This post was published at Ben Swann
Since the ballot in Catalonia over a week ago, which the Spanish authorities, contrary to the spirit of democracy, did their best to disrupt by the use of brute force, as any good old fashioned fascist State would, by sending in the “Brownshirts”, the mainstream media have gone to work in an effort to present the pro-independence Catalans as a bunch of fringe wing nutters trying to turn the clock back to the Middle Ages. The pro-Spain demonstrations at the weekend were given big media coverage and made to look like an overwhelming endorsement of the Spanish State, rather like the “huge crowds” when Saddam Hussein’s statue was pulled down in Iraq after the invasion, which turned out to be just a few hundred people herded into a square and then orchestrated and made to look like a large crowd by the careful use of camera angles. Of course, the pro-Spain crowds were big – what do you expect in a city the size of Barcelona even if only 30% of population are in favor of continued union with Spain? Having sent in the police with orders to act as thugs to disrupt the vote, the Spanish parliament than arbitrarily dismissed the vote as invalid because “only” 45% or so of the population voted, which was of course the result of their interference, and you don’t have to be a genius to extrapolate that if about 90% of those who did vote were in favor of Catalonia becoming a separate State, if even 80% of citizens had voted, there would still be an overwhelming majority in favor of separation.
The Spanish parliament invoked the constitution in an attempt to deprive Catalonians of their democratic rights, and have used it as justification for violent suppression with the thinly veiled threat of the further use of force if the Catalonians persist, such as the arrest of their leader, cutting off of banks etc. The Spanish King and the European Union weighed in on the side of the Spanish government, as one would expect.
This post was published at Clive Maund on Tuesday, October 10, 2017.
We are seeing now in regard to North Korea a replay of the type of campaign the deep state and the media used in 2001 through 2003 to stir up the American people to support the invasion of Iraq.
The Ron Paul Institute’s Adam Dick writes that this is the assessment of former United States House of Representatives member and presidential candidate Ron Paul in a Tuesday interview with Alex Jones on the Alex Jones Show.
In the interview focused on US foreign policy and, in particular, relations between the US and North Korea, Paul declared:
Just remember … the propagandists, the deep state and the media, convinced the American people that Saddam Hussein was a danger, They’re doing the same thing now with North Korea.
In response to this propaganda, Paul, who has served as chairman of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity since leaving the US House, says Americans ‘ought to wise up and just not buy into this.’ Watch Paul’s complete interview here:
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Sep 27, 2017.
In a move that was entirely expected, Iraq’s Supreme Court has ruled that the Iraqi Kurdistan independence referendum scheduled for September 25 cannot take place. The ruling comes as Turkey has begun military exercises along its border with Iraq’s Kurdish region in a show of force meant to signal that Ankara will not tolerate an independent Kurdistan either. Turkey fears that its own Kurdish separatists which it has been doing internal battle with for decades will become emboldened by the existence of a Kurdish state.
Talk of the referendum has brought down the wrath of multiple regional governments upon the Iraqi Kurdish capital of Erbil to the point of threats of war. Iraq’s Supreme Court issued a statement Monday indicating that it “issued a national order to suspend the referendum procedures scheduled … until the resolution of the cases regarding the constitutionality of said decision.” The independence vote under consideration includes three provinces that make up northern Iraq as well as disputed regions claimed by both Erbil and Baghdad. For years since the toppling of Saddam Hussein, Erbil has operated relatively autonomously while enjoying the quiet support of Western governments like the United States and United Kingdom in the oil-rich region. Though many individual politicians in the West have voiced support for Kurdish independence, no government has ever formally endorsed such a controversial move which would radically alter the region at the very moment ISIS is being squeezed in Western Iraq and Eastern Syria.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Sep 18, 2017.
Syria’s victory in remaining still standing – still on its feet, as it were – amid the ruins of all that has been visited upon her, marks effectively the demise of the Bush Doctrine in the Middle East (of ‘the New Middle East’). It signals the beginning of the end – not just of the political ‘regime change’ project, but also of the Sunni jihadi project which has been used as the coercive tool for bringing into being a ‘New Middle East.’
Just as the region has reached a geopolitical inflection point, however, so too, has Sunni Islam. Wahhabi-inspired Islam has taken a major hit. It is now widely discredited amongst Sunnis, and reviled by just about everyone else.
Just to be clear how linked were the two projects:
In the wake of the first Gulf War (1990-91), General Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander for Europe, recalled: ‘In 1991, [Paul Wolfowitz] was the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy … And I had gone to see him (…)
‘And I said, ‘Mr. Secretary, you must be pretty happy with the performance of the troops in Desert Storm.’
‘And he said: ‘Yeah, but not really, because the truth is we should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein, and we didn’t … But one thing we did learn is that we can use our military in the region? – ?in the Middle East? – ?and the Soviets won’t stop us. And we’ve got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes? – ?Syria, Iran, Iraq? – ?before the next great superpower comes on, to challenge us.”
This post was published at 21st Century Wire on SEPTEMBER 12, 2017.
Current mutual hostility threatens an explosive confrontation
Improving the dangerously unstable U. S.-Russia relationship will be very difficult, but it is important for U. S. national security. Current mutual hostility threatens an explosive confrontation that could destroy American (and Russian) civilization as we know it. Short of that, Russia can do much more than it is today to damage U. S. interests and values without taking extreme risks. Accordingly, the United States should explore normalizing its interaction with Russia. Washington should do so without illusions, and from a position of strength.
Today, America and Russia are adversaries with different approaches to key international issues, different systems of government and, in many respects, different values. Each confronts domestic obstacles to efforts to establish better relations. These obstacles are particularly challenging in the United States, where Congress, the mainstream media and much of the American public view Vladimir Putin’s Russia as a vicious enemy akin to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, if not Hitler’s Germany. Unlike China, Russia has only limited economic interaction with America – and therefore few Americans see a practical positive side to contacts with Russia. President Putin has much greater latitude in shaping his country’s foreign policy, including exploring a new beginning with Washington. Yet in a period of economic difficulty before Russia’s 2018 presidential election, Putin is loath to appear weak under foreign pressure.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Aug 16, 2017.
The American media specializes in fake news. Indeed, since the Clinton regime the American media has produced nothing but fake news. Do you remember the illegal US bombing and destruction of Yugoslavia? Do you remember ‘war criminal’ Slobodan Milosevic, the Serbian president branded ‘the butcher of the Balkans,’ who was compared to Hitler until Hillary passed the title on to the President of Russia? Milosevic, not Bill Clinton, was arrested and placed on trial at the International Criminal Tribunal. He died in prison, some say murdered, before he was cleared of charges by the International Criminal Tribunal.
Do you remember the destruction of Iraq justified by the orchestrated propaganda, known by the criminal George W. Bush regime to be an outright lie, about Saddam Hussein’s ‘weapons of mass destruction,’ weapons that the UN arms inspectors verified did not exist? Iraq was destroyed. Millions of Iraqis were killed, orphaned, widowed, and displaced. Saddam Hussein was subjected to a show trial more transparent than Stalin’s trial of Bukharin and then murdered under the pretext of judicial execution.
Do you remember the destruction of Libya based entirely on Washington’s lies and the criminal misuse of the UN no-fly resolution by turning it into a NATO bombing of Iraq’s military so that the CIA-armed jihadists could overthrow and murder Muammar Gaddafi? Do you remember the killer bitch Hillary gloating, ‘we came, we saw, he died!’
This post was published at Paul Craig Roberts on August 5, 2017.
Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,
‘Iran must be free. The dictatorship must be destroyed. Containment is appeasement and appeasement is surrender.’ Thus does our Churchill, Newt Gingrich, dismiss, in dealing with Iran, the policy of containment crafted by George Kennan and pursued by nine U. S. presidents to bloodless victory in the Cold War.
Why is containment surrender? ‘Because freedom is threatened everywhere so long as this dictatorship stays in power,’ says Gingrich.
But how is our freedom threatened by a regime with 3 percent of our GDP that has been around since Jimmy Carter was president?
Fortunately, Gingrich has found a leader to bring down the Iranian regime and ensure the freedom of mankind. ‘In our country that was George Washington and … the Marquis de Lafayette. In Italy it was Garibaldi,’ says Gingrich.
Whom has he found to rival Washington and Garibaldi? Says Gingrich, ‘Maryam Rajavi.’
Who is she? The leader of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, or Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, which opposed the Shah, broke with the old Ayatollah, collaborated with Saddam Hussein, and, until 2012, was designated a terrorist organization by the U. S. Department of State.
At the NCRI conference in Paris in July where Gingrich spoke, and the speaking fees were reportedly excellent, John Bolton and Rudy Giuliani were also on hand.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Jul 21, 2017.
The backdrops to the Putin/Trump meeting are the aspirations of Israel and the neoconservatives. It is these aspirations that drive US foreign policy.
What is Syria about? Why is Washington so focused on overthrowing the elected president of Syria? What explains the sudden 21st century appearance of ‘the Muslim threat’? How is Washington’s preoccupation with ‘the Muslim threat’ consistent with Washington’s wars against Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, and Assad, leaders who suppressed jihadism? What explains the sudden appearance of ‘the Russian threat’ which has been hyped into dangerous Russophobia without any basis in fact?
The Muslim threat, the Russian threat, and the lies used to destroy Iraq, Libya, and parts of Syria are all orchestrations to serve Israeli and neoconservative aspirations.
The Israel Lobby in the United States, perhaps most strongly represented in Commentary, The Weekly Standard and The New York Times, used the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon to urge US President George W. Bush to begin ‘a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from Power in Iraq.’
See also: Saddam Hussein was a secular leader whose job was to sit on the animosities of the Sunni and Shia and maintain a non-violent political stability in Iraq. He, Assad, and Gaddafi suppressed the extremism that leads to jihadism. Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, and under his rule Iraq constituted a ZERO threat to the US. He had been a faithful vassal and attacked Iran for Washington, which had hopes of using Iraq to overthrow the Iranian government.
This post was published at Paul Craig Roberts on July 7, 2017.
The United States is a schizophrenic asylum of extreme paradoxes: While its internal politics reverberates with fake news-mediated recriminations, Americans yet find merit in the same disinformation machinery that facilitates false flags abroad.
The US is now threatening Syria over an imminent ‘chemical weapons attack’ without offering a shred of proof to the international community. Then again, the last time the US resorted to due UNSC process had instead resulted in wars and mayhem that continue till today. The vial brandished by Colin Powell was found to contain nothing more than a concoction of fraudulent intelligence and mass-mediated hysteria over Saddam Hussein’s alleged possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Nevertheless, fake news had come of age and forged an indispensable bond between elected US officials and the sheeple who voted them in.
Fake News: A Collective American Psychosis
No one epitomizes the fake news paradox better than the president of the United States, Donald J. Trump, himself.
This post was published at The Daily Sheeple on July 5, 2017.
Recep Tayyip Erdoan (aka the Prez) and his ruling Justice and Development Party (or AKP) have for years been working hard to alter the appearance as well as the substance of the nation-state that is Turkey. And in this respect, the figure of the Turkish President himself seems to have been the ultimate prime-mover, forcing the execution of effective changes while simultaneously constantly dominating the headlines.
Hence, many quite easily refer to the Turkish President as a dictator.
Tayyip Erdoan as a Dictator?!?
Dictators have been around for quite some time now, harking back to antiquity when the Roman ‘Senate could vote to grant absolute power to one man, called a dictator, for a temporary period.’
In modern times, the term has been more commonly employed to refer to a ‘ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force,’ as defined by the online Oxford Dictionaries. And in the 20th century such characters as Adolf Hitler, Mussolini or Franco stood out as prime examples of political leaders wielding dictatorial powers. In the 21st century, public opinion and the press alike habitually refer to certain rulers as dictators and will often characterise them as ‘the next Hitler,’ before summarily executing them through regime change operations – like with Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi or Iraq’s Saddam Hussein as the two most salient examples. Unlike Gaddafi, who had been an ‘international pariah’ throughout most of his public life, Saddam used to be a ‘close American ally’ until he crossed the line by invading Kuwait in August 1990 thereby forcing the U. S. to invoke the then ten-year old ‘Carter Doctrine.’ Saddam Hussein’s story – from very humble beginnings in a mud hut on stilts to palatial complexes fit to entertain guests like Donald Rumsfeld, acting as Ronald Reagan’s special envoy (20 December 1983) – could today very well act as a cautionary tale for certain political leaders, certain political leaders who were once equally close to Washington but have since changed direction.
This post was published at 21st Century Wire on JUNE 14, 2017.
Authored by Paul Atwood via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
A few months ago I received a message from a professor at the Khomeini Institute for Education and Research in Tehran, Iran, informing me that my 2010 book ‘War and Empire: The American Way of Life’ (London, Pluto Press) had been translated into Farsi. He requested that I write an Introduction for Iranian readers. What follows is that Introduction. Two years ago the Xinhua Peoples’ Press in Beijing, China also published a translation in Mandarin.
In the aftermath of Saddam Hussein’s 1991 attempt to annex Kuwait the U. S. deliberately destroyed much of Iraq’s water and sewer infrastructure. The Pentagon even admitted on its website that these acts would lead to mass outbreaks of disease. These were certifiable war crimes under international law. After Saddam’s defeat the U. S. also imposed widespread sanctions on his regime that included preventing necessary medicines from reaching Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens perished as a result. In an infamous interview in 1996 Madeleine Albright, then the Secretary of State, was asked to justify the deaths of 500,000 children. She defended these atrocities by saying ‘I think this is a very hard choice but we think the price is worth it.’ Twenty-one years have elapsed since Albright uttered her rationalization of this vicious barbarity and it has been virtually ‘disappeared’ from the collective memory of Americans. But it is far from being the only one.
Today much the same is being visited upon the children of Mosul, Syria and Yemen. Fifty thousand more marines are slated for deployment to Afghanistan and the new Defense Secretary’s bellicose rhetoric threatens Iran.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on May 7, 2017.
Reading up on the Syria ‘chemical attack’ issue (is that the right term to use?). The headlines are entirely predictable, and by now that probably won’t surprise anyone, no matter where they are or what views they adhere to. We know there’s been an attack and that some kind of chemical was used. The media talk about sarin.
They also, almost unanimously, blame the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad for it. But that’s the same government that just this week saw both US Foreign Secretary Rex Tillerson and US UN enjoy Nikki Haley point to a significant shift in American policy, towards a view that removing Assad is no longer a priority in US Middle-East policy.
That comes after many years of insisting that Assad must be removed. And after many years of US involvement in removing other regimes in the region, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi. It also comes on the eve of a large Syria conference, the first in a long time, due to start today. Russia and the States send only lower-level representatives, politically sensitive etc., but still.
The question arises what reason the Syrian government could possibly have to launch a chemical attack anywhere on its territory, gruesome pictures of which, with many child casualties, were posted soon after the attack supposedly too place. And that’s where logic at least seems to break down.
Syria was not supposed to have any chemical warfare arsenals left, far as I understand, there was an accord to that extent in 2013. Did they hide any (Saddam WMD style?!), or did they recently obtain them (from Russia?!). But most of all, why use them on the eve of a conference where you have everything to gain?
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Apr 6, 2017.
Who is to blame for the current state of chaos in Iraq? An oversimplified and misguided, if not dishonest course of action would be to blame Iraqis for being the radical, death-cult worshiping fanatics they are and ignore America’s foreign policy decision-making, which led to the current situation. In turn, one could place Iraq on a travel ban list of nations that doesn’t include any of the countries that created and support al-Qaeda (and then nonsensically remove them from your revised list some weeks later).
Of course, a more honest and fruitful venture would be to examine the events that led to the current situation engulfing Iraq. As American airstrikes continue to massacre the Iraqi civilian population by the hundreds, we owe it to the Iraqi people to get to the bottom of this story. From there, we could ostensibly create a future path that might bring peace to the war-torn nation as opposed to blindly continuing the same policies Iraq has been victim to for decades.
In the early 1900s, the British drew up artificial boundaries for Iraq and forced diverse groups in a sectarian society to identify themselves under one nation. The tactic was part of a wider divide and conquer strategy the British employed throughout the region. According to the New York Times, the CIA actively supported Saddam Hussein’s initial rise to power in the 1960s by staging a coup in a bid to undermine the ‘threat’ of Abdel Karim Kassem, who had grown too assertive for Washington’s liking.
This post was published at The Daily Sheeple on APRIL 4, 2017.
Authored Op-Ed by Pepe Escobar via SputnikNews.com,
James Shea, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Emerging Threats at NATO – now that’s a lovely title – recently gave a talk at a private club in London on the Islamic State/Daesh. Shea, as many will remember, made his name as NATO’s spokesman during the NATO war on Yugoslavia in 1999.
After his talk Shea engaged in a debate with a source I very much treasure. The source later gave me the lowdown.
According to Saudi intelligence, Daesh was invented by the US government – in Camp Bacca, near the Kuwait border, as many will remember – to essentially finish off the Shiite-majority Nouri al-Maliki government in Baghdad. It didn’t happen this way, of course. Then, years later, in the summer of 2014, Daesh routed the Iraqi Army on its way to conquer Mosul. The Iraqi Army fled. Daesh operatives then annexed ultra-modern weapons that took US instructors from six to twelve months to train the Iraqis in and…surprise! Daesh incorporated the weapons in their arsenals in 24 hours.
In the end, Shea frankly admitted to the source that Gen David Petraeus, conductor of the much-lauded 2007 surge, had trained these Sunnis now part of Daesh in Anbar province in Iraq
Saudi intelligence still maintains that these Iraqi Sunnis were not US-trained – as Shea confirmed – because the Shiites in power in Baghdad didn’t allow it. Not true. The fact is the Daesh core – most of them former commanders and soldiers in Saddam Hussein’s army – is indeed a US-trained militia.
This post was published at Zero Hedge by Tyler Durden.
Authored by Gregory Clark via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
The U. S. spy community – those nice people who told us they were certain the Iraq of President Saddam Hussein was holding weapons of mass destruction – have now made it known they are certain the Russian ambassador to the United States is Moscow’s top spy. But these people, even if they do not know much about WMD, must know what a top spy does. They do it themselves.
First, there is the messy and time-consuming job of finding information-loaded officials. Then there is the problem of maintaining contacts with those officials at secret rendezvous. So a senior ambassador, and former deputy Russian foreign minister, is able to do all this while going to cocktail parties, hobnobbing with the national elite, running a large embassy and studying the politics of the nation to which he is accredited?
I suggest U. S. top spies go back to doing their real work instead of inventing fairy tales.
I have seen the spies at work, on both sides of the Iron Curtain.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Mar 12, 2017.
Despite what even some alternative media commentators might argue, the Syrian war is about oil, gas, and money. A secret 1983 intelligence report has confirmed that America’s distaste for the Assad family in Syria has always revolved around pipeline disputes – and this alone has given the U. S. cause to go to war with Syria.
Most disturbingly, the report revealed that the United States urged Saddam Hussein to attack Hafez al-Assad in Syria because of the closure of Iraq’s oil pipeline.
The report by former senior CIA official Graham Fuller urged the U. S. to consider ‘urging Iraq to take the war to Syria,’ noting Saddam was ‘fighting for his life’ in the Iran-Iraq campaign. The closure of the Iraq pipeline was seen to have a ‘hammerlock’ on U. S. interests in the region.
Fuller said the U. S. should consider ‘sharply escalating the pressures against Assad’ from three border states hostile to Syria – Iraq, Israel, and Turkey. The report claimed that faced with these ‘three belligerent fronts,’ Assad would probably be forced to abandon his closure of the pipeline.
This post was published at The Daily Sheeple on JANUARY 24, 2017.
Was anybody here trading in 2003?
It was the year we invaded Iraq (regrettably). The markets were expecting a decisive victory. During the days and weeks when American troops advanced on Baghdad, the market climbed. As they entered Baghdad and marched on the center of the city, the market traded higher and higher.
Finally, American troops fastened a rope around the neck of Saddam Hussein’s statue and attached the other end to a tank. The world watched on television as the tank backed down and toppled the statue.
And at that very moment – stocks started to fall.
The rumor was that the US would win the war quickly and decisively. The fact or news was that the war itself turned out to be the simplest part – and the 14 years since have been anything but.1
Can you see the parallels with today?
Stage 1: The prospect of war/a Trump presidency is scary: stocks go down.
Stage 2: Once war/the Trump presidency commences, people see the positive aspects of it.
This post was published at Mauldin Economics on JANUARY 12, 2017.
As my readers know, I reported, factually, on the Boston Marathon alleged bombing case. I interviewed carefully the pro bono attorney, John Remington Graham, who intervened in behalf of the Russian aunt, a lawyer in the Russian Federation, in behalf of the falsely convicted younger Tsarnaev brother, Dzhokhar, the older brother having been murdered by the FBI. Graham conclusively proved that the FBI’s own evidence proved beyond any doubt that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was innocent, which means so was the older brother.
It is clear beyond reasonable doubt that there was no real bombing at the Boston Marathon and that the alleged terrorist event, using crisis actors, was an orchestration designed to convince dumbshit Americans that they really were under a ‘Muslim threat.’ The entire foreign policy of the United States in the 21st century is based on an orchestrated ‘Muslim threat.’
The orchestrated threat was also used for a practice exercise in closing down one of America’s largest cities in order to manhunt with intent to kill a young man chosen as the villain for the orchestrated event. American citizens were forced at gunpoint out of their homes while Homeland Security, a Nazi reminiscent name from the Hitler era, disrupted the life of an entire city and its airport service in behalf of this orchestrated event that murdered American civil liberty. The entire exercise was based on a lie, an event that never happened, like Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, Assad’s use of chemical weapons, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and so forth. Just another lie in behalf of the ‘exceptional people.’
This post was published at Paul Craig Roberts on January 5, 2017.
Former CIA Agent John Nixon, the man who interrogated Saddam Hussein and briefed Bush Jr. and Dick Chaney, reveals how intelligence got everything dead wrong in Iraq. He goes into when he was summoned to give a detailed presentation to George W. Bush at the Oval Office back in 2007. He states that Vice President Dick Cheney made a bad joke, ‘You sure Saddam didn’t say where he put those vials of anthrax?’ It was not very appropriate given the fact that America had lost more than 4,000 troops. He goes into how Saddam thought Iraq and America would become closer because he had suppressed the terrorists, and Iraq was not run by religious zealots.
This post was published at Armstrong Economics on Dec 27, 2016.