Zoeken in deze blog 🔎🔎

zaterdag 16 november 2019

Syria Fights Back

Hasakah: Syrian Arab Army Deploys over 200 Kms on Borders with Turkey

Syrian Arab Army SAA deploys at borders with Turkey - Hasakah
Hasakah: The Syrian Arab Army continues its swift deployment in the northeastern province along the borders with NATO member state Turkey to protect the Syrians living there from the aggression by the Turkish Army and the Muslim Brotherhood and Wahhabi terrorists loyal to Recep Tayib Erdogan.
The following video report by the Lebanese Al-Mayadeen news channel details further about the SAA deployment:
This video is also available on BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/video/XsDlxfQw8qzt/
Transcript of the English translation of the above video report:
Marijat, Al Bustan, Swedieh West, Shamsiyah, Hob Al-Hawa and Ain Dewar, six new locations where the Syrian army has deployed to complete the deployment on the northern border strip of Hasakah, from the northeastern countryside of Ras al-Ain to Ain-Dewar with a 200-kilometer stretch.
The deployment of the army in these areas aims to link the Syrian-Iraqi border with the Syrian-Turkish border at the Ain Dewar site. It is the first deployment in seven years in cities and towns that are a reservoir of oil and gas resources, this allows the Syrian government to invest later in the event of an agreement with the Kurdish self-administration.
The deployment on the Syrian-Turkish border is one task to secure the area from Turkish infiltration and attack on the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic.
This is the first time in seven years that we have reached this region, and, God willing, we will raise the flag of the Syrian Arab Army and remain high and protect our country, our families and our people.
The deployment of the army means full implementation of the terms of the Sochi Agreement signed between the Russian and Turkish presidents; it protects an important border area of tens of thousands of civilians who have been threatened with displacement under the weight of continued Turkish incursions into northern Syria.
End of the transcript.
Soon enough the Trump mercenary forces he sent to ‘secure the oil’ from its owners will be encircled and he would need to call on the Russians to negotiate with Syria how to rescue them.
Meanwhile and on the Idlib front, northwest of Syria, the Syrian Arab Army units cleaned towns from NATO’s Nusra Front terrorists.
The Syrian Army recaptured the western village of Weibdeh and Tal Khazna in the southeastern countryside of Idlib, Army units carried out artillery and rocket launches on Jabhat al-Nusra fortifications in the area, followed by fierce clashes against armed groups deployed there. Meanwhile, army units carried out operations focused on militant gatherings in the village of Musheirqa in the southeastern countryside of the city.

MH17 “Who shot the Boeing?”

MH17 – The JIT does not answer the question “Who shot the Boeing?”

“THE JOINT INVESTIGATION TEAM WHICH INVESTIGATES THE MH17 CRASH (JIT) HAS published new evidence of Russia’s involvement in the crash of the Malaysian airliner” – various media outlets are shining with sensational headlines. This official structure, which includes representatives of the Netherlands, Malaysia, Belgium, Australia and Ukraine, was created in order to get to the truth: what happened in the sky over Donbass on July 17, 2014. To answer the question: who attacked the civilian aircraft and became the culprit for the deaths of 298 people?
Today, the JIT issued another piece of evidence by publishing wiretaps of various Donbass militias and politicians. The time of action is the summer of 2014. Here you will find talks about the conflict between different field commanders (which is certainly an open secret), conversations between the former head of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) Alexander Boroday and Vladislav Surkov about the current state of affairs in the Republic, and mentioning of so beloved in the West abbreviations of three letters, which are in charge of certain militia groups…
I don’t know if it’s real wiretaps or SBU fairies. Maybe so, or maybe not. But there is no mention of flight MH17 in the audio recordings published on Thursday.
You know what I mean? The JIT investigating the MH17 Boeing catastrophe in the Donbass publishes wiretaps that have nothing to do with the catastrophe itself. Like an owl on a globe, it pulls reasons from some very distant information. But not a single second of what has been published sheds light on the causes of the MH17 crash.
Why does the JIT post materials that go beyond their professional interest? After all, they are not investigating the cause of the conflict in the Donbass. The JIT is becoming an instrument of influence in someone else’s hands. And the goals can be very different. From heating up the necessary degree of tension in Ukrainian society – the part of it that disagrees with the peace settlement – to an attempt to disrupt the ghostly meeting of the Normandy quartet on the horizon. Look, Vladimir Aleksandrovich, with whom you are going to negotiate, people will not appreciate it. You’d think he’d appreciate the land sale.
All this, of course, does not increase confidence in the investigation team, which has not yet convincingly answered the main question: who shot the Boeing? On your youtube channel, I would listen with great interest to the decoding of black boxes, which has been classified for over five years.
Alexander Kots
Source: KP.RU
Translation by Donbass Insider
Telegram
http://www.donbass-insider.com/2019/11/15/mh17-the-jit-does-not-answer-the-question-who-shot-the-boeing/?fbclid=IwAR3iFLhX5dUANwfKO4vlvw7IzGdMWkg9O5mg00RyRJnHHi09wBmDvMJgPr8


CIA Has Interfered With Over 81 Foreign Elections

CIA Has Interfered With Over 81 Foreign Elections in the Past Century


This number doesn’t include military coups and regime change efforts following the election of candidates the U.S. didn’t like, notably those in Iran, Guatemala and Chile.


The CIA has accused Russia of interfering in the 2016 presidential election (with absolutely zero evidence) by hacking into Democratic and Republican computer networks and selectively releasing emails.

But critics might point out the U.S. has done similar things.

The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – it’s done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University.

That number doesn’t include military coups and regime change efforts following the election of candidates the U.S. didn’t like, notably those in Iran, Guatemala and Chile. Nor does it include general assistance with the electoral process, such as election monitoring.

Levin defines intervention as “a costly act which is designed to determine the election results [in favor of] one of the two sides.”

These acts, carried out in secret two-thirds of the time, include funding the election campaigns of specific parties, disseminating misinformation or propaganda, training locals of only one side in various campaigning or get-out-the-vote techniques, helping one side design their campaign materials, making public pronouncements or threats in favor of or against a candidate, and providing or withdrawing foreign aid.

In 59% of these cases, the side that received assistance came to power, although Levin estimates the average effect of “partisan electoral interventions” to be only about a 3% increase in vote share.

The U.S. hasn’t been the only one trying to interfere in other countries’ elections, according to Levin’s data.

Russia attempted to sway 36 foreign elections from the end of World War II to the turn of the century – meaning that, in total, at least one of the two great powers of the 20th century intervened in about 1 of every 9 competitive, national-level executive elections in that time period.

Italy’s 1948 general election is an early example of a race where U.S. actions probably influenced the outcome.

“We threw everything, including the kitchen sink” at helping the Christian Democrats beat the Communists in Italy, said Levin, including covertly delivering “bags of money” to cover campaign expenses, sending experts to help run the campaign, subsidizing “pork” projects like land reclamation, and threatening publicly to end U.S. aid to Italy if the Communists were elected.

Levin said that U.S. intervention probably played an important role in preventing a Communist Party victory, not just in 1948, but in seven subsequent Italian elections.

Throughout the Cold War, U.S. involvement in foreign elections was mainly motivated by the goal of containing communism, said Thomas Carothers, a foreign policy expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

“The U.S. didn’t want to see left-wing governments elected, and so it did engage fairly often in trying to influence elections in other countries,” Carothers said.

This approach carried over into the immediate post-Soviet period.

In the 1990 Nicaragua elections, the CIA leaked damaging information on alleged corruption by the Marxist Sandinistas to German newspapers, according to Levin.

The opposition used those reports against the Sandinista candidate, Daniel Ortega. He lost to opposition candidate Violeta Chamorro.

In Czechoslovakia that same year, the U.S. provided training and campaign funding to Vaclav Havel’s party and its Slovak affiliate as they planned for the country’s first democratic election after its transition away from communism.

“The thinking was that we wanted to make sure communism was dead and buried,” said Levin.

Even after that, the U.S. continued trying to influence elections in its favor.

In Haiti after the 1986 overthrow of dictator and U.S. ally Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, the CIA sought to support particular candidates and undermine Jean-Bertrande Aristide, a Roman Catholic priest and proponent of liberation theology.

The New York Times reported in the 1990s that the CIA had on its payroll members of the military junta that would ultimately unseat Aristide after he was democratically elected in a landslide over Marc Bazin, a former World Bank official and finance minister favored by the U.S.

The U.S. also attempted to sway Russian elections. In 1996, with the presidency of Boris Yeltsin and the Russian economy flailing, President Clinton endorsed a $10.2-billion loan from the International Monetary Fund linked to privatization, trade liberalization and other measures that would move Russia toward a capitalist economy.

Yeltsin used the loan to bolster his popular support, telling voters that only he had the reformist credentials to secure such loans, according to media reports at the time.

He used the money, in part, for social spending before the election, including payment of back wages and pensions.

In the Middle East, the U.S. has aimed to bolster candidates who could further the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

In 1996, seeking to fulfill the legacy of assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the peace accords the U.S. brokered, Clinton openly supported Shimon Peres, convening a peace summit in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el Sheik to boost his popular support and inviting him to a meeting at the White House a month before the election.

“We were persuaded that if [Likud candidate Benjamin] Netanyahu were elected, the peace process would be closed for the season,” said Aaron David Miller, who worked at the State Department at the time.

In 1999, in a more subtle effort to sway the election, top Clinton strategists, including James Carville, were sent to advise Labor candidate Ehud Barak in the election against Netanyahu.

In Yugoslavia, the U.S. and NATO had long sought to cut off Serbian nationalist and Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic from the international system through economic sanctions and military action.

In 2000, the U.S. spent millions of dollars in aid for political parties, campaign costs and independent media. Funding and broadcast equipment provided to the media arms of the opposition were a decisive factor in electing opposition candidate Vojislav Kostunica as Yugoslav president, according to Levin.

“If it wouldn’t have been for overt intervention… Milosevic would have been very likely to have won another term,” he said.

By Nina Agrawal, Los Angeles Times
http://humansarefree.com/2017/01/cia-has-interfered-with-over-81-foreign.html?fbclid=IwAR17Zawp2w7Z-VE2e0iZS_SWgSRE9AiUCTh5qOo7I2zSXAmU1o_HhwexcuM


vrijdag 15 november 2019

Why Aren't People in the US Rising Up?

Published on 
by 

Why Aren't People in the US Rising Up Like Those Elsewhere in the World?

Without a mass movement continually pushing and prodding for real change and holding politicians accountable—for their policies as well as their words—our neoliberal rulers assume that they can safely ignore the concerns and interests of ordinary people.

Demonstrators wave flags as they take part during the day of cultural activities 'El Derecho a Vivir en Paz' called by 'Movimiento Unidad Social' at Plaza O'Higgins on October 27, 2019 in Santiago, Chile. Unidad Social, an organization conformed by various social groups, has called society to be part of cultural activities in defence of human rights and against abuses, under the slogan #NoMasAbusos (No more abuses) people demand Sebastian Piñera's Government attention to issues such as health care, pension
Demonstrators wave flags as they take part during the day of cultural activities 'El Derecho a Vivir en Paz' called by 'Movimiento Unidad Social' at Plaza O'Higgins on October 27, 2019 in Santiago, Chile. Unidad Social, an organization conformed by various social groups, has called society to be part of cultural activities in defence of human rights and against abuses, under the slogan #NoMasAbusos (No more abuses) people demand Sebastian Piñera's Government attention to issues such as health care, pension system, privatization of water, public transport, education, social mobility and corruption. (Photo: Marcelo Hernandez/Getty Images)
The waves of protests breaking out in country after country around the world beg the question: Why aren’t Americans rising up in peaceful protest like our neighbors? We live at the very heart of this neoliberal system that is force-feeding the systemic injustice and inequality of 19th century laissez-faire capitalism to the people of the 21st century. So we are subject to many of the same abuses that have fueled mass protest movements in other countries, including high rents, stagnant wages, cradle-to-grave debt, ever-rising economic inequality, privatized healthcare, a shredded social safety net, abysmal public transportation, systemic political corruption and endless war.
We also have a corrupt, racist billionaire as president, who Congress may soon impeach, but where are the masses outside the White House, banging pots and pans to drive Trump out? Why aren’t people crashing the offices of their congresspeople, demanding that they represent the people or resign? If none of these conditions has so far provoked a new American revolution, what will it take to trigger one?
In the 1960s and 1970s, the senseless Vietnam War provoked a serious, well-organized antiwar movement. But today the U.S.’s endless wars just rage on in the background of our lives, as the U.S. and its allies kill and mutilate men, women and children in distant countries, day after day, year after year. Our history has also witnessed inspiring mass movements for civil rights, women’s rights and gay rights, but these movements are much tamer today.
The Occupy Movement in 2011 came closest to challenging the entire neoliberalsystem. It awakened a new generation to the reality of government of, by, and for the corrupt 1%, and built a powerful basis for solidarity among the marginalized 99%. But Occupy lost momentum because it failed to transition from a rallying point and a decentralized, democratic forum to a cohesive movement that could impact the existing power structure.
The climate movement is starting to mobilize a new generation, and groups like School Strike for the Climate and Extinction Rebellion take direct aim at this destructive economic system that prioritizes corporate growth and profits over the very survival of life on Earth. But while climate protests have shut down parts of London and other cities around the world, the scale of climate protests in the U.S. does not yet match the urgency of the crisis.
So why is the American public so passive?
Americans pour their energy and hopes into electoral campaigns
Election campaigns in most countries last only a few months, with strict limits on financing and advertising to try to ensure fair elections. But Americans pour millions of hours and billions of dollars into multi-year election campaigns run by an ever-growing sector of the commercial advertising industry, which even awarded Barack Obama its “Marketer of the Year” award for 2008. (The other finalists were not John McCain or the Republicans but Apple, Nike and Coors beer.)
When U.S. elections are finally over, thousands of exhausted volunteers sweep up the bunting and go home, believing their work is done. While electoral politics should be a vehicle for change, this neoliberal model of corporate “center-right” and “center-left” politics ensures that congresspeople and presidents of both parties are primarily accountable to the ruling 1% who “pay to play.”
Millions of Americans have internalized the myth of  the “American dream,” believing they have exceptional chances for social and economic mobility compared with their peers in other countries. If they aren’t successful, it must be their own fault—either they’re not smart enough or they don’t work hard enough.
Former President Jimmy Carter has bluntly described what Americans euphemistically call “campaign finance” as a system of legalized bribery. Transparency International (TI) ranks the U.S. 22ndon its political corruption index, identifying it as more corrupt than any other wealthy, developed country.
Without a mass movement continually pushing and prodding for real change and holding politicians accountable—for their policies as well as their words—our neoliberal rulers assume that they can safely ignore the concerns and interests of ordinary people as they make the critical decisions that shape the world we live in. As Frederick Douglass observed in 1857, “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has and it never will.”
Millions of Americans have internalized the myth of  the “American dream,” believing they have exceptional chances for social and economic mobility compared with their peers in other countries. If they aren’t successful, it must be their own fault—either they’re not smart enough or they don’t work hard enough.
The American Dream is not just elusive—it’s a complete fantasy. In reality, the U.S. has the greatest income inequality of any wealthy, developed country. Of the 39 developed countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), only South Africa and Costa Rica exceed the U.S.’s 18% poverty rate. The United States is an anomaly: a very wealthy country suffering from exceptional poverty. To make matters worse, children born into poor families in the U.S. are more likely to remain poor as adults than poor children in other wealthy countries. But the American dream ideology keeps people struggling and competing to improve their lives on a strictly individual basis, instead of demanding a fairer society and the healthcare, education and public services we all need and deserve.
The corporate media keeps Americans uninformed and docile
The U.S.’s corporate media system is also unique, both in its consolidated corporate ownership and in its limited news coverage, endlessly downsized newsrooms and narrow range of viewpoints. Its economics reporting reflects the interests of its corporate owners and advertisers; its domestic reporting and debate is strictly framed and limited by the prevailing rhetoric of Democratic and Republican leaders; its anemic foreign policy coverage is editorially dictated by the State Department and Pentagon.
This closed media system wraps the public in a cocoon of myths, euphemisms and propaganda to leave us exceptionally ignorant about our own country and the world we live in. Reporters Without Borders ranks the U.S. 48th out of 180 countries on its Press Freedom Index, once again making the U.S. an exceptional outlier among wealthy countries.
It’s true people can search for their own truth on social media to counter the corporate babble, but social media is itself a distraction. People spend countless hours on facebook, twitter, instagram and other platforms venting their anger and frustration without getting up off the couch to actually do something—except perhaps sign a petition. “Clicktivism” will not change the world.
Add to this the endless distractions of Hollywood, video games, sports and consumerism, and the exhaustion that comes with working several jobs to make ends meet. The resulting political passivity of Americans is not some strange accident of American culture but the intended product of a mutually reinforcing web of economic, political and media systems that keep the American public confused, distracted and convinced of our own powerlessness.
The political docility of the American public does not mean that Americans are happy with the way things are, and the unique challenges this induced docility poses for American political activists and organizers surely cannot be more daunting than the life-threatening repression faced by activists in Chile, Haiti or Iraq.
So how can we liberate ourselves from our assigned roles as passive spectators and mindless cheerleaders for a venal ruling class that is laughing all the way to the bank and through the halls of power as it grabs ever more concentrated wealth and power at our expense?
"How can we liberate ourselves from our assigned roles as passive spectators and mindless cheerleaders for a venal ruling class that is laughing all the way to the bank and through the halls of power as it grabs ever more concentrated wealth and power at our expense?" 
Few expected a year ago that 2019 would be a year of global uprising against the neoliberal economic and political system that has dominated the world for forty years. Few predicted new revolutions in Chile or Iraq or Algeria. But popular uprisings have a way of confounding conventional wisdom.
The catalysts for each of these uprisings have also been surprising. The protests in Chile began over an increase in subway fares. In Lebanon, the spark was a proposed tax on WhatsApp and other social media accounts. Hikes in fuel tax triggered the yellow vest protests in France, while the ending of fuel subsidies was a catalyst in both Ecuador and Sudan.
The common factor in all these movements is the outrage of ordinary people at systems and laws that reward corruption, oligarchy and plutocracy at the expense of their own quality of life. In each country, these catalysts were the final straws that broke the camel’s back, but once people were in the street, protests quickly turned into more general uprisings demanding the resignation of leaders and governments.
They have the guns but we have the numbers
State repression and violence have only fueled greater popular demands for more fundamental change, and millions of protesters in country after country have remained committed to non-violence and peaceful protest - in stark contrast to the rampant violence of the right-wing coup in Bolivia
While these uprisings seem spontaneous, in every country where ordinary people have risen up in 2019, activists have been working for years to build the movements that eventually brought large numbers of people onto the streets and into the headlines.Sanders’ wildly successful first presidential campaign in 2016 pushed a new generation of American politicians to commit to real policy solutions to real problems instead of the vague promises and applause lines that serve as smokescreens for the corrupt agendas of neoliberal politicians like Trump and Biden.
Erica Chenoweth’s research on the history of nonviolent protest movements found that whenever at least 3.5% of a population have taken to the streets to demand political change, governments have been unable to resist their demands. Here in the U.S., Transparency International found that the number of Americans who see “direct action,” including street protests, as the antidote to our corrupt political system has risen from 17% to 25% since Trump took office, far more than Chenoweth’s 3.5%. Only 28% still see simply “voting for a clean candidate” as the answer. So maybe we are just waiting for the right catalyst to strike a chord with the American public.
In fact, the work of progressive activists in the U.S. is already upsetting the neoliberal status quo. Without the movement-building work of thousands of Americans, Bernie Sanders would still be a little-known Senator from Vermont, largely ignored by the corporate media and the Democratic Party. Sanders’ wildly successful first presidential campaign in 2016 pushed a new generation of American politicians to commit to real policy solutions to real problems instead of the vague promises and applause lines that serve as smokescreens for the corrupt agendas of neoliberal politicians like Trump and Biden.  
We can’t predict exactly what catalyst will trigger a mass movement in the U.S. like the ones we are seeing overseas, but with more and more Americans, especially young people, demanding an alternative to a system that doesn’t serve their needs, the tinder for a revolutionary movement is everywhere. We just have to keep kicking up sparks until one catches fire. 

Meet America's New Underclass


Meet America's New Underclass


Meet America's New Underclass
hans van den berg / CC BY 2.0
Are you there yet?
By “there,” I mean have you at last become a 1 percenter? It’s the dream of many social climbers to be in the top percentile, but it’s a steep climb — it now takes a paycheck of $515,000 a year to dwell with the swells at the peak.
Actually, that just makes you sorta rich. To rise to the tippy-top of the really richy-rich — the top 0.001 percent — your income has to be above $63 million a year, an exclusive club with only 1,433 members.


Meanwhile, back down on Earth, it’s harder and harder for working families to make ends meet, even with full-time jobs.
The media keep citing low joblessness as evidence that the economy is humming — but getting work no longer means getting a decent paycheck. In fact, the fastest growing job categories today are low-wage, no-benefit service positions — a primary cause of raging inequality in America.
Indeed, a fast-growing new job category is called “wealth work.” That doesn’t mean getting wealthy — it means working for the wealthy. It’s a new underclass of poorly paid personal service attendants who beautify, shop for, and otherwise tend to the care, feeding, and desires of the rich.
The Atlantic magazine reports that job growth for pedicurists, pet caretakers, private cooks, etc. is at least double the overall growth in jobs. Moreover, there’s a surge in demand for gift wrappers, horse exercisers, oyster preparers, animal therapists, sommeliers, and such.
We must stop letting the Powers That Be pretend that all is right in America as long as the stock market is booming, jobs (or jobettes) are being created, and the 1 percenters are prospering. The glue that holds our diverse society together is the egalitarian ethic of the Common Good.
As my ol’ Texas daddy used to put it to me, “Everybody does better when everybody does better.”

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...