Zoeken in deze blog 🔎🔎

zondag 14 februari 2016

Finian Cunningham

US Targets Russia and China with North Korea Pretext

Finian CUNNINGHAM | 12.02.2016 | 00:00
 
The North Korean state is routinely mocked in the West for engaging in hyperbole and bombast. Ironically, the Western reaction to its latest satellite launch is a carnival of knee-jerk hysteria and hyperbole. But all the bluster has conveniently given Washington an opportunity to proceed with its global missile shield plans. That is far more destabilizing to international security than any alleged North Korean violation.
In an interview this week on CBS, US President Obama repeated denunciations of North Korea’s rocket launch into outer space last Sunday, which Pyongyang claimed was for the purpose of putting an observation satellite into orbit.
Obama said: «I think we have been concerned about North Korea’s behavior for a while. This is an authoritarian regime. It’s provocative. It has repeatedly violated UN resolutions, tested and produced nuclear weapons and now they are trying to perfect their missile launch system».
British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond lambasted North Korea, saying its actions «continue to present a threat to regional and international security».
Within hours of the satellite launch by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), the US and its South Korean ally unveiled their plans to install the Pentagon’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile system. The system is designed for intercepting intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) as high as 200 kilometers. It is part of the global «missile shield» network that Washington is pushing elsewhere in Europe.


Aware of the sensitivity of the move, a South Korean official immediately qualified the planned deployment of the THAAD as being «against North Korea’s advancing threats», according to a report in the Financial Times.
The inference is that the US missile system is not related to China’s security. But that’s not how Beijing sees it. While China rebuked its North Korean ally for its rocket-satellite launch, it also strongly protested the subsequent US move towards deploying the THAAD.
China, like Russia, has consistently opposed any such deployment of a missile shield by the Americans near its borders as a provocative step towards giving Washington a «first strike nuclear capability» because the THAAD in theory can take out any Chinese warheads, thus giving the US a license to hit first, unburdened by a threat of retaliation.
Moscow has similarly admonished US-led NATO plans to install Aegis-class ballistic missile interceptors in Poland, Romania and Bulgaria.
Russian President Vladimir Putin previously argued that Washington’s claims for a missile shield in Europe and South Korea, as providing a defense against Iranian and North Korean ICBMs, are bogus. The real purpose, said Putin, is for the Americans is to be able to target both Russia and China with a perceived nuclear-threat dominance. Such military power is a corollary of political and economic hegemony.
This week – apparently unrelated to the Korean controversy – Russian deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov reiterated Moscow’s concerns that US attempts to «create a global missile defense system» are aimed at acquiring a «global first strike» capability.
The apparent «response» by Washington to Pyongyang’s satellite launch, involving the installation of its THAAD in East Asia is in reality an ominous shift in the balance of nuclear power. As well as South Korea, America’s other ally Japan is also preparing to deploy the same missile shield. Fortuitously for Washington, North Korea’s «rogue behavior» has given it a cover for moving ahead with its missile system.
Lt General Thomas Vandal, Commander of the US Eighth Army based in South Korea, said Pyongyang’s «provocative» satellite launch now paved the way for the deployment of the THAAD system, adding with a notable tone of haste: «It’s time to move forward on this».
A New York Times report, headlined: «North Korea Launches Rocket Seen as Cover for a Missile Test», had this to say: «Hours after the North declared the success of its launch on Sunday, the United States and South Korea jointly announced that they had begun discussing deployment of the American THAAD ballistic missile defense system».
The irony of the New York Times report is that the North Korea rocket launch appears rather more like a cover for the US moving ahead with its controversial and destabilizing missile shield.
It is a measure of how problematic the issue has been in the past that the South Korean government of President Park Geun-hye has up to now spurned American requests to deploy the missile system. President Park has made strenuous efforts in recent years to build stronger relations with China, becoming Beijing’s top trading partner. Although formally a US ally, Seoul has nonetheless been mindful of China’s security objections over the US missile system on South Korean territory as it would neutralize China’s nuclear capability.
As Britain’s Independent newspaper reports: «South Koreans have long been lukewarm about US insistence on the need to deploy multibillion-dollar missile launchers capable of shooting down enemy missiles hurtling more than 100 miles overhead. One of South Korea’s objections has been concern about offending Beijing, which has repeatedly expressed alarm about THAAD and its potential for use against China».
However, South Korea’s military establishment appears to be augmenting the US agenda of hamming up the North Korea threat. Immediately following the rocket launch by Pyongyang, the BBC reports: «South Korean MPs were told in a behind-closed-doors briefing by the country's spy agency later on Sunday that the launch should be treated as a ballistic missile test as the satellite it put into orbit would be useless… They were also reportedly told North Korea has the technology for inter-continental ballistic missiles and is preparing a fifth nuclear test».
Let’s unpack those claims a bit. Yes, North Korea’s latest rocket action was in violation of United Nations resolutions banning the use of ballistic technology. The latest rocket launch – the second since December 2012 – was no doubt a satellite cover story used by Pyongyang to assay the dual capability of ballistic power. And yes, North Korea did conduct a fourth nuclear test explosion last month – again in violation of UN resolutions.
But there is chasm between all of this and the claims put out by Washington that North Korea presents an imminent threat from being able to launch a nuclear warhead on a ballistic missile. The North has evidently developed nuclear warheads, with the first test back in 2006. But there is a vast way to go before it can ever build an ICBM charged with a nuclear weapon. Most international ballistic experts contend that Pyongyang is very far off reaching that level of sophisticated technology.
AFP news agency quoted aerospace engineer John Schilling, who has closely followed the North's missile program, as saying: «An ICBM warhead, unlike a satellite, needs to come down as well as go up. North Korea has never demonstrated the ability to build a re-entry vehicle that can survive at even half the speed an ICBM would require».
In short, despite what the US, its British ally and heaps of Western media coverage would have us believe, North Korea is not a threat to international security. Sure, the secretive state of Kim Jong-un can be said to be in breach of UN resolutions. But a nuclear enemy of the world it is most certainly not.
There is a bizarre lack of intelligent perspective on the real issues. Washington possesses more than 1,500 actively deployed nuclear warheads across the globe, ready to launch at the touch of a button. Nearly 40 years after the Non-Proliferation Treaty mandating nuclear disarmament, the US is in a process of upgrading its nuclear arsenal at a cost of $1 trillion over the next 30 years. And it is pushing ahead with a global missile shield system that is profoundly destabilizing international security, in particular with regard to Russia and China.
As for the matter of violating international norms and obligations, it is not removed from the subject to ask about Washington and London’s illegal bombing of sovereign countries like Syria. Or, as international lawyer Christopher Black wrote recently, to refer to Washington’s repeated acts of aggression towards China when its missile destroyer Wilbur Curtis flagrantly breached territorial waters in the South China Sea on January 30.
On the specific issue of resolving Korea’s historical tensions, what is needed is a return to earnest dialogue between the North and the South, and their respective allies China and the US. However, Washington’s hidebound policy of isolating Pyongyang and refusing to demilitarize the Korean Peninsula is the main obstacle to a negotiated resolution.
Indeed, it can be reasonably deduced that Washington does not want to ever resolve the conflict in the region for the precise reason that it needs to keep North Korea isolated and hostile in order to maintain its military presence in the Asia Pacific.
Under the cover of a «chivalrous protector» of allies, the US is cynically exploiting a much overblown «threat» from North Korea for pursuing its much more concrete and malevolent threat of nuclear aggression towards Russia and China.
Paradoxically, North Korea is presented as a rogue state, when it is Washington that is the global thug hiding behind a suit of shining armor.
 
Tags: Missile defense Asia-Pacific North Korea Russia South Korea US

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/02/12/us-targets-russia-and-china-with-north-korea-pretext.html

Derk Sauer's Gecorrumpeerdheid

Vergis ik me nu of zie ik daar mijn oude kameraad Derk Sauer zitten, die zich zo overtuigd gedreven tegen de corruptie van de gevestigde wanorde? Wat doet SP-multimiljonair Sauer daar in gezelschap van gecorrumpeerde polder politici en journalisten? Binnen tien jaar tijd in het ineengestorte mafiose Rusland schatrijk worden ten koste van de Russische bevolking en nu goede maatjes zijn met de neoliberale kliek. Derk, jij schaamt je ook voor niets. Je vroeg een paar jaar geleden aan mijn vrouw wat ik toch tegen je heb? Wel Derk, dat dus! 



En tot slot een andere manier van omgaan met elkaar. Op het eerste Nederlandse Correspondents’ Dinner nam Rutte zichzelf en de media op de hak. Neen, NRC kocht geen tafel omdat ik beducht ben voor de ongezonde collusie tussen pers en politiek, maar tv-recensent Hans Beerekamp keek wél tv...


NRC-hoofdredacteur Peter Vandermeersch beweert 'beducht' te zijn voor nauwe banden met politici. Dat is dan nieuw, want ik heb nog steeds niet gelezen dat NRC Handelsblad als krant haar excuses heeft aangeboden voor het oproepen tot het plegen van een agressieoorlog, terwijl de redactie dit wel deed op de dag dat de Amerikaanse oorlogsmisdaden tegen Irak begonnen, door op 20 maart 2003 te stellen:


Nu de oorlog is begonnen, moeten president Bush en premier Blair worden gesteund. Die steun kan niet blijven steken in verbale vrijblijvendheid. Dat betekent dus politieke steun - en als het moet ook militaire.


Ik heb op deze weblog tientallen voorbeelden gegeven van 'de ongezonde' geheime verstandhouding tussen 'pers en politiek' bij de NRC.


'Jij' van de NRC


Geweldig.
Jij wilt weten
wat er echt speelt

Wij nodigen je uit jouw eigen mening te vormen met NRC.

U is 'jij' geworden bij de NRC, en 'jij' moet betalen voor provinciaal nieuws en provinciale meningen. Ik zou u willen adviseren om via internet nieuws te betrekken. Kost niets, en u krijgt dankzij de veelheid aan bronnen een kosmopolitische kijk op de geglobaliseerde wereld.




President Assad

President al-Assad speaks to AFP on Syrian and regional developments

الرئيس
Damascus, SANA-President Bashar al-Assad gave the following interview to AFP News Agency on the developments in Syria and the region:
Journalist: Mr. President, we would like to thank you for taking the time to answer our questions in these crucial moments in the history of Syria and the region.
Question 1: How do you feel when you see tens of thousands of your citizens starving, running away from hunger, from their areas, which are being shelled by your Russian allies, and trying to cross the borders to Turkey? And how do you feel when you see the pictures of them drowning in their attempt to cross the seas?
President Assad: If we talk about emotions, I belong to this people; and it is self-evident that I have the same feelings my people have. Any scene of suffering is painful to all of us as Syrians. But as an official, the question for me is less about emotions than about what I, as an official, should do, being responsible before my people.
However, when the cause of this suffering is the terrorists, not the Russian shelling, as claimed by Western media, and when one cause for migration is the almost five-year-old embargo against the Syrian people, naturally my, and every Syrian official’s first task is to fight terrorism essentially using Syrian capabilities, but also using our friends’ support in the fight against terrorism. That’s why I say the problem of Syrian refugees abroad, as well as the problem of hunger inside Syria, as you referred to it, is a problem caused by terrorism, Western policies, and the embargo imposed on the Syrian people.
Question 2: Mr. President, since you are talking about actions rather than emotions, can we talk, or at least think, about the possibility of putting an end to shelling civilian populations in order to alleviate the suffering of these civilians, and also lifting the blockade imposed on certain areas?
President Assad: The conflict has been, since the beginning of the crisis in Syria, about who wins the support of the people in Syria. Consequently, it doesn’t make sense for us to shell civilians if we want to win them to our side. This is in theory. Practically, while moving around in Syria, you will find that in any area under the control of the state, all sections of Syrian society, including the families of the militants, are being cared for by the state. What is more is that in a city like Raqqa, which is under the full control of Daesh (ISIS), the state continues to pay the salaries of employees and send vaccines for children. So, it doesn’t make sense for the state to shell civilians while doing all the above, unless we are talking about mistakes which happen in every battle. The general rule is that there are innocent victims in every war. This is a rule of thumb in wars, but this is definitely not the Syrian state’s policy.
Question 3: Mr. President, what do you say to those emigrating to Europe? Do you ask them to come back?
President Assad: I would like to ask every person who left Syria to come back. That’s natural but not enough. Emotions are not enough. They would ask: “why should I come back? Has terrorism stopped? Have the basic requirements for life been restored?” Many of those who have emigrated are neither against the Syrian state or with the terrorists, but sometimes there are circumstances which force people to emigrate. So, my answer to this question is: when terrorism recedes, and things are better, they will return of their own volition without any invitation. So, instead of asking these people to return, I’ll call on the European governments, which have been a direct cause for the emigration of these people, by giving cover to terrorists in the beginning, and through the sanctions imposed on Syria, to help in making the Syrians return to their country.
President Assad_AFP_1
Question 4: Mr. President, will the Syrian state regain control over Aleppo in the next few days? If so, what is next? Is it extending full control to Lattakia, Aleppo, and Idleb?
President Assad: The battle in Aleppo now is not about regaining control over Aleppo, because the Syrian state is there; but the main battle is about cutting the road between Aleppo and Turkey; for Turkey is the main conduit of supplies for the terrorists. The battle is going on now on more than ten fronts at the same time, from north, to south, to the east, to the far east too, and to the west in Lattakia. It was going on in Homs, and now it’s over. So, all these stages are moving in parallel.
Question 5: Do you think, Mr. President, that you can regain control over all Syrian territory? And what is the timeframe you have for that now?
President Assad: Regardless of whether we can do that or not, this is a goal we are seeking to achieve without any hesitation. It makes no sense for us to say that we will give up any part. The timeframe is dependent on two scenarios. Suppose that the problem is purely Syrian, i.e. that Syria is isolated from its surroundings, we can put an end to this problem in less than a year by moving on two fronts: fighting terrorism and political action. The second scenario – which is the case now – taking the shape of continuing supplies to terrorists through Turkey, Jordan, and partly from Iraq – because Daesh (ISIS) exists in Iraq with Saudi, Turkish, and Qatari support – naturally means that the solution will take a long time and will incur a heavy price. So, it is difficult to give a precise answer about the timeframe.
Question 6: Can’t you say precisely how many years you need to restore peace to Syria?
President Assad: The question is: for how many years will Turkey and Saudi Arabia continue to support terrorism. That is the question. And when will the West put pressure on these countries to stop supporting terrorism.
Question 7: Mr. President, can we know who is your main enemy? Is it the so-called moderate opposition and the Islamists, or is it Daesh (ISIS)? I’m asking because everybody can see that you are targeting, with your shelling and blockade, the areas under the control of this opposition and these Islamists. Who are your real enemies?
President Assad: I don’t think that the term “opposition” can be used, in France or anywhere else in the world, to describe somebody carrying a weapon. Opposition is a political act. Suppose that you mean to say “moderate terrorists,” this is a different term. Saying that, you mean that they do not belong to Daesh (ISIS), al-Nusra, or to these extremist groups. Obama said that the moderate opposition is a fantasy. Biden said the same thing. But what’s more important is reality which says that such an opposition is non-existent. Most of the militants belong to extremist groups, such as Daesh (ISIS), al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Cham, and others. So, my answer is that every terrorist is an enemy. We respect every political opposition; and we do have political opposition inside Syria. They adopt tough positions against the state, and we are not attacking them.
Question 8: I would like to get this straight. As far as you are concerned, there’s no difference between these armed groups, on the one hand, and Daesh (ISIS), al-Nusra, and others, on the other?
President Assad: Legally speaking, there is no difference. The state will confront all those who carry weapons. It will not ask them about their ideology. But the difference is that the extremist groups refuse to have any dialogue with the state. They believe that they will fight, die, and go to heaven. This is their doctrine. The other groups are not ideological. Most of them have been misled. They got involved in dialogue with the state later. Some of them have laid down their weapons, and some are actually fighting with the Syrian Army today. We grant them amnesty in return for laying down their weapons.
الرئيس 2
Question 9: Mr. President, what do you think of Jaish al-Islam and Ahrar al-Cham? They did negotiate with you, and went to Geneva.
President Assad: They went as part of the opposition formed by Saudi Arabia, because it is Saudi Arabia which supports terrorism worldwide. So, it is only natural for the representatives of Saudi Arabia to be terrorists, not politicians.
Question 10: So, you will not negotiate with those.
President Assad: In principle, direct negotiations were not supposed to take place in Geneva 3. They were supposed to take place through de Mistura. And here we should be precise: we are not negotiating with Syrians, but with representatives of Saudi Arabia, France, the UK, and others. So, if you mean Syrian-Syrian dialogue, the answer is naturally no. Dialogue with these people is not a Syrian-Syrian dialogue at all. A Syrian dialogue is that conducted with Syrian groups which have grassroots in Syria, like the political opposition in Syria, for instance. Any persons calling themselves opposition but belong to foreign states or foreign intelligence services do not represent Syrians in the dialogue, and simply we do not consider them Syrian.
Question 11: You said that you were going to negotiate. All those who went to Geneva were based outside Syria. Can you explain?
President Assad: No, some of them are based inside Syria, and some live outside Syria but they are involved in politics and have supporters in Syria. I’m not talking only about terrorists, I’m talking about people who have been formed in a foreign state and act on behalf of a foreign state.
Question 12: Mr. President, you talked about a Syrian opposition inside Syria. My question is: don’t you think that had you been more tolerant in dealing with this opposition in the past, you would have avoided this conflict? Don’t you bear part of the responsibility?
President Assad: We do not claim that we did not make mistakes in Syria. This is natural in any state. And we do not claim that we, in the Middle East, have reached a stage of significant political openness. We were moving in that direction, not very quickly, and maybe slowly. Back to your question, the more radical segments of the opposition inside Syria, which attack the state, have not been imprisoned or prosecuted by the state, neither before or after the crisis. So, I don’t know what is meant by tolerance in this case.
Question 13: Maybe it was difficult for the opposition inside Syria to assemble and to organize itself, before the crisis, and to raise the voice as opposition. Maybe they did not have a margin for movement.
President Assad: You are talking about a general condition in the Middle East. This is partly true, particularly in the Arab world. But the question in this case is not that of tolerance. The question has to do with individuals rather than institutions. The question is: what is the institutional action that we should take in order to move forward. This has legal, social, or cultural aspects, because democracy is more of a culture than a law. You cannot proceed with laws while remaining culturally in your place.
Question 14: Mr. President, do you think that there might be a Turkish intervention in Syria now? And do you think the Saudi threats are serious?
President Assad: Logically, intervention is not possible, but sometimes reality is at odds with logic, particularly when there are irrational people leading a certain state. That’s why I don’t rule that out for a simple reason: Erdogan is a fanatical person with Muslim Brotherhood inclinations. He is living the Ottoman dream. For him, the collapse which took place in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Syria is something personal. This threatens his political future, on the one hand, and his fanatical Islamist ambitions, on the other. He believes that he has an Islamist mission in our region. The same applies to Saudi Arabia. The collapse of the terrorists in Syria is a collapse of their policies. I tell you that this process is surely not going to be easy for them, and we will certainly confront it.
Question 15: Mr. President, are you prepared to give northern Syria to the Kurds as a self-rule area after the crisis?
President Assad: This question is directly related to the Syrian constitution; and as you know, the constitution is not given by the government, all sections of Syrian society have a say in it, and it is put to public referendum. That’s why this should be a national question, not a question put to any Syrian official, whether it has to do with self-rule, federalism, decentralization, or any similar thing. All these things are part of the political dialogue in the future; but I would like to stress that the Kurds are a Syrian national group.
Question 16: Is it true, Mr. President, that the Russians persuaded, or tried to persuade you, to step down? Don’t you fear a Russian-American deal on this issue?
President Assad: If we look at Russian policies and Russian officials in the same way we look at unprincipled Western officials and policies, this is a possibility. But the fact is the exact opposite, for a simple reason: the Russians treat us with great respect. They do not treat us as a superpower dealing with a minor state, but as a sovereign state dealing with a sovereign state. That’s why this issue has not been raised at all in any shape or form.
Question 17: Mr. President, are you prepared to give Russia and Iran permanent bases on your territory? And in this case, do you fear that Syria will become a satellite to these powers?
President Assad: Having military bases for any country in Syria does not mean that Syria will become a satellite state to these countries. They do not interfere in issues related to the law, the constitution, nor to politics. In any case, the Russian base exists already, while the Iranians have not asked to have one. But in principle, we do not have a problem.
Question 18: So, if the Iranians raise this possibility, will you accept?
President Assad: The issue hasn’t been raised, and consequently this is hypothetical. But as I said, when we accept it in the case of Russia, it means the principle is acceptable. But this also depends on the capabilities of every state and their role on the regional and international arena.
Question 19: Has Russia asked your permission to build new bases on your territory?
President Assad: No.
President Assad_AFP_2
Question 20: Mr. President, the American elections are still at the primaries stage. Are you, personally, with candidate Trump or Clinton? Do you see a third person who might be useful and in the interest of the region?
President Assad: We have never placed our bets on any American president. We always bet on policies; and these policies are not controlled only by the president, but by the establishment in general, and by the lobbies operating in the United States. If you look at the competition between many candidates, now or in the past, you will find that it revolves around who is more inclined to start wars, and this doesn’t bode well.
Intervention: Who is more aggressive, or more inclined to war, Trump or Clinton?
President Assad: The problem with American politicians is that they say something and do the exact opposite, before and after the elections.
Intervention: So, the promises made by Trump do not frighten you?
President Assad: No. As I said, since I don’t build on what the American candidates say, I see no reason why I should comment on any of them, i.e. they are all alike to me.
Question 21: Mr. President, do you intend to be a president for life, as was your father? And if you don’t intend to do that, are you in the process of grooming a successor; and would this successor be one of your sons?
President Assad: First, the presidency is not a hobby that we enjoy. It is a responsibility, particularly in these circumstances. As to my selecting a successor, this country is neither a farm nor a company. If I want to remain president, that should be dependent on two factors: first, my desire to be president, and second, the desire of the people. When the next elections come and I feel that the people don’t want me, I shall not stand. That’s why it’s too early to talk about this. We still have years before the next elections.
Question 22: Mr. President, you know that there have been many accusations to your government and to you personally, most recently by the UN investigation committee, which accused you of genocide, which is a crime against humanity.
Last month, the UN Human Rights High Commissioner spoke about blockading a number of your cities, like the town of Madaya, and accused your government of committing war crimes, and also about crimes he says you commit by throwing barrel bombs on civilians. Aren’t you concerned that you will one day face an international court?
President Assad: First, you know that UN institutions express balance among the superpowers and the conflict among them.
And these organizations are now basically controlled by Western powers. That’s why most of their reports are politicized and serve a political agenda. The evidence is that these organizations haven’t said anything about clear massacres perpetrated by terrorist groups against innocent civilians in Syria. What refutes the reports of these organizations is that, first, they do not provide any evidence, and this is the case in general. Second, there is a logic for things: if Western states and rich Gulf states are against an individual; and this individual is killing his people, how would he withstand for five years in these circumstances? That’s why I’m not concerned about these threats or these allegations.
Question 23: You said that these reports and institutions do not provide any evidence. But don’t you believe that these reports are correct, particularly the latest report by the UN committee about the death of thousands of prisoners in your prisons? There are eyewitnesses in this case.
President Assad: No, there is a difference between individual crimes having been committed and having a state policy of systematic killing. I said that innocent people die in the war. That is true, but war crimes are committed when orders are given to follow a policy of committing massacres for certain purposes. Had this been true, people would have fled from state-controlled areas to the areas controlled by armed groups. What is happening is the exact opposite: everybody moves to the state-controlled areas.
Question 24: Mr. President, how do you think you will figure in history, as a man who saved Syria or a man who destroyed it?
President Assad: This depends on who will write the history. If it is the West, it will give me all the bad attributes. What’s important is how I think. Certainly, and self-evidently, I will seek, and that is what I’m doing now, to protect Syria, not to protect the chair I’m sitting on.
Question 25: Mr. President, do you still really intend to negotiate with the militants, or are you thinking of crushing them militarily?
President Assad: We have fully believed in negotiations and in political action since the beginning of the crisis; however, if we negotiate, it does not mean that we stop fighting terrorism. The two tracks are inevitable in Syria: first, through negotiations, and second through fighting terrorism. And the two tracks are separate from each other.
Question 26: Mr. President, what is your comment on the resignation of French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius? And do you believe that this will change French policy in any way? And would you make any initiative in the war against terrorism towards France in order to make communication possible with it and make it change its policy towards you?
President Assad: Changing personnel is not that significant. What’s important is the change of policies. The French administration changed almost completely between Sarkozy and Hollande, but for us the policies have not changed. They have been destructive policies extending direct support to terrorism. That’s why we should not assume that the foreign minister makes the policies. They are made by the whole state, headed by the president. As to what we can do in Syria, I don’t think that Syria has to do anything towards France. It is France which should do something towards fighting terrorism. So far, it supports terrorists, albeit politically, and in some cases it supported them militarily. It is France’s duty to reverse or change its policies in order to fight terrorism, particularly after hundreds of French citizens paid with their lives for their wrong policies.
Journalist: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
President Assad: Thank you.

Paul Craig Roberts 160

President Kennedy and His Brother Were Murdered By The Military-Security Complex

By Paul Craig Roberts

February 13, 2016 "Information Clearing House" -  Presstitute Media, such as the UK Telegraph, spend a lot of energy debunking exposes of government conspiracies. For example, the thousands of highrise architects, structural engineers, physicists, nano-chemists, demoltion experts, first responders, military and civilian pilots, and former government officials who have provided vast evidence that the official story of 9/11 is a made-up fairy tale at odds with all evidence and the laws of physics are dismissed by presstitutes as “conspiracy theorists.” 
Similarly, those, such as James W. Douglass, who have proven beyond all doubt that President John F. Kennedy was not assassinated by Oswald but by his own paranoid anti-communist military-security complex, are dismissed as conspiracy theorists. 
The 9/11 Commission Report and the Warren Commission Report were cover-ups. VP Dick Cheney and the neoconservatives he sponsored needed a “new Pearl Harbor” in order to begin their military assaults on the Middle Eastern countries that had independent foreign policies instead of being US/Israeli vassals. 9/11 was their orchestrated “new Pearl Harbor,” and this fact had to be covered up when 9/11 families persisted in their demands for an investigation and could not be bought off for large sums of money. 
Similarly, the Warren Commission had no choice but to cover up that a popular American president, John F. Kennedy, had been murdered by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, and the Secret Service, because he was believed by paranoid anti-communists to be “soft on communism” and thereby a threat to the security of the United States. The cold war was on, and the Warren Commission could not hold those responsible accountable without destroying the public’s confidence in the American military and security services. 
Nevertheless everyone aware of the forged case against Oswald knew what had happened. One of these people was Attorney General Robert Kennedy, JFK’s brother. 
Bobby Kennedy understood the situation. He knew that as a member of a cover-up administration he could do nothing about it. However, he knew that if he won the presidency, he could hold accountable those security elements responsible. His brother had told him that after his reelection he was going to “break the CIA into a thousand pieces.” When the Vietnam war desroyed President Lyndon Johnson, Bobby Kennedy emerged as the next president of the US.
Bobby Kennedy was assassinated the evening that he won the California Democratic primary. Sirhan Sirhan was blamed. He was standing in front of Kennedy. He had an eight shot low caliber pistol, which he fired. He did hit Paul Shrade, who was standing next to Kennedy. But he did not hit Kennedy. Kennedy, according to the medical evidence and eye witnesses was killed from shots to his back and to the back of his head.
This was confirmed to me years ago by a distinguished journalist and documentary film maker who was standing just behind Robert Kennedy when he was shot. He told me that he felt the bullet that hit Kennedy go by his ear and saw its impact. He wrote a full report for the FBI and despite his credentials was never contacted by the investigation.
Now, last Wednesday, 48 years later, Paul Shrade has presented ironclad evidence at the parole hearing of the now 71 year old Sirhan Sirhan that Robert Kennedy was shot by someone else from the rear, not from the front where Sirhan Sirhan was standing. 
You can read Paul Shrade’s statement here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44184.htm 
Of course, the presstitute media will say that Paul Shrade, who was himself shot when Kennedy was assassinated, is a “conspiracy theorist.” Remember: a conspiracy theorist is anyone who on the basis of hard evidence challenges a government that blames its crime on an innocent third party.

At the time of Robert Kennedy’s assassination, the CIA was conducing mind control experiments. Experts think that Sirhan Sirhan was one of those under the CIA’s control. This would explaine why Sirhan Sirhan has no memory of the event.
President John F. Kennedy had experienced in the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer a high level of insubordination. Lemnitzer showed in White House meetings contempt for the president. When Lemnitzer brought Kennedy the Northwoods Project to shoot down American citizens in the streets of America and to blow American airliners out of the sky in order to place the blame on Castro so that the US could invade and achieve “regime change,” a popular term of the George W. Bush regime, in Cuba, President Kennedy removed Lemnitzer as chairman and sent him to Europe as head of NATO. 
Kennedy did not know about Operation Gladio, an assassination program in Europe run by NATO and the CIA. Communists were blamed for Operation Gladio’s bombings of civilians in train stations in order to erode communist political influence, especially in Italy. Thus, Kennedy’s way of getting rid of Lemnitzer put Lemnitzer in charge of this program and gave Lemnitzer a way to get rid of John Kennedy.
Anyone who thinks that democratic governments would not kill their own citizens is uninformed beyond belief. If, dear reader, you are one of these gullible people, please go to the Internet and become familiar, for example, with Operation Northwoods and Operation Gladio. 

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order. -

See more at: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44208.htm#sthash.ZvQlRavl.dpuf


JFK and the Unspeakable

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters
AuthorJames W. Douglass
CountryUnited States
LanguageEnglish
SubjectTrue crime, John F. Kennedy assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald, United States conspiracies
Published2008 / 2010 (Orbis Books(hardcover) / Touchstone Books(paperback) )
Media typePrint (hardcover / paperback)
Pages544 pp
ISBN978-1-57075-755-6
OCLC163707261
973.922092
JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters is a book by theologian and Catholic Worker James W. Douglass (Orbis Books 2008 / Touchstone Books, an imprint of Simon & Schuster, 2010) that analyzes the presidency of John F. Kennedy as well as the events surrounding the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The book is drawn from many sources, including the Warren Report. The book's central thesis is that Kennedy was a cold warrior who turned to peace-making, and that as a result he was killed by his own security apparatus.[1]
Published by The Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers' Orbis Books, it received an award from the Catholic Press Associationand coverage in the religious press; sales shot up after Oliver Stone recommended the book, with it featuring in Amazon.com's Top 100 for a week.[2] The 2013 edition of the book was endorsed by Kennedy's nephew Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who said it had moved him to visit Dealey Plaza for the first time.[3]




Propaganda Campagne van Joodse Staat

Onair58-2 @_Innocent_99 @AnisJadib zegt nooit zomaar iets. Dit is ronduit schokkend om te horen. @NOS Inderdaad. Dit heeft zóveel nieuwsw...