building and then set fire killing even more.
The fact is the US has always had al Qaeda on its payroll spanning the last twenty-five years. For over three years al Qaeda mercenaries have been active in both Libya and Syria, fighting US proxy wars for regime changes in Libya against the overthrow of Muammar Kaddafi and in what now appears to be a losing cause in Syria to overthrow Bashar al-Assad. Therefore, it should not come as much of a surprise that the US government merely used Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda to be the patsies in a false flag operation to launch the war on terror on the false pretext of invading Afghanistan and Iraq.
Al Qaeda from the start has been a mere invention by US intelligence to declare war on a new enemy once the Soviet Union was dissolved nearly a quarter century ago. America was left as the sole world superpower but without an identifiable enemy. Hence, out of expedience, America’s military and CIA must always justify their need for constant war with a known enemy to demonize and fight, in effect justifying their very existence, not to mention being the prime beneficiaries of so much allocated US taxpayer funding. Obviously much is at stake for the military security complex to lay claim to so many hard earned taxpayer dollars.
For instance in 2011 alone, $845 billion dollars were spent on defense, security and veterans benefits, comprising about 25% of the total annual budget, nearly as much as the rest of the entire world spends on its military and defense combined! And this does not include much of the secret discretionary funds allocated carte blanche without oversight to covert Special Operations training death squads for more terrorism and enemies around the world. Thus it is imperative if the theft of so much taxpayer revenue is to continue or even increase in the future, the US government must continue to engage in false flag terrorism on its own people in order to condition the American population into actually believing there remains a very real and dangerous external threat to their very survival. Once the public reaches critical mass in catching on to the US government’s ponzi scam of global deceit, tragic waste and mass murder, enough angry and fed up Americans will revolt, refusing to any longer support the US Empire’s killing machine. It will be then that another false flag will be foisted on citizens that will in turn lead to martial law, FEMA roundups and a probable second American civil war.
Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former Army officer. His written manuscript based on his military experience examines leadership and national security issues and can be consulted at http://www.redredsea.net/westpointhagopian/. After the military, Joachim earned a masters degree in psychology and became a licensed therapist working in the mental health field for more than a quarter century. He now focuses on writing.
En terwijl de Hoflanden de geest rijp maken voor een nieuw gewelddadig conflict gaat de ware bedreiging van de mens ongestoord verder:
Glacial Melting In Antarctica Makes Continent The 'Ground Zero Of Global Climate Change'
|
By
By LUIS ANDRES HENAO and SETH BORENSTEIN
Posted:
Updated:
CAPE LEGOUPIL, Antarctica (AP) — From the ground in this extreme northern part of Antarctica, spectacularly white and blinding ice seems to extend forever. What can't be seen is the battle raging thousands of feet (hundreds of meters) below to re-shape Earth.
Water is eating away at the Antarctic ice, melting it where it hits the oceans. As the ice sheets slowly thaw, water pours into the sea — 130 billion tons of ice (118 billion metric tons) per year for the past decade, according to NASA satellite calculations. That's the weight of more than 356,000 Empire State Buildings, enough ice melt to fill more than 1.3 million Olympic swimming pools. And the melting is accelerating.
In the worst case scenario, Antarctica's melt could push sea levels up 10 feet (3 meters) worldwide in a century or two, recurving heavily populated coastlines.
Parts of Antarctica are melting so rapidly it has become "ground zero of global climate change without a doubt," said Harvard geophysicist Jerry Mitrovica.
Here on the Antarctic peninsula, where the continent is warming the fastest because the land sticks out in the warmer ocean, 49 billion tons of ice (nearly 45 billion metric tons) are lost each year, according to NASA. The water warms from below, causing the ice to retreat on to land, and then the warmer air takes over. Temperatures rose 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (3 degrees Celsius) in the last half century, much faster than Earth's average, said Ricardo Jana, a glaciologist for the Chilean Antarctic Institute.
As chinstrap penguins waddled behind him, Peter Convey of the British Antarctic Survey reflected on changes he could see on Robert Island, a small-scale example and perhaps early warning signal of what's happening to the peninsula and rest of the continent as a whole.
"I was last here 10 years ago," Convey said during a rare sunny day on the island, with temperatures just above freezing. "And if you compare what I saw back then to now, the basic difference due to warming is that the permanent patches of snow and ice are smaller. They're still there behind me, but they're smaller than they were."
Robert Island hits all the senses: the stomach-turning smell of penguin poop; soft moss that invites the rare visitor to lie down, as if on a water bed; brown mud, akin to stepping in gooey chocolate. Patches of the moss, which alternates from fluorescent green to rust red, have grown large enough to be football fields. Though 97 percent of the Antarctic Peninsula is still covered with ice, entire valleys are now free of it, ice is thinner elsewhere and glaciers have retreated, Convey said.
Dressed in a big red parka and sky blue hat, plant biologist Angelica Casanova has to take her gloves off to collect samples, leaving her hands bluish purple from the cold. Casanova says she can't help but notice the changes since she began coming to the island in 1995. Increasingly, plants are taking root in the earth and stone deposited by retreating glaciers, she says.
"It's interesting because the vegetation in some way responds positively. It grows more," she said, a few steps from a sleeping Weddell seal. "What is regrettable is that all the scientific information that we're seeing says there's been a lot of glacier retreat and that worries us."
Just last month, scientists noticed in satellite images that a giant crack in an ice shelf on the peninsula called Larsen C had grown by about 12 miles (20 kilometers) in 2014. Ominously, the split broke through a type of ice band that usually stops such cracks. If it keeps going, it could cause the breaking off of a giant iceberg somewhere between the size of Rhode Island and Delaware, about 1,700 to 2,500 square miles (4,600 to 6,400 square kilometers), said British Antarctic Survey scientist Paul Holland. And there's a small chance it could cause the entire Scotland-sized Larsen C ice shelf to collapse like its sister shelf, Larsen B, did in a dramatic way in 2002.
A few years back, scientists figured Antarctica as a whole was in balance, neither gaining nor losing ice. Experts worried more about Greenland; it was easier to get to and more noticeable, but once they got a better look at the bottom of the world, the focus of their fears shifted. Now scientists in two different studies use the words "irreversible" and "unstoppable" to talk about the melting in West Antarctica. Ice is gaining in East Antarctica, where the air and water are cooler, but not nearly as much as it is melting to the west.
"Before Antarctica was much of a wild card," said University of Washington ice scientist Ian Joughin. "Now I would say it's less of a wild card and more scary than we thought before."
Over at NASA, ice scientist Eric Rignot said the melting "is going way faster than anyone had thought. It's kind of a red flag."
What's happening is simple physics. Warm water eats away at the ice from underneath. Then more ice is exposed to the water, and it too melts. Finally, the ice above the water collapses into the water and melts.
Climate change has shifted the wind pattern around the continent, pushing warmer water farther north against and below the western ice sheet and the peninsula. The warm, more northerly water replaces the cooler water that had been there. It's only a couple degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the water that used to be there, but that makes a huge difference in melting, scientists said.
The world's fate hangs on the question of how fast the ice melts.
At its current rate, the rise of the world's oceans from Antarctica's ice melt would be barely noticeable, about one-third of a millimeter a year. The oceans are that vast.
But if all the West Antarctic ice sheet that's connected to water melts unstoppably, as several experts predict, there will not be time to prepare. Scientists estimate it will take anywhere from 200 to 1,000 years to melt enough ice to raise seas by 10 feet, maybe only 100 years in a worst case scenario. If that plays out, developed coastal cities such as New York and Guangzhou could face up to $1 trillion a year in flood damage within a few decades and countless other population centers will be vulnerable.
"Changing the climate of the Earth or thinning glaciers is fine as long as you don't do it too fast. And right now we are doing it as fast as we can. It's not good," said Rignot, of NASA. "We have to stop it; or we have to slow it down as best as we can. "
___
Associated Press writer Luis Andres Henao reported this story from various locations in Antarctica and Seth Borenstein reported from Washington.
1 opmerking:
En kutwereld is ook al dood, vraag mij niet waarom, het was een leuke man die over empathie beschikte ik heb hem tekort gekend , we hielden van jazzz... Alles gaat dood. For you pioneer, grootvizier, ondanks je tekortkomingen....sigh
We had something in common for some reason. I still cant get you out of my head Frank Harreveld! With love to you; Benjamin Herman - Frank's day out Sorry Stan if you consider it spam, with the best intentions , really.
Een reactie posten