The Yellow Peril Comes to Washington

Following the Israeli model?
 RSS  
Chinese Army

So President Donald Trump reckoned on Monday that the United States Intelligence Community (IC) just might be wrong in its assessment that Russia had sought to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election but then decided on Tuesday that he misspoke and had the greatest confidence in the IC and now agrees that they were correct in their judgment. But Donald Trump, interestingly, added something about there being “others” that also had been involved in the election in an attempt to subvert it, though he was not specific and the national media has chosen not to pursue the admittedly cryptic comment. He was almost certainly referring to China both due to possible motive and the possession of the necessary resources to carry out such an operation. Indeed, there are reports that China hacked the 30,000 Hillary Clinton emails that are apparently still missing.

Just how one interferes in an election in a large country with diverse sources of information and numerous polling stations located in different states using different systems is, of course, problematical. The United States has interfered in elections everywhere, including in Russia under Boris Yeltsin. It engaged in regime change in Iran, Chile, and Guatemala by supporting conservative elements in the military which obligingly staged coups. In Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. forces invaded and overthrew the governments while in Libya the change in regime was largely brought about by encouraging rebels while bombing government forces. The same model has been applied in Syria, though without much success because Damascus actually was bold enough to resist.

So how do the Chinese “others” bring about “change” short of a full-scale invasion by the People’s Liberation Army? I do not know anything about actual Chinese plans to interfere in future American elections and gain influence over the resulting newly elected government but would like to speculate on just how they might go about that onerous task.

First, I would build up an infrastructure in the United States that would have access to the media and be able to lobby and corrupt the political class. That would be kind of tricky as it would require getting around the Foreign Agent Registration Act of 1938 (FARA), which requires representatives of foreign governments operating in the United States to register and have their finances subject to review by the Department of the Treasury. Most recently, several Russian news agencies that are funded by the Putin government have been required to do so, including RT International and Sputnik radio and television.

The way to avoid the FARA registration requirement is to have all funding come through Chinese-American sources that are not directly connected with the government in Beijing. Further, the foundations and other organizations should be set up as having an educational purpose rather than a political agenda. You might want to call your principal lobbying group something like the American Chinese Political Action Committee or ACPAC as an acronym when one is referring to it shorthand.

Once established, ACPAC will hire and send hundreds of Chinese-American lobbyists to Capitol Hill when Congress is in session. They will be carefully selected to come from as many states and congressional districts as possible to maximize access to legislative offices. They will have with them position papers prepared by the ACPAC central office that explain why a close and uncritical relationship with Beijing is not only the right thing to do, it is also a good thing for the United States.

As part of the process, new Congressmen will benefit from free trips to China paid for by an educational foundation set up for that purpose. They will be able to walk on the Great Wall and speak to genuine representative Chinese who will tell them how wonderful everything is in the People’s Republic.

Congressmen who nevertheless appear to be resistant to the lobbying and the emoluments will be confronted with a whole battery of alternative reasons why they should be filo-Chinese, including the thinly veiled threat that to behave otherwise could be construed as politically damaging anti-Orientalist racism. For those who persist in their obduracy, the ultimate weapon will be citation of the horrors of the Second World War Rape of Nanking. No one wants to be accused of being a Rape of Nanking denier.

The second phase of converting Congress is to set up a bunch of Political Action Committees (PACs). They will have innocuous names like Rocky Mountain Sheep Herders Association, but they will all really be about China. When the money begins to flow into the campaign coffers of legislators any concerns about what China is doing in the world will cease. The same PACs can be use to fund billboards and voter outreach in some districts, allowing China to have a say in the elections without actually having to surface or be explicit about whom it supports. Other PACs can work hard at inserting material into social websites, similar to what the Russians have been accused of doing.

And then there is the mass media. Using the same Chinese-American conduit, you would simply buy up controlling interests in newspapers and other media outlets. And you would begin staffing those outlets with earnest young Chinese-Americans who will be highly protective of Chinese interests and never write a story critical of the government in Beijing or the Chinese people. That way the American public will eventually become so heavily propagandized by the prevailing narrative that they will never question anything that China does, ideally beginning to refer to it as the “only democracy in Asia” and “America’s best friend in the whole wide world.” Once the indoctrination process is completed, the Chinese leadership might even crush demonstrators with tanks in Tiananmen Square or line up snipers to pick off protest leaders and no congressman or newspaper would dare say nay.

When the political classes and media are sufficiently under control, it would then be time to move to the final objective: the dismantling of the United States Constitution. In particularly, there is that pesky Bill of Rights and the First Amendment guaranteeing Free Speech. That would definitely have to go, so you round up your tame Congress critters and you elect a president who is also in your pocket, putting everything in place for the “slam-dunk.” You pass a battery of laws making any criticism of China both racist and felonious, with punitive fines and prison sentences attached. After that success, you can begin to dismantle the rest of the Bill of Rights and no one will be able to say a word against what you are doing because the First Amendment will by then be a dead duck. When the Constitution is in shreds and Chinese lobbyists are firmly in control of corrupted legislators, Beijing will have won a bloodless victory against the United States and it all began with just a little interference in America’s politics alluded to by Donald Trump.

Of course, dear reader, all of the above might be true but for the fact that I am not talking about China at all and am only using that country as a metaphor. Beijing may have spied on the U.S. elections but it otherwise has evidenced little interest in manipulating elections or controlling any aspect of the U.S. government. And even though I am sure that Donald Trump was not referring to Israel when he made his offhand comment about “others,” the shoe perfectly fits that country’s subjugation of many of the foreign and national security policy mechanisms in the United States over the past fifty years. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently boastedabout how he controls Trump and convinced him to pull out of the Iran nuclear agreement.

The real mystery, if there is one, is why no American politician has either the guts or the integrity or perhaps the necessary intelligence to substitute Tel Aviv for Moscow and to call Israel out like we are currently calling out Russia for actions that pale in comparison to what Netanyahu has been up to.

To be specific, there is no evidence that Russia ever asked for favors from Trump’s campaign staff and transition team but Israel did so over a vote on its illegal settlements at the United Nations. Is Special Counsel Robert Mueller or Congress interested? No. Is the media interested? No.

Israel, relying on Jewish power and money to do the heavy lifting, has completely corrupted many aspects of American government and, in particular, its foreign policy by aggressive lobbying and buying politicians. All new members of Congress and spouses are taken to Israel on generously funded “fact finding” tours after being elected to make sure they get their bearings straight right from the git-go. Israel’s nearly total control over the message on the Middle East coming out of the U.S. mainstream is aided and abetted by the numerous Jewish editors and journalists who are prepared to pump the party line. The money to do all this comes from Jewish billionaires like Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson, who have their hooks deep into both political parties. Meanwhile, the ability of America’s most powerful foreign policy lobby AIPAC to avoid registration as a foreign agent is completely due to the exercise of Jewish power in the United States which means in practice that Israel and its advocates will never be sanctioned in any way.

Israel is eager to have the United States fight Iran on its behalf, even though Washington has no real interest in doing so, and all indications are that it will be successful. Though it is a rich country, it receives a multi-billion-dollar handout from the U.S. Treasury every year. When its war criminal prime minister comes to town he receives 26 standing ovations from a completely sycophantic congress and now the United States has even stationed soldiers in Israel who are “prepared to die” for Israel even though there is no treaty of any kind between the two countries and the potential victims have likely never been consulted regarding dying for a foreign country. All of this takes place without the public ever voting on or even discussing the relationship, a tribute to the fact that both major parties and the media have been completely co-opted.

And now there is the assault on the First Amendment, with legislation currently in Congress making it a crime either to criticize Israel or support a boycott of it in support of Palestinian rights. When those bills become law, which they will, we are finished as a country where fundamental rights are respected.

And what has Russia done in comparison to all this? Hardly anything even if all the claims about its alleged interference are true. So when will Mueller and all the Republican and Democratic baying dogs say a single word about Israel’s interference in our elections and political processes? If past behavior is anything to go by, it will never happen.


.——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Feeding the Monster

Washington’s spinelessness enables Israeli brutality
MIDEAST-PALESTINIAN-ISRAEL-CONFLICT-JERUSALEM DAY

I have just spent a couple of days in New York City. Returning to Virginia on Wednesday morning, I had a somewhat strange experience. I cleared through my emails before leaving the hotel and also read through a number of the featured news articles. One, in particular, caught my eye. It described how the Democratic Party primary in Queens New York had returned a startling result. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won over mainstream incumbent Joe Crowley, signaling that not everyone in the Democratic Party is buying into the Clinton model of good governance by big donors and powerful interest groups. Many want change and even a radical departure from the political game whereby media savvy pressure groups and narrow constituencies are pandered to to create a governing majority.

One paragraph in particular in the article I read was highly suggestive, the claim that Ocasio-Cortez had been strongly opposed to the Israelis’ routine slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza, which has by now become of such little import that it is not even reported any more in the U.S. media. She is also allegedly a supporter of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction movement (BDS), which pressures Israel to end its theft and occupation of Palestinian land. The article expressed some surprise that anyone in New York City would dare to say anything unpleasant about Israel and still expect to get elected.

This is what Ocasio-Cortez, who called the shooting of more than 130 Gazans a “massacre,” actually said and wrote:

“No state or entity is absolved of mass shootings of protesters. There is no justification. Palestinian people deserve basic human dignity, as anyone else. Democrats can’t be silent about this anymore. I think I was primarily compelled [to speak out] on moral grounds because I could only imagine if 60 people were shot and killed in Ferguson. Or if 60 people were shot and killed in the West Virginia teachers’ strikes. The idea that we are not supposed to talk about people dying when they are engaging in political expression just really moved me.”

Five hours later, when I arrived home in Virginia I went to pull up the article I had read in the morning to possibly use it in a piece of my own and was somewhat surprised to discover that the bit about Israel had been excised from the text. It was clearly yet another example of how the media self-censors when there is anything negative to say about Israel and it underlines the significance of the emergence of recent international media reporting in The Guardian and elsewhere regarding how Jewish billionaire Sheldon Adelson largely dictates U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. That means that the conspiracy of silence over Israel’s manipulation of the United States government is beginning to break down and journalists have become bold enough to challenge what occurs when pro-Israel Jews obtain real power over the political process. Adelson, for what it’s worth, wants war with Iran and has even suggested detonating a nuclear device on its soil to “send a message.”

I personally would have liked to see Ocasio-Cortez go farther, a lot farther. Israel is a place where conventional morality has been replaced by a theocratically and culturally driven sense of entitlement which has meant that anything goes when it comes to the treatment of inferior Christian and Muslim Arabs. It also means that the United States is being played for a patsy by people who believe themselves to be superior in every way to Americans.

The question of the relationship with Israel comes at a time when everyone in America, so it seems, is concerned about children being separated from their parents who have illegally crossed the border from Mexico into the United States. The concern is legitimate given the coarse and sometimes violent justifications coming out of the White House, but it’s a funny thing that Israeli abuse and even killing of Arab children is not met with the same opprobrium. When a Jewish fanatic/Israel settler kills Palestinian children and is protected by his government in so doing, where is the outrage in the U.S. media? Settlers and soldiers kill Palestinians, young and old, with impunity and are almost never punished. They destroy their orchards and livestock to eliminate their livelihoods to drive them out. They bulldoze their homes and villages. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency does none of that and is yet subject to nonstop abuse in the mainstream media, so what about Israel?

A recent story illustrates just how horrible the Israelis can be without any pushback whatsoever coming from Washington objecting to their behavior. As the United States is the only force that can in any way compel Israel to come to its senses and chooses not to do so, that makes U.S. policymakers and by extension the American people complicit in Israel’s crimes.

The particularly horrible recent account that I am referring to describes how fanatical Jewish settlers burned alive a Palestinian family on the West Bank, including a baby, and then celebrated the deaths while taunting the victims’ surviving family when they subsequently appeared in court. The story was covered in Israel and Europe but insofar as I could determine did not appear in any detail in the U.S. mainstream media.

Israeli Jewish settlers carried out their shameful deed outside a court in the city of Lod, chanting “’Ali was burned, where is Ali? There is no Ali. Ali is burned. On the fire. Ali is on the grill!” referring to the 18-month old baby Ali Dawabsheh, who was burnt alive in 2015 by Jewish settlers hurling Molotov cocktails into a house in the West Bank town of Duma. Ali’s mother Riham and father Saad also died of their burns and were included in the chanting “Where is Ali? Where is Riham? Where is Saad? It’s too bad Ahmed didn’t burn as well.” Five year-old Ahmed, who alone survived the attack with severe burns, will have scars for the rest of his life.

The settlers were taunting Ali’s grandfather Hussein Dawabsheh, who accompanied Ahmed, at a preliminary hearing where the court indicted a man who confessed to the murders and a minor who acted as an accomplice. A video of the chanting shows Israeli policemen standing by and doing nothing. The court appearance also revealed that there have been another Molotov cocktail attack by settlers on another Dawabsheh family house in May that may have been an attempt to silence testimony relating to the first attack. Fortunately, the family managed to escape.

And by all accounts this outrage was not the first incident in which the burning of the Palestinian baby was celebrated. A December 15th wedding video showed settlers engaged in an uproarious party that featured dances with Molotov cocktails and waving knives and guns. A photo of baby Ali was on display and was repeatedly stabbed. A year later, 13 people from what became known as the “murder wedding” were indicted for incitement to terrorism, but as of today no one has actually been punished. Israelis who kill Arabs are rarely indicted or tried. If it is a soldier or policeman that is involved, which occurs all too often, the penalty is frequently either nothing at all a slap on the wrist. Indeed, the snipers who fired on Gazans recently were actually ordered to shoot the unarmed civilians and directed to take out anyone who appeared to be a “leader,” which included medical personnel.

The Trump Administration could, of course, stop the Israeli brutality if it chooses to do so, but it does not think Benjamin Netanyahu’s crimes against humanity are on the agenda. Nor did Clinton, Bush and Obama dare to confront the power of Israel’s lobby, though Obama tried a little pushback in a feeble way.

Someone in Washington should be asking why the United States should be fighting unnecessary wars and becoming an international pariah defending a country and people that believe they are “chosen” by God? One can only hope that the shift in perceptions on the Middle East by liberal Democrats like Ocasio-Cortez has some legs and will lead to some real change in U.S. foreign policy. To succeed the liberal Democrats will need to push against some formidable obstacles within their own party, most notably the Clinton wing and people like Senator Chuck Schumer, Minority leader in the Senate, who describes himself as Israel’s “shomer” or defender in the Upper House. Perhaps someone on the New York Times editorial board should publicly suggest to Schumer that he go and run for office in Israel since he seems to prefer it to the country that has made him rich and powerful. But of course, the Times and all the other mainstream media, which is responsible for what we are not allowed to know about Israel and its American mouthpieces, will never entertain that suggestion or anything like it.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is <a.councilforthenationalinterest.org,” title=”http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org%2C/&#8221; href=”http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org%2C/”>www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.</a.councilforthenationalinterest.org,”>

GAZA ISRAEL UN

Article by PHIL GIRALDI

The Iraq War – The Documentary the US government does not want you to see – Shock and Awe

The Documentary the US government does not want you to see – Shock & Awe


US Troops in Iraq talk about Halliburton and KBR – Syria Iran WW3 Next! Truthtrekker


Depleted Uranium Haunts Kosovo and Iraq

by Scott Peterson
published in MER215

Iraq and Kosovo may be thousands of miles apart, but they share the dubious distinction of contamination with radioactive residue from depleted uranium (DU) bullets used in American air strikes. After several years of silence, US officials finally admitted that 340 tons of DU were fired during the Gulf war. In Kosovo, American delays in providing details of quantities and target points have frustrated international efforts to assess health risks. Despite repeated requests, NATO waited almost a full year after the start of bombing in March 1999 to say that 31,000 DU bullets — a fraction of the number fired in Iraq — were fired by A-10 “tankbuster” aircraft over Kosovo. A Belgrade report published this April estimates that about 50,000 DU bullets had been used in parts of Serbia and Montenegro as well as Kosovo. Evidence is plentiful on the ground that DU was used in heavily populated areas, and that civilians and returning refugees were never warned of the danger.

The high-density bullet is made of low-level radioactive waste left over from manufacturing nuclear fuel and bombs. DU bullets were designed in the 1970s to defeat top-line Soviet tanks. Some 20 nations now keep the world’s best armor-piercing rounds in their arsenals. First used in combat during the Gulf war, they proved to be unmatched tank slayers. (A Pentagon official points to one other benefit: the US can give away its 1.2 billion pound stockpile of radioactive waste to weapons manufacturers.) When DU smashes into a hard target, it pulverizes into breathable dust that remains radioactive for 4.5 billion years. American nuclear scientists have found that DU dust can travel at least 26 miles. Scientists of the National Institute for Health Protection in Macedonia detected eight times higher than normal levels of alpha radiation — the primary type emitted by DU — in the air during the air war. Yugoslav soldiers have found DU rounds in Bujanovic in the south, and a Swiss-led international team found “serious radioactivity” when it dug up many rounds at a radio tower near Vranje.

Despite predicting that “every future battlefield will be contaminated” with DU, the Pentagon asserts that DU risk is minimal. But training materials developed in the 1990s require full protective gear and masks in contaminated areas, in line with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) rules. The US military requires an NRC license to handle the smallest amount of the restricted material. A US Army-commissioned health report issued just days before the Gulf war noted that radiation is linked with cancer and said that “no dose [of DU] is so low that the probability of effect is zero.” Still, the Pentagon argues that “residual DU from battlefields in Kosovo does not pose a significant risk to human health.”

US soldiers partly ascribe Gulf war syndrome to DU exposure. British troops deployed in Kosovo are suing their defense ministry for ailments they attribute to DU. The UN refugee agency in Kosovo now includes papers in personnel files to note work in potentially DU-contaminated areas. In Kosovo, Western de-mining groups were told by NATO to “exercise caution” and not to climb on destroyed armored vehicles. Last October Col. Eric Daxon, the US Army’s top radiological expert, said: “The best thing I can tell anybody about entering a contaminated vehicle or damaged vehicle is: ‘Don’t do it. It is a dangerous place to be.'”

But that message never got through to hundreds of thousands of Kosovar Albanians, in whose name the Kosovo campaign was fought, and whose DU exposure could be highest. Rexh Himaj, a mechanic who lost most of his tools during the conflict, didn’t think twice about salvaging parts from destroyed Serbian vehicles. Like thousands of returning refugees, he was just glad to get back to work.

But the concrete surface of a Serbian military base on the west side of Djakovica where I found him working was pockmarked with DU hits, as was the nearby road. The ground was littered with spent aluminum shell casings that are unique to 30 mm DU bullets. A boy climbed on a burned-out armored vehicle, then jumped off and kicked at a shell casing.

“Now I know it’s dangerous, but that is a risk I’ve got to take,” said Himaj, when the telltale casings are explained. His hands were greasy-black with work. “If [the Americans] didn’t use this stuff, then we might still have Serbs here. On the other hand…I hope they clean it up.” But cleanup is virtually impossible. One US Defense Department report lists eight soil decontamination techniques, including multiple nitric acid washes, but “in no case did the achieved separation suffice to allow unrestricted disposal.”

A confidential preliminary UN report leaked in May 1999, as the bombing continued, did not mince words: “This type of ammunition is nuclear waste, and its use is very dangerous and harmful,” it said. After NATO released its figures, the UN recommended that “measures should be taken to prevent access.” For Kosovars, like Iraqis, such warnings may be too late.


Private Armies 1: Blackwater


Tony Blair in Iraq: War Criminal Admits Guilt

As Prime Minister Tony Blair arrived in Baghdad on Saturday, for an ‘unexpected’ visit, to bid the Iraqi people he has helped decimate, farewell, he was welcomed by mortar rounds which fell in the ‘International Zone’, the illegally squatted palace of former President Saddam Hussein. Just: ‘usual business..’ said his spokesman airily. Hope Blair and his entourage brought a spare pair of trousers, Whitehall’s mandarins are not known for towering courage in the face of adversity, more for fiction writing, aka ‘dodgy dossiers’. A bad tempered Blair, delusional as ever, talked of ‘signs of progress on security.’

‘ I have no regrets about removing Saddam …’, said the man, the corpse of whose premiership will for ever lie in Mesopotamia’s sands, with the possible million souls he and his Washington masters have sent – and continue to send – to their graves – and that is only since March 2003. No mention of the weapons of mass destruction he assured the world, threatened the very existence of the West and could be launched ‘in forty five minutes.’

‘Removing Saddam’, whose leadership and government’s sovereignty was guaranteed by the UN? No shame for sharing responsibility for the lynching of Iraq’s President and colleagues, whose remaining legitimate government have been held, for over four years? No regrets about committing Nuremberg’s ‘supreme crime’, a war of aggression? Turning the country into a radioactive wasteland from use of uranium weapons? Denying water, electricity, medicines and medical equipment (in contravention of the Geneva Convention) schooling, even gasoline in this possibly largest oil producer on earth? ‘No regrets’ at the ongoing deaths of at least one hundred people a day, the destruction of an entire civil society, sado masochistic and other war crimes committed by his troops in the south; their uncounted Pinochet style disappeared? Nearly one sixth of the country internally and externally displaced, most, like the Palestinians, without valid passports, credentials (all changed after the invasion, most Iraqis too frightened to approach the relevant Ministries imposed by the US and UK.) ‘No regrets’? And in front of the world’s media. If the lawyers at the International Criminal Court in the Hague have not got all they need now, they should consider a career move.

‘The future of Iraq should be determined by Iraqis …’ said Blair, standing next to honoury Iranian ‘Prime Minister’ Nuri al Maliki and Iraq’s non Arab, Kurdish ‘President’, Jalal Talabani, who wants the best of all worlds, independence for Kurdistan and the retention of his rule there and the top job in Iraq. Iraqis complain that in all the Ministries now – if they dare approach them (and indeed in Embassies abroad) they need to field a bank of Farsi (Persian) speakers and those who only speak Kurdish, before finding someone who speaks Arabic. ‘We need to take advantage of the possible momentum in Iraqi politics …’ said another Blair spokesman. ‘Momentum’? What stratosphere is planet Whitehall on?

‘He builds palaces while his people starve’, was the Blair-Bush mantra during the embargo years. Now the British and Americans are the illicit residents of Iraq’s palaces, remaining state buildings, bases (another war crime) as the people for whom, they, as the occupying force, are responsible, starve, flee and die in hospitals decimated by liberation, whose facilities are non existent and over half of whose doctors have been killed or fled for their lives, under what some careful analysts call ‘black ops’ operations to set Iraqi against Iraqi by the US and UK. Iraqis did not fight each other before the invasion, so what changed? Divide and rule?

Blair (more trousers?) was welcomed by further ordnance as he stood in a base where the British troops, seemingly, cower, in Basra -‘ the war is lost and the troops in retreat’, a correspondent commented of the British last week – an area now ruled too dangerous for Britain’s Prince Harry to deploy with his troops. In Basra, Blair seemed especially dismissive of Iraqis. When an Iraqi journalist asked him about Iraq’s future he replied tetchily that the ‘authoritative  voice’ of Iraq was ‘President’ Talabani and the question should be addressed to him as ‘ the authentic voice of Iraq’ . He clearly had not read the day’s Guardian either, where in extensive coverage of the south in general and Basra in particular, their correspondent was greeted by an Iraqi General with a handshake and : ‘ Welcome to Tehran’, referring to the near total Iranian influence in everything under British watch and largely facilitated by their errors. The troops themselves watched Blair with stony faces. ‘It is important that neighboring countries understand and respect’ (Iraq’s sovereignty) said Blair, the man from far away who slavishly followed his Master’s Washington follies.

As Blair arrived to the Baghdad bang, the airways were awash with former President Carter’s scathing assessment of the Blair years. His : ‘Support for Bush had been a major tragedy for the world’, he had been ‘loyal, blind and subservient.’ Iraq’s invasion had been ‘unjustified, unnecessary … a tragedy for the Iraqi, American and British people.’

That tragedy, the depth of which Blair could never comprehend, is encapsulated by Layla Anwar, an Iraqi blogger, who wrote of a friend who said this week: ‘I wake up in the morning and death sits next to me. I have my tea and she has one too. I walk and she accompanies me. I go to sleep at night and she is in my bed. I see death, I hear death, I smell death … she is everywhere. When she will pick me up, is only a question of time.’

Blair will return to the UK to some pretty scathing press, from the comment left by a reader on the Sunday Herald : ‘ Blair, just go will you, you murdering, lying filth’, to former Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd, who told BBC Radio 4, the same day : ‘Nothing can be done about Iraq except to put a sack over his head.’

The Messianic Blair, who joined George Bush’s ‘crusade’, trespassed in Iraq’s palaces, is involved in a global goodbye tour which will last forty days, the time, for believers, Christ wandered alone in the wilderness.

Speculations as to his future are myriad. However, in the recent Channel 4, soaringly spirit lifting docudrama ‘ The Trial of Tony Blair ‘, his tenure in Downing Street ended with him heading in an armored police van for Heathrow Airport and for trial the Hague. Now he has admitted his guilt to the world, fittingly in Baghdad, here’s hoping.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

British army on standby in case of no-deal Brexit

The army is on standby to help deliver food, medicines and fuels if there are shortages in the wake of a “no deal”

Published  

on  

196 Views

The British government is in full on prepper mode right now, gearing up for the possibilities and problems that could come about as a result of a no-deal Brexit. The army is on standby to ensure peace and stability as well as to provide an infrastructure for the delivery of crucial supplies such as food, medicine, and fuel, especially in areas which could be the most prone to shortages. In order to provide for this scenario, the British government is also stockpiling necessary supplies.

Sky News reports

The army is on standby to help deliver food, medicines and fuels if there are shortages in the wake of a “no deal” Brexit, it has been reported.

Plans for the armed forces to help civilian authorities in the event of civil emergencies have been dusted off as part of contingency preparations for Britain leaving the EU without an agreement, according to Sunday Times.

This would see helicopters and army trucks being used to get supplies to vulnerable people outside the South East who were having difficulties getting the medicines they require, according to the newspaper.

An unnamed minister told the Sunday Times that the military would be drafted in if problems at Britain’s ports caused shortages of food, fuel and medicines.

They said: “There is a lot of civil contingency planning around the prospect of no deal. That’s not frightening the horses, that’s just being utterly realistic.”

A Ministry of Defence source said there had been “no formal request” to supply aid, but acknowledged there is a “blueprint for us supporting the civilian authorities that can be dusted off”.

The newspaper’s report also said there would be a significant impact on the NHS, with the health service moving onto a year-round “winter crisis footing”.

Prime Minister Theresa May – who has repeatedly said no Brexit deal is better than a bad deal – said earlier this week that the British public should feel “reassurance and comfort” over the government’s preparations for a no deal scenario.

Mrs May did not deny stockpiling was taking place, but said Downing Street was being “responsible and sensible” whilst simultaneously trying to strike a good deal with Brussels.

She told 5 News: “Far from being worried about preparations that we are making, I would say that people should take reassurance and comfort from the fact that the government is saying we are in a negotiation, we are working for a good deal – I believe we can get a good deal – but… because we don’t know what the outcome is going to be… let’s prepare for every eventuality.

“This is not just about stockpiling.

“That concept, what it is, is about making sure that we will be able to continue to do the things that are necessary once we have left the European Union, if we leave without a deal.”

Chancellor Philip Hammond echoed the PM’s words, saying it was “sensible and responsible” for the government to be working in conjunction with industry to stockpile certain vital supplies for the event of no deal.

He said: “That’s a sensible and responsible thing for a Government to do and large businesses who are importing or exporting large volumes of products or produce will be making contingency plans, and we would encourage them to do so and work closely with them as they are putting those plans together.”

Health Secretary Matt Hancock told MPs on Tuesday he had asked officials to “work up options for stockpiling” by the pharmaceutical industry, while Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab said the government would be taking steps to make sure there is an “adequate food supply”.

Perceiving the customs Union as being a bad deal for Britain, a vote to leave is forcing Britain out of the European bloc in a process that so far hasn’t yielded an acceptable agreement with the Union for relations once Britain is entirely out in the cold. It’s Britain’s version of the sort of approach of international organizations and agreements that US President Donald Trump has been advancing, and is what an immediate withdrawal without a contingency plan looks like. It’s a sticky process, and it’s not good for many a political career.


The Truth about British Royals


Viktor Orban: failure of EU elite represented in EU Commission

Orban has been quite the controversial figure in European politics

Published  on  

224 Views

1

Vikor Orban, the conservative Hungarian leader, has described the European Commission as a representation of the failure of Europe’s elite during a speech in the Romanian town of Băile Tușnad. Orban perceives that the growing Muslim minorities across Europe threaten the electoral viability of Christian political parties in Europe, and therefore is of the opinion that migration will be the major issue influence the next EU Commission elections.

Politico reports:

The European Commission is a symbol of the EU elite’s failure, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said in his annual speech to party supporters.

Speaking in the Romanian town of Băile Tușnad, where his ruling Fidesz party gathers every summer, Orbán called for a focus on the upcoming European Parliament election, which he believes will center on the question of migration.

“The European elite has failed, and this failure’s symbol is the European Commission,” the prime minister said. “The good news is that the Commission’s days are numbered,” he said.

The prime minister argued that the current European Commission is anti-Central Europe, and that there is censorship in Western Europe. He also criticized EU sanctions on Russia.

“There is liberalism but not democracy,” in Western Europe, Orbán said, adding that “Christian democracy is by definition not liberal.”

Orbán also said that the emergence of Muslim minorities across European countries would make it impossible for Christian political parties to win election.

While Orbán’s Fidesz is still a member of the center-right European People’s Party (EPP), several Fidesz supporters at the event put forward questions to the party’s leadership regarding whether they will be leaving the EPP.

“Our thinking is leaning toward staying, not leaving [the EPP],” Orbán said, while noting some EPP member parties are far apart and compromises would be needed on certain issues.

Orban has been quite the controversial figure in European politics in recent years. He has refused to accept migrants into Hungary in defiance of Merkel’s EU wide migrant mandate which was recently defeated at a meeting in Brussels. He has stood up for Europe’s Christian cultural heritage, and has opposed multiculturalism. In several way, his view of governance is quite similar to that of the new Italian government, which is also opposed to migration into Europe from the South. Orban has also made headlines this year over a controversial law which specifically targets NGOs financed by George Soros, and any other NGO which favours or aids migration.


George Soros

——————————————————–

NewsReal: What’s The Problem With Nationalism?

imran khan

The election last week of Imran Khan as Pakistan’s new prime minister is the latest political upset to rock ‘the establishment’ across many countries in recent years. Derided as a ‘populist’, Khan leads a new movement that is socially conservative, economically ‘leftist’, and ultimately nationalist.

From Mexico’s AMLO to Malaysia’s Mahathir, ‘Trumps’ are coming to power all over the world. Whatever their political background, the one thing they have in common is an essential patriotism that runs counter to the pro-Western, pro-Globalist ‘open borders’ regime that has ruled most countries since WW2.

This week on NewsReal, Joe & Niall discuss why the Western media routinely compares these diverse new political leaders with US president Donald Trump. Live audio broadcast from 12-1:30pm


Russian “Hacking”: Indictment Admits it Had No Effect on US Election Outcome

The official US Department of Justice indictment which claims that “Russians” hacked the Democratic Party’s servers before the 2016 election specifically states that there is no evidence to show that it affected that election’s outcome in any way—contrary to the controlled media’s hysterical allegations.

The official indictment—as placed on the US Department of Justice’s website—says that there “is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the vote count or changed the outcome of the 2016 election.”

The indictment—which has yet to be proven as true—claims that twelve Russian nationals,, all supposedly members of the GRU, a Russian Federation intelligence agency within the Main Intelligence Directorate of  the Russian military, “engaged in a sustained effort to hack into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic National Committee, and the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, and released that information on the internet under the names ‘DCLeaks’ and ‘Guccifer 2.0. and through another entity.”

The indictment does not mention WikiLeaks by name, but refers to it as “Organization 1” that “had previously posted documents stolen from US persons, entities and the US government.”

WikiLeaks published the emails from the private account of Clinton campaign manager John Podesta, starting in October 2016.

The indictment claims that one of the suspects “searched for open-source information about the DNC network, the Democratic Party, and Hillary Clinton” in March 2016.

The following month, the indictment says, the group hacked into the DCCC network and installed malware that later enabled them to access the DNC computers. They allegedly “compressed” the files and moved them using the software the indictment calls “X-Tunnel” and tried to hide their tracks by deleting access longs.

Left out from the indictment is how the federal investigators obtained any evidence of this, given that the FBI never got access to the DNC servers.



Instead, the bureau took the word of the DNC cyber security contractor, CrowdStrike, which is referred to in the indictment as ‘Company 1.’

The indictment goes on to list 11 criminal counts:

* “Count One alleges a criminal conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States through cyber operations by the GRU that involved the staged release of stolen documents for the purpose of interfering with the 2016 president election;

* Counts Two through Nine charge aggravated identity theft for using identification belonging to eight victims to further their computer fraud scheme;

* Count Ten alleges a conspiracy to launder money in which the defendants laundered the equivalent of more than $95,000 by transferring the money that they used to purchase servers and to fund other costs related to their hacking activities through cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin; and

* Count Eleven charges conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States by attempting to hack into the computers of state boards of elections, secretaries of state, and US companies that supplied software and other technology related to the administration of elections.”

Despite this, the indictment then immediately states that “There is no allegation in the indictment that any American was a knowing participant in the alleged unlawful activity or knew they were communicating with Russian intelligence officers. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the vote count or changed the outcome of the 2016 election.”

Finally, the DOJ statement ends with its pro forma warning: “Everyone charged with a crime is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court. At trial, prosecutors must introduce credible evidence that is sufficient to prove each defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, to the unanimous satisfaction of a jury of twelve citizens.”


US in no position to make human rights’ judgment on other countries: Iran

Mon Jul 30, 2018 05:36PM
Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Bahram Qassemi
Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Bahram Qassemi

Iran says the United States is not in a position to make biased and one-sided judgments about the human rights situation in other countries.

Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Bahram Qassemi on Monday condemned a statement issued on July 26 by participants at the Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom held in the US.

He said the statement was interference in the Islamic Republic’s internal affairs and leveled allegations against the country based on “incorrect, spiteful and unreal” information.

“The US and other violators of the most natural and obvious basic human rights are not in a position to make biased and one-sided judgment about other countries with different cultures and varieties,” Qassemi pointed out.

In their statement, participants at the US-hosted meeting said “as representatives of the international community, we stand together in condemning the systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom taking place in Iran and call on authorities to ensure religious freedom for all.”

They also strongly urged “the government of Iran to cease” alleged violations of religious freedom “and ensure that all individuals – regardless of their beliefs – are treated equally and can live out their lives and exercise their faith in peace and security.”

The Iranian spokesperson, in response to the above allegation, stated that followers of different religions have been peacefully co-existing throughout Iran’s history, and at the present time, enjoy all citizenship rights while being represented at the Iranian parliament and other elected institutions.

Comments:
Ramon
The US is terrified to see ME states as democracy and that is why they push to preserve “kingdoms ” or a “controlled Shah (King) in Iran “. Kings does not represent a nation will but they can be Buy .
Stephen Saddvor 3 Stunden
My full support for Iran! Aussie
TAXCOLLECTOR2017vor 9 Stunden
Absolutely. In the fullest definition of the word.
Romanvor 10 Stunden
Thats why so many people are running to get to the USA.
wisdom> Romanvor 8 Stunden
To your stupid , dumb head sound people are running to get to the UShell…
J.J.(Yeah that one !)> Romanvor 7 Stunden
Why would people be running to get into a Country that’s 21 Trillion in Debt and about to Collapse?
The only people trying to get in here are really desperate ones now
Koran 9:29> J.J.(Yeah that one !)vor 6 Stunden
So American of you!
nonyankvor 12 Stunden
How very true, in fact the US is the biggest human rights violators.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Sun Jul 29, 2018 03:49PM
Wendy Sherman, the former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs
Wendy Sherman, the former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs

A former US under secretary of state for political affairs has taken President Donald Trump to task for his rash policies and uncalculated measures towards Iran after taking Washington out of a nuclear deal with Tehran, saying Trump does not understand Iran’s culture of resistance.

In an interview with Yahoo News published on Sunday, Wendy Sherman slammed Trump’s use of threats to push his adversaries into submission, emphasizing that Iranians are not a nation to surrender to any threats.

Sherman was a key member of the US nuclear negotiating team under former secretary of state, John Kerry, who pulled off the Iran nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), to fruition in 2015.

Trump is a stern critic of the nuclear accord, agreed between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council – the United States, France, Britain, Russia and China – plus Germany. Under the JCPOA, Iran undertook to put limits on its nuclear program in exchange for the removal of nuclear-related sanctions imposed against Tehran.

The US president announced on May 8 that Washington was walking away from the nuclear agreement and that he planned to reinstate US nuclear sanctions on Iran and impose “the highest level” of economic bans on the Islamic Republic.

Read more:

Sharply criticizing the US president’s policy toward Iran, Sherman said, “President Trump’s diplomatic style is to thump adversaries over the head with threats, and then after beating them up offer to sit down to talk and try and seal a deal.”

The former American nuclear negotiator added, “What he [Trump] doesn’t understand is that Iran has a culture of resistance that equates giving in to those kinds of public threats as surrender, and they won’t surrender.”

Trump has stepped up his hostile rhetoric against Iran. Just last week, he threatened Iran with hardship “the likes of which few throughout history have ever suffered before.”

Trump’s pugnacious Twitter message in all capital letters came late on July 22 after Iranian President Hassan Rouhani warned his US counterpart not to “play with the lion’s tail.”

Just days after the US president threatened the Islamic Republic with incredible hardships, he claimed that Washington was ready to make a “real deal” with Iran over the country’s nuclear program.

“Iran is not the same country anymore, that I can say,” Trump said during a speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) national convention in the US state of Missouri, adding, “And we’ll see what happens, but we’re ready to make a real deal, not the deal that was done by the previous administration, which was a disaster.”

Sherman’s remarks came after the commander of the Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) sharply reacted to the recent military threat by Trump against the Islamic Republic on Thursday, saying, “You threaten us with an action that is ‘unprecedented’ in the world. This is cabaret-style rhetoric. Only a cabaret owner talks to the world this way.”

Referring to multiple failures of the United States in its various military invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in the past years, General Qassem Soleimani said, “We are near you, where you can’t even imagine. We are the nation of martyrdom, we are the nation of Imam Hossein, you better ask. Come; we are ready. We are the man of this arena. You know that this war would mean annihilation of all you have. You may begin the war, but it is us who will end it.”

Elsewhere in her remarks, Sherman said the greatest shortcoming of the Trump approach was that it lacked the detailed policy preparation and follow-through necessary to turn verbal agreements into binding international accords.

“Trump likes to make headlines with his tweets, and he favors the pomp and circumstance of summits, but with both Iran and North Korea, there is no sign that he has put in the advance work, or that his team has shown the persistence and precision that these complex deals demand.”

Taking a jab at Trump by saying that he just reverts to the same transactional approach he used in real estate, Sherman said such an approach had previously led Trump into multiple bankruptcies in that sector.

“I worry that he will be similarly taken in on some of these geopolitical deals, and that is extremely dangerous,” she concluded.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Sunday that the United States is addicted to sanctions, but the Iranians can pass through the current “critical” stage with national unity.

A review of “the history of US foreign relations shows that this country has imposed the most sanctions on the majority of countries,” Zarif said in Tehran.

Read more:

Robert Fisk exposes fake news and government teamwork

ROBERT FISK: “I TRACED AL-QAEDA MISSILE CASINGS IN SYRIA BACK TO THEIR ORIGINAL SELLERS”

…via Southfront

Originally appeared at ZeroHedge

[ Editor’s Note: Fisk has been able to spend more time on the ground in Syria than VT has, as a funded journalist, when many his age would not be pulling on the lion’s tail. But Fisk is old school, meaning he views doing that as his job.

Too many modern journalists do exactly the opposite, making sure they never piss off any of the wrong people, and accept being a form of pseudo-journalist. But in their defense, they see the public has mostly rolled over on state-sponsored terrorism support, so they feel they should not be expected to risk losing their jobs for a public that does not care, or is too lazy to.

Digging down to the bedrock on this problem, we find that before we had fake government, news, and even military and security organizations, we had fake people rising up through the ranks to run them.

They were not created out of a spontaneous combustion, but a careful study of what one must do, and not do, to climb the ladder to the top of their profession.

Professional journalism is now a wasteland. There is no internal public exposure of what we all know has happened and the threat it represents to all of our freedoms. They have been disloyal to us, so we owe them no respect in return … Jim W. Dean ]

 

Mr. Fisk – Old-school to the bone

– July 30, 2018 –

Finally, a journalist for a mainstream UK media outlet is methodically tracking weapons shipment serial numbers and English-language paperwork recovered from al-Qaeda groups in Syria, and he’s literally showing up at arms factories and questioning arms dealers, including officials at the Saudi Embassy in London, asking: why are your weapons in the hands of terrorists?

Veteran Middle East war correspondent Robert Fisk recently published a bombshell report entitled, I traced missile casings in Syria back to their original sellers, so it’s time for the west to reveal who they sell arms to

In it Fisk recalls a bit of detective sleuthing he’s lately been engaged in after stumbling upon a batch of missile casings and shipment paperwork last year hidden in what he describes as “the basement of a bombed-out Islamist base in eastern Aleppo” with the words “Hughes Aircraft Co/Guided Missile Surface Attack” emblazoned on the side of the spent tubes.

Of course, the Syrian government recaptured the area from Islamist insurgents including al-Nusra terrorists and their allies in December 2016, and has made rapid gains throughout the country’s east and south since; and Fisk has been trekking around the country to see what he can find.

Robert Fisk: "I Traced Al-Qaeda Missile Casings In Syria Back To Their Original Sellers"

Image source: Washington Business Journal

His “detective story” as he calls it actually seems to solicit the help of the public, and begins as follows:

Readers, a small detective story. Note down this number: MFG BGM-71E-1B. And this number: STOCK NO 1410-01-300-0254. And this code: DAA A01 C-0292. I found all these numerals printed on the side of a spent missile casing lying in the basement of a bombed-out Islamist base in eastern Aleppo last year. 

At the top were the words “Hughes Aircraft Co”, founded in California back in the 1930s by the infamous Howard Hughes and sold in 1997 to Raytheon, the massive US defence contractor whose profits last year came to $23.35bn (£18bn). 

Shareholders include the Bank of America and Deutsche Bank. Raytheon’s Middle East offices can be found in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Israel, Egypt, Turkey and Kuwait.

There were dozens of other used-up identical missile casings in the same underground room in the ruins of eastern Aleppo, with sequential codings; in other words, these anti-armour missiles – known in the trade as Tows, “Tube-launched, optically tracked and wire-guided missiles”…

A prior spent missile tube in Syria with “Hughes Aircraft Company” listed as manufacturer which surfaced in 2014 (not part of the same batch of weapons analyzed in Fisk’s report). Notice the attempt to scratch off the serial numbers. Via Armament Research Services

The past year especially has seen an uptick in such systematic attempts to trace foreign-supplied weapons on the Syrian battlefield, most of them recovered from internationally designated terrorists groups (even ISIS), back to their origination points. We’ve previously detailed a number of these reports, for example: Journalist Interrogated, Fired For Story Linking CIA And Syria Weapons Flights as well as Weapons Went From The CIA To ISIS In Less Than Two Months — the latter based on extensive arms tracking and field forensics research produced by Conflict Armament Research (CAR).

Robert Fisk, however, represents the rare instance of a prominent journalist on a lone mission to trace weapons serial numbers recovered from the foreign-backed Syrian insurgency back to their origins in the United States(worrisome for US intelligence and military leaders, as The Guardian has called him “one of the most famous journalists in the world” for his being unrelenting in his investigations).

Fisk continues by relating the moment he confronted a former Hughes Aircraft (now Raytheon) executive about finding their product in the hands of terrorists:

Some time ago, in the United States, I met an old Hughes Aircraft executive who laughed when I told him my story of finding his missiles in eastern Aleppo. When the company was sold, Hughes had been split up into eight components, he said. But assuredly, this batch of rockets had left from a US government base. 

Amateur sleuths may have already tracked down the first set of numbers above. The “01” in the stock number is a Nato coding for the US, and the BGM-71E is a Raytheon Systems Company product. There are videos of Islamist fighters using the BGM-71E-1B variety in Idlib province two years before I found the casings of other anti-tank missiles in neighbouring Aleppo. As for the code: DAA A01 C-0292, I am still trying to trace this number.

Fisk writes further that even if he doesn’t ultimately come up with the American base from which the missiles originated, as well as specific factory they were made, he knows one thing for sure, that both Hughes/Raytheon and the US government have erected a paper trail system designed to shield them from violating anti-terror laws.

Robert Fisk recently drew controversy after writing that he failed to find evidence of a government chemical weapons attack on Douma as the first journalist to enter the site and interview eyewitnesses.

He explains of this legal cover, “This missile will have been manufactured and sold by Hughes/Raytheon absolutely legally to a Nato, pro-Nato or “friendly” (i.e. pro-American) power (government, defence ministry, you name it), and there will exist for it an End User Certificate (EUC), a document of impeccable provenance which will be signed by the buyers – in this case by the chaps who purchased the Tow missiles in very large numbers – stating that they are the final recipients of the weapons.”

And yet there’s no actual way of knowing that the official “recipients” identified as the “end user” are in fact the end users, as Fisk’s investigation proves (for the fact that he found the missile batch in a former Nusra/ISIS/al-Qaeda stronghold).

How many of these advanced Raytheon-made weapons does al-Qaeda still have in its possession? Does anyone in Washington or London even care? 

 

He points out that “there is neither an obligation nor an investigative mechanism on the part of the arms manufacturers to ensure that their infinitely expensive products are not handed over by ‘the buyers’ to Isis, al-Nusra/al-Qaeda – which was clearly the case in Aleppo – or some other anti-Assad Islamist group in Syria branded by the US State Department itself as a ‘terrorist organisation’”. So much for US anti-terror material support laws huh?

Naturally, Fisk follows up with an appropriately sarcastic quip:

Of course, the weapons might have been sent (illegally under the terms of the unenforceable EUC) to a nice, cuddly, “moderate” militia like the now largely non-existent “Free Syrian Army”, many of whose weapons – generously donated by the west – have fallen into the hands of the “Bad Guys”; i.e. the folk who want to overthrow the Syrian regime (which would please the west) but who would like to set up an Islamist cult-dictatorship in its place (which would not please the west).

Indeed it confirms what former MI6 spy and British diplomat Alastair Crooke once stated  that the CIA knowingly established the basis of a “jihadi Wal-Mart” of sorts  to which ISIS had immediate and easy access.

Crooke noted that the weapons program was set up with “plausible deniability” in mind, which would allow its American intelligence sponsors to be shielded from any potential future legal prosecution or public embarrassment.

Crooke noted in a 2015 BBC interview that, “The West does not actually hand the weapons to al-Qaida, let alone to ISIS…, but the system they’ve constructed leads precisely to that end.”

Fisk confirms this analysis when he concludesThus al-Nusra can be the recipients of missiles from our “friends” in the region – here, please forget the EUCs – or from those mythical “moderates” who in turn hand them over to Isis/al-Nusra, etc, for cash, favours, fear or fratricidal war and surrender.

And then he shreds both the weapons companies and Western governments that make it all happen, noting that though a certain weariness, banality and self-imposed ignorant laziness has generally set in when it comes to major media investigating these things, this continues to be a huge, scandalous story of epic dimensions that ought to demand exposing all involved.

Fisk rages:

Why don’t Nato track all these weapons as they leave Europe and America? Why don’t they expose the real end-users of these deadly shipments? The arms manufacturers I spoke to in the Balkans attested that Nato and the US are fully aware of the buyers of all their machine guns and mortars.

Why can’t the details of those glorious end user certificates be made public – as open and free for us to view as are the frightful weapons which the manufacturers are happy to boast in their catalogues.

Though dutifully ignored in the American mainstream press (and thus we feel it our duty to continue the coverage), Fisk is in the midst of a multi-part investigative series for his the Independent (UK).

He recently tracked down foreign supplied arms to the doorsteps of US-partnered suppliers in the Balkans, as well as the Saudi embassy in London, where he presented shipping and manufacturer’s paperwork proving that various medium weaponry went straight from European factories to terrorist group in Syria via the Saudis (including munitions factory workers’ eyewitness accounts of Saudi officials inspecting the facility).

Robert Fisk: "I Traced Al-Qaeda Missile Casings In Syria Back To Their Original Sellers"

The Independent has published over a dozen items of paperwork recovered from al-Nusra (Syrian al-Qaeda) positions in Aleppo.

Predictably, Saudi officials denied the evidence, saying the Kingdom did not give“practical or other support to any terrorist organisation [including Nusrah and Isis] in Syria or any other country” and described the allegations raised by The Independent as “vague and unfounded”.

Fisk responds in his latest column:

These papers were not “vague” – nor was the memory of the Bosnian arms controller who said they went with the mortars to Saudi Arabia and whose shipment papers I found in Syria. Indeed, Ifet Krnjic, the man whose signature I found in eastern Aleppo, has as much right to have his word respected as that of the Saudi authorities. So what did Saudi Arabia’s military personnel – who were surely shown the documents – make of them? What does “unfounded” mean? Were the Saudis claiming by the use of this word that the documents were forgeries?

And Fisk answers his own question in concluding, “I bet they’re not,” explaining, “For I don’t think either Nato or the EU has the slightest interest in chasing the provenance of weapons in the hands of Islamist fighters in Syria or anywhere else in the Middle East – certainly not in the case of Damascus, where the west has just given up its attempt to unseat Assad.”

We might also recall, lest it disappear down the collective public memory hole forever, that all the way back in 2013 when as all analysts agree the Obama White House came very close to launching an Iraq-style war of regime change against Damascus… guess who was a foremost media “expert” aggressively lobbying for regime change?

At that time Stephen Hadley, then a Raytheon director (since 2009) and former National Security Advisor to George W. Bush, made multiple appearances on FOX, CNN, MSNBC, and Bloomberg News during the height of the national debate over whether the US should go to war in Syria. In all of these appearances, as well as in an influential Washington Post op-ed piece, he argued for a U.S. missile strike on Damascus as a matter of national security.

In each case, Hadley was presented as an objective national security expert – it was only his role as former national security advisor that was revealed.

However, the meticulously researched Public Accountability Initiative media study of pro-war pundits that had undisclosed ties to the defense industry exposed him as not at all a “neutral expert” in this summary statement about Hadley’smultiple network TV appearances:

In each case, Hadley’s audience was not informed that he serves as a director of Raytheon, the weapons manufacturer that makes the Tomahawk cruise missiles that were widely cited as a weapon of choice in a potential strike against Syria.

Hadley earns $128,500 in annual cash compensation from the company and chairs its public affairs committee. He also owns 11,477 shares of Raytheon stock, which traded at all-time highs during the Syria debate ($77.65 on August 23, making Hadley’s share’s worth $891,189). Despite this financial stake, Hadley was presented to his audience as an experienced, independent national security expert.

Sadly as the study confirmed across multiple networks, such an example as Hadley is still pretty much par for the course in terms of major “experts” who “independently” lobby for war on news talk panels.

Raytheon, the manufacturer of the BGM-71 TOW (Hughes was bought out by Raytheon in 1997), has been heavily invested in the course of the Syrian conflict from the beginning — the TOW missile system being the weapon of choice the CIA handed out to “rebels” for years as part of operation ‘Timber Sycamore’, and its Tomahawk cruise missile being what was used when President Trump ordered a massive single-night strike on Damascus in April of 2017 (about 59 were launched at an estimated over $1 million a pop).


ANTICHRIST WATCH: “Messiah”-mania hits fever pitch in Israel

A TRUE SIGN WE ARE CLOSING IN ON THE “END”

ANTICHRIST WATCH: “Messiah”-mania hits fever pitch in Israel

YIKES! THE CHURCH FATHERS WARNED ONCE YOU BEGIN TO SEE THE REBUILDING OF THE THIRD TEMPLE THIS WOULD SIGNAL THE “END”. MANY CATHOLICS GET THE TIMELINE WRONG AS IT RELATES TO THESE ENDTIMES.

THE TRIUMPH OF THE IMMACULATE HEART & SOCIAL/EUCHARISTIC REIGN OF OUR LORD WILL BE A VICTORY OVER ANTICHRIST AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER FORCES. THE FAITHLESS/SATANIC RABBI’S ARE BABBLING ONCE AGAIN THAT THEIR “MESSIAH” IS HERE!

YOU DON’T WANT TO MISS THE DETAILS IN THIS TALK.


————————————————————–

Turkey wants to join BRICS because it’s disappointed in NATO and EU – analysts

Turkey wants to join BRICS because it's disappointed in NATO and EU – analysts
By floating the idea of Turkey joining BRICS, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan seeks to diversify Ankara’s foreign policy, with its EU membership bid long stalled and relations with the US on the rocks, analysts told RT.

The Turkish President has suggested that the leaders of the five-member BRICS bloc (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) should add “T” to the acronym. Erdogan was invited to the group’s latest forum and told Hurriyet Daily News on its sidelines that current members welcomed the idea of Turkey’s accession.

Evgeniy Bakhrevskiy, deputy director of the Russian Research Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage, told RT that this apparent pivot by Erdogan is rooted in Turkey’s mounting frustration with the West.

Turkey's President Tayyip Erdogan at the BRICS summit meeting in Johannesburg, South Africa © Gianluigi GuerciaT

Erdogan “believes there is a need to diversify Turkey’s foreign policy, because he is seriously disappointed with western structures, with the EU; he has rather strained relations with the US,” Bakhrevskiy noted.

Stevan Gajic, researcher at the Institute for European Studies in Belgrade, argued that it hasn’t been geopolitical considerations, but “something very personal” that has prompted Erdogan to strive for new allegiances.

Gajic believes that the foiled military coup attempt in 2016 and Syrian President Bashar Assad winning in Syria with Russia’s help, are two main factors that made Erdogan’s outlook change.

It also comes at a moment when Turkey’s long-standing dream of joining the EU is in limbo, with the accession process effectively frozen. Although the EU is Turkey’s top trading partner, Turkey is still stuck in the bloc’s “waiting room,” a situation that in itself is an insult to Ankara, Bakhrevskiy pointed out.

Ankara’s relations with Washington are also going through a rough patch, with “anti-American sentiment very strong in almost all layers of Turkish society,” Bakhrevskiy said, because of America’s support for Kurdish militias fighting Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS). Turkey views the backbone of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the People’s Protection Units (PYD), as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), recognized as terrorists by Turkey.

By refusing to cut its support for the Kurdish-led forces, the US is seen by many in Turkey as “directly threatening” their country, Bakhrevskiy said. Erdogan doesn’t hesitate to capitalize on the sentiment.

“Anti-Americanism is popular, he is a politician, he will do what people like.”

At the same time, Turkey’s relations with Russia, having hit their lowest point when Turkey downed a Russian attack jet above Syria in November 2015, have recovered swiftly and are gaining momentum. The speed of this rapprochement is evidence that “two parties really need each other,” according to Bakhrevskiy.

“The main change from 2015 is that then Turkey and Russia were on the brink of war,” Gajic noted. Russia expressed its support for Erdogan following the 2016 coup attempt, which the Turkish authorities blamed on the US-based exiled cleric Fethullah Gülen and his associates in Turkey. The two Turkish pilots accused of downing the Russian plane were later arrested in a post-coup crackdown.

Supposing the pilots were indeed part of Gulen’s network, “that was actually a plot to make a conflict between Russia and Turkey,” Gajic said.

While Turkey doesn’t look likely to ditch NATO for good just yet, Bakhrevskiy points out that BRICS is “a very democratic bloc” which does not require any special “sacrifices” like leaving the EU or NATO in order to join.

Gajic, meanwhile, believes Ankara could leverage the threat of leaving NATO as a “big bargaining chip.” Its potential departure would “deal a big blow” to an alliance already shaken by US President Donald Trump’s constant demands that European members pay more for the bloc’s costly maintenance.

This ambiguous position “is best for Turkey,” Gajic believes, as both Russia and the US are eventually interested in winning Ankara over.


Honors for best war zone reportage at first-ever Khaled Alkhateb Memorial Awards in Moscow

The winners of RT’s special award for best reporting from a war zone, set up in memory of RT Arabic contributor Khaled Alkhateb, were announced on Monday, marking one year since the journalist was killed in terrorist shelling.

A ‘stringer’ with RT’s Arabic service, Khaled Alkhateb was conducting an interview on July 30, 2017, on the frontline in the Syrian province of Homs, when he and his interviewee were both struck down by a mortal shell launched by Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS, ISIL) militants.

Paying tribute to Alkhateb, RT set up this international award in his honor, with journalists from over 20 countries submitting their work in more than 10 languages to the jury who judge for three categories.

Three winners, from Iraq, Singapore and Ireland, were picked from dozens of applications on Monday. Anna Karenina Tolentino (Singapore) received the award for her report “Get Real – Escape from Marawi,” about the liberation of the Philippine’s city of Marawi from ISIS-linked terrorists. The video was recognized in the “Best Video Journalism from a Conflict Zone: Long Form” category.

Asaad Al-Zalzali from Iraq won in the “short form video” category with his report “ISIS Children,” which offers a glimpse into the lives and controversies surrounding the families of ISIS militants who fled or perished after the terrorists’ defeat.

Irish journalist Jason O’Brien was distinguished for his special report from Syria, telling about the struggles of the locals in the war-ravaged country as life there is gradually returning to normal.

The award ceremony, which began with a minute’s silence, saw the mother of Khaled, Lydia Alkhateb, receiving a memorial award dedicated to her son. Alkhateb was also posthumously awarded a medal “For Courage” by Russian President Vladimir Putin, a state decoration that was received on stage by his father, Gasan Alkhateb.

RT has created a documentary dedicated to Khaled’s work in Syria, in which fellow members of the RT Arabic crew and those who knew Khaled speak of his passion for life and reporting.


‘You’: Trump lawyer Giuliani triggers online funfest over three-letter tweet

‘You’: Trump lawyer Giuliani triggers online funfest over three-letter tweet
Donald Trump’s lawyer and former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani, has sent out a one-word tweet, the word “You” – but it was enough to set off a wave of trolling and ridiculous explanations to the puzzling message.

It was most likely a mistake by Giuliani or his staff, but there was no chance it would’ve gone unpunished by the twitterati, amid the heat surrounding the attorney who is helping Trump fend off the Russian collusion claims.

Rudy Giuliani

@RudyGiuliani

You

Nobody cared to delete the strange tweet, and so it was destined to instantly become a meme, getting more than 11,000 replies and over 3,400 retweets in just a matter of hours.

Many of the commentators raced to recall popular songs, which, they thought, could’ve been on Giuliani’s mind when he sent off the message:

Rudy Giuliani

@RudyGiuliani

You

𝕷𝖆𝖗𝖆@theboringlara

better shape up, ’cause I need a man pic.twitter.com/dSHAYHYevr

hussein kesvani

@HKesvani

In love with the shape of

Rudy Giuliani

@RudyGiuliani

You

Rudy Giuliani

@RudyGiuliani

You

Scott Murray@Sc0ttMurray

..used to call me on my cell phone pic.twitter.com/uu8w93fQXd

Willie Geist

@WillieGeist

…. you got what I neee-eeeed! 🎶

cc: @BizMarkie

Rudy Giuliani

@RudyGiuliani

You

The others turned to famous movie quotes:

Rudy Giuliani

@RudyGiuliani

You

Tony Posnanski

@tonyposnanski

CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

Dave Itzkoff

@ditzkoff

Fredo, i know it was

Rudy Giuliani

@RudyGiuliani

You

Many also took advantage of the opportunity to grill Giuliani over his lawyer activities and questioned his credibility:

Rudy Giuliani

@RudyGiuliani

You

Molly Jong-Fast

@MollyJongFast

Are as good at lawyering as you are a Twitter.

Rudy Giuliani

@RudyGiuliani

You

𝕁𝕆⚓𝔻𝕀@Jodi______

are dazed and confused. pic.twitter.com/xgbxcbws6I

WouldOrWouldn’tHat@Popehat

In which Rudy makes a public statement without making things worsehttps://twitter.com/rudygiuliani/status/1023540603215405056?s=21 

Rudy Giuliani

@RudyGiuliani

You

Eric Schmeltzer@JustSchmeltzer

His twitter skills match his declining legal skills.

Rudy Giuliani

@RudyGiuliani

You

Meanwhile, some jokes were fired not at Giuliani but at his client, President Trump:

Smith@WriteSmitty

… know he’s guilty.

Rudy Giuliani

@RudyGiuliani

You

Resign in Disgrace!@UsAgainstTrump

Ah yes, the covfefe defense.

Rudy Giuliani

@RudyGiuliani

You

There were also those who tried to come up with something as illogical and ridiculous as the original tweet, and probably succeeded:

Rudy Giuliani

@RudyGiuliani

You

Cindy 🐬@cindyella_yolo

You ok dude? pic.twitter.com/p8PgFjk0z4

Dylan Haines@DHaines1

*looks around haphazardly*

Me?

Rudy Giuliani

@RudyGiuliani

You

Rudy Giuliani

@RudyGiuliani

You

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————