|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
26 September 2014 Thought
for the Week:
21st ANNIVERSARY OF THE MAASTRICHT TREASON CHARGES
by Rodney Atkinson.
“Free - Not subject as a slave is to his master; not subject to foreign dominion”.
The Scottish National Referendum will have been held by the time this edition of On Target is in the hands of our readers, but the following article by Rodney Atkinson should give Australians food for thought along with the proposal for an Aboriginal Constitutional Recognition referendum.
The Scottish Referendum
So the aim of the treason committed at Maastricht by British politicians was the destruction of the United Kingdom – now within 10 days of realisation.
The Crown Prerogative is the power of Her Majesty’s Government to act on the authority of the Queen and without the authority of Parliament. It is impossible for the Government of the day to undermine the constitution when signing treaties with other countries under Crown Prerogative powers. So no Treaty which contradicted the Act of Settlement, the Coronations Oath Act, the Union with Scotland Act, the Treason Acts, Constitutional Case Law (R v Thistlewood 1820) and Magna Carta and confirmed the permanent superior power of European Union Law could justify the use of undemocratic Crown Prerogative Powers.
The end results of our treason cases were statements from the Crown Prosecution Service in England and the Lord Advocate in Scotland. They refused to address the specific charges at all and both countries declared that the treason at the signing in 1992 was made legal by the passing of the European Communities (Amendments) Act 1993.
The treason of 1992 had been legalised! But treason was committed in 1992 and that act remains a crime since British law recognises it was the law at the time. And since the 1993 Act could not overturn the British Constitution that Act was nul and void.
The Cases therefore remain unanswered – because they were unanswerable. But they remain a marker even today since they can be picked up and used by a British people slowly awakening to the deceitful and covert destruction of their democratic sovereignty on the altar of the European State.
Case 8 (IN SCOTLAND)
Source: www.freenations.net Do watch the video by Rodney Atkinson filmed partly at Runnymede, which is now on the freenations website. If you have trouble downloading the video, ask Doug Holmes for help. Phone 08 8396 1245.
ILLEGAL NATO AND AGGRESSIVE EU, NOT RUSSIA, THE AGGRESSORS IN UKRAINE
writes Rodney Atkinson.
German political foundations, the CIA and the expansionist Brussels empire have for 20 years sought to take over Ukraine – despite their repeated assurances to Russia that former soviet satellites would be allowed free determination and NATO would not threaten Russia. The violent and bloody overthrow of a democratically elected Ukraine Government and an election which excluded most Russian speakers in the East of Ukraine in which an immensely wealthy oligarch came to power, combined with the encirclement of Russia by NATO bases and the recognition by Germany of blatantly fascist movements in Ukraine all show where the provocation for this war came from.
The might of NATO and the stifling suppression of nations by the European Union are a powerful threat, recognised in the West as much as in the East. It is a characteristic of bankrupt and declining economies like the USA and the European Union that they seek external aggression to bolster support at home. The Ukrainian fiasco will have the opposite effect.”
NATO AT HEART OF NEW COLD WAR SAYS FORMER AMBASSADOR
Defence Watch Guest Writer
NATO was born in the aftermath of the Second World War. Its founders were painfully aware that having reached the mid-point of the 20th century there had already been two world wars and the dropping of the atom bomb on civilian cities. They were determined that war and violence should not become the norm in resolving disputes and it was in this spirit that Article I of the treaty was conceived.
Article I of the Treaty made this abundantly clear. It read:
For fifty years NATO was successful in deterring aggression against the West. A combination of conventional forces and the nuclear bomb created a mutual understanding that armed conflict between the two opposing powers was not an option. Critically important, however, was Article I itself because it was a guarantee to the Soviet Union that it would never be attacked by NATO forces. Article I acted as a safety blanket for the Soviets.
Ironically, the fall of the Soviet empire did not foretell the beginning of a new age of peace and security in Europe. On the contrary, the empire’s demise caused a crisis in NATO. After the Warsaw Pact armies had returned home what was the justification of maintaining such an expensive and powerful military force in Europe. NATO’s response was – business as usual- a continuation of the Cold war. As the respected former United States Ambassador to Moscow, George F Kennan wrote in 1987… “Were the Soviet Union, to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military industrial complex would have to remain substantially unchanged until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy.” Until his death Kennan continued to deplore NATO’s hostile encirclement of Russia.
In fact, NATO didn’t have to find another adversary it just pretended nothing had changed and acted accordingly. NATO’s behaviour towards Russia speaks for itself; a record marked by duplicity, double standards and hypocrisy. One of its first acts was to convert the Alliance from a purely defensive organization to one that could intervene militarily to resolve international disputes by force. The opportunity for this transformation occurred with the 78 day bombing of Serbia in March 1999 carried out by NATO without authorization from the UN Security Council. Later, in violation of UN Resolution 1244 reaffirming Serbia ’s sovereignty over Kosovo, NATO recognized the unilateral declaration of Kosovo independence – declared without any pretence of a referendum.
During the bombing on NATO’s 50th birthday, US President Bill Clinton announced a new role for NATO – from now he declared, in effect, that NATO could intervene wherever and whenever it decided to do so. Article I of the treaty presumably had been nullified by Presidential decree. The NATO treaty had been turned upside down. In the same month NATO admitted Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into NATO thus breaking the promise made to Russian president Mikhail Gorbachev that if Russia allowed a united Germany into NATO the organization would never expand eastward.
The current crisis in Ukraine threatens global security and at worst has the potential for nuclear catastrophe. At best it signals a continuation of the Cold War. Sadly, the crisis is completely unnecessary and the responsibility lies entirely in the hands of the United State–led NATO powers. The almost virulent propaganda onslaught blaming Russia for the instability and violence in Ukraine simply ignores reality and the facts.
NATO, spurred on by the United States, has been determined since the collapse of the Soviet Union to surround Russia with hostile NATO members. The first attempt to win Ukraine over to the West through the Orange Revolution in 2004 failed but NATO kept trying and now has “let slip the dogs of war” on that unfortunate country.
It was inevitable that NATO’s expansion eastward would at some point run into hostile Russian reaction. The attack on South Ossetia in 2008 by the US armed and trained Georgian military was the last straw and Russia finally showed its teeth and crushed the Georgian offensive in 48 hours. The Russians then added insult to injury by recognizing the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. President Putin had warned that the illegal recognition of Kosovo independence would set a dangerous precedent and endanger the international framework of peace and security. Obviously his warning was unheeded and now the Cold War has started again. This was not supposed to happen.
It is time for the citizenry of the NATO countries to demand that the principles contained in the original NATO treaty be honoured and that Article I be followed. Bellicose statements, sanctions and other warlike moves (however futile) are not helpful in reaching a peaceful solution. NATO’s Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen should stop threatening Russia and instead reaffirm to the world that Article 1 of the treaty will be enforced.
(James Bissett is a former Canadian diplomat. He was Canada ’s ambassador to Yugoslavia , Albania , and Bulgaria )
From Swimming with Piranhas to swimming with Great White Sharks – 12/9/2014
Strelkov: from swimming with Piranhas to swimming with Great White sharks
The full article can be read here… http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/strelkov-from-swimming-with-piranhas-to.html
MAPPING A NEW WORLD ORDER?
The World After World War III? By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya Source: https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/09/10/redrawing-map-russia-federation-partition-russia-after-world-war-iii.html
The Plans of the Empire of Chaos for Russia
Breaking the Soviet Union has not been enough for Washington and NATO. The ultimate goal of the US is to prevent any alternatives from emerging in Europe and Eurasia to Euro-Atlantic integration. This is why the destruction of Russia is one of its strategic objectives. Washington’s goals were alive and at work during the fighting in Chechnya. They were also seen in the crisis that erupted with EuroMaidan in Ukraine. In fact, the first step of the divorce between Ukraine and Russia was a catalyst for the dissolution of the entire Soviet Union and any attempts at reorganizing it.
The Polish-American intellectual Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was US President Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor and an architect behind the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, has actually advocated for the destruction of Russia through gradual disintegration and devolution. He has stipulated that «a more decentralized Russia would be less susceptible to imperial mobilization».
US State-Owned Media Forecasts the Balkanization of Russia
Sinchenko’s article starts by talking about the history of the «Axis of Evil» phrase that the US has used to vilify its enemies. It talks about how George W. Bush Jr. coined the phrase in 2002 by grouping Iraq, Iran, and North Korea together, how John Bolton expanded the Axis of Evil to include Cuba, Libya, and Syria, how Condoleezza Rice include Belarus, Zimbabwe, and Myanmar (Burma), and then finally he proposes that Russia be added to the list as the world’s main pariah state. He even argues that the Kremlin is involved in all the conflicts in the Balkans, Caucasus, Middle East, North Africa, Ukraine, and Southeast Asia. He goes on to accuse Russia of planning to invade the Baltic States, the Caucasus, Moldova, Finland, Poland, and, even more ridiculously, two of its own close military and political allies, Belarus and Kazakhstan. As the article’s title implies, he even claims that Moscow is intentionally pushing for a third world war. This fiction is not something that has been reported in the US-aligned corporate networks, but is something that has been published directly by US government-owned media. The forecast was published by the Ukrainian service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which has been a US propaganda tool in Europe and the Middle East that has helped topple governments.
Chillingly, the article tries to sanitize the possibilities of a new world war. Disgustingly ignoring the use of nuclear weapons and the massive destruction that would erupt for Ukraine and the world, the article misleadingly paints a cozy image of a world that will be corrected by a major global war. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the author are essentially saying that «war is good for you» to the Ukrainian people and that some type of utopian paradise will emerge after a war with Russia.
The article also fits very nicely into the contours of Brzezinski’s forecast for Russia, Ukraine, and the Eurasian landmass. It forecasts the division of Russia whereas Ukraine is a part of an expanded European Union, which includes Georgia, Armenia, the Republic of Azerbaijan, Belarus, Israel, Lebanon, and Denmark’s North American dependency of Greenland, and also controls a confederation of states in the Caucasus and the Mediterranean Sea—the latter could be the Union of the Mediterranean, which would encompass Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, and the Moroccan-occupied Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic or Western Sahara. Ukraine is presented as an integral component of the European Union. In this regard, Ukraine appears to be situated in a US-aligned Franco-German-Polish-Ukrainian corridor and Paris-Berlin-Warsaw-Kiev axis that Brzezinski advocated for creating in 1997, which Washington would use to challenge the Russian Federation and its allies in the CIS. 
Redrawing Eurasia: Washington’s Maps of a Divided Russia
With the division of the Russian Federation, Radio Free Europe’s/Radio Liberty’s article claims that any bipolar rivalry between Moscow and Washington would end after World War III. In a stark contradiction, it claims that only when Russia is destroyed will there be a genuine multipolar world, but also implies that the US will be the most dominant global power even though Washington and the European Union will be weakened from the anticipated major war with the Russians.
Accompanying the article are also two maps that outline the redrawn Eurasian space and the shape of the world after the destruction of Russia. Moreover, neither the author nor his two maps recognize the boundary change in the Crimean Peninsula and depict it as a part of Ukraine and not the Russian Federation. From west to east, the following changes are made to Russia’s geography:
Mapping a New World Order: The World After World War III?
Firstly, where did the author pick up these ideas?
Secondly, what informs the author’s visions of a post-World War III political landscape?
There are machinations at play to deconstruct and reconstruct nations and groups in the post-Soviet space and Middle East. This can be called the manipulation of tribalism in sociological and anthropological jargon or, in political jargon, the playing out of the Great Game. In this context, Ukrainianism has particularly been supportive of anti-government elements and anti-Russian nationalist feelings in Ukraine for more than one hundred years, firstly under the Austrians and Germans, later through the Poles and British, and now under the US and NATO. Ukrainianism is an ideology that seeks to reify and enforce a new collective imagining or false historic memory among the Ukrainian people about them always being a separate nation and people, in both ethnic and civic terms, from the Russian people. Ukrainianism is a political projection that seeks to deny the historic unity of the Eastern Slavs and the geographic roots and historic context behind the distinction between Ukrainians and Russians. In other words, Ukrainianism seeks to de-contextual and to forget the process that has led to the distinction of Ukrainians from Russians.
*** Russia has always arisen from the ashes. History can testify to this. Come what may, Russia will be standing. Whenever all the diverse people of Russia are united under one banner for their homeland, they have shattered empires. They have survived catastrophic wars and invasions and have outlived their enemies. Maps and borders may change, but Russia will remain. Award-winning author, sociologist and geopolitical analyst, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaza is the author of The Globalization of NATO (Clarity Press) and a forthcoming book The War on Libya and the Re-Colonization of Africa. He is Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), a contributor at the Strategic Cultural Foundation (SCF), Moscow, and a member of the Scientific Committee of Geopolitica, Italy.
THE PLAGUE YEARS ARE HERE
by Chris Knight
Chris Knight’s article is timely. Having just reread Vandana Shiva’s article in the September 2014 New Times Survey where she writes of the superweeds and superbugs Indian farmers now have to contend with - having used pesticides and herbicides for many years – it would seem Mother Nature has mounted her natural forces against modern science… editor
Natural News.com (17 July, 2014) reports that drug-resistant superbug infections are at near-epidemic levels at U.S. hospitals. The journal “Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology” reports that there has been a recent 500 per cent fatality rate in the spread of CRE (carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae). Those infected have a 50 per cent fatality rate and there are no antibiotics available to treat it.
The multi-drug resistant superbug was created by the medical profession through using narrowly-targeted antibiotics which led to the bacteria developing resistance, Natural News argues. Drug companies have not undertaken the development of new drugs because it is more profitable to manufacture “lifestyle management drugs” which can be sold to the entire population to “treat” the diseases of affluence.
The associate director of the Center for Disease Control, Dr. Arjun Srinivasan has said that humanity is at the end of the antibiotic era. The response by Natural News is that the situation is not hopeless as there are natural broad spectrum antibiotics such as pure honey. The end of techno-medicine will lead man back to the wisdom of nature, and nature’s pharmacy.
EBOLA OUTBREAK: ‘BIG PHARMA’ FAILED VICTIMS. WHY?
The Independent, Charlie Cooper - 7 September 2014
Because, says a leading scientist, there was 'no business case' for a vaccine “The scientist leading Britain's response to the Ebola pandemic has launched a devastating attack on "Big Pharma", accusing drugs giants including GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Sanofi, Merck and Pfizer of failing to manufacture a vaccine, not because it was impossible, but because there was "no business case".
West Africa's Ebola outbreak, which has now claimed well over 2,000 lives, could have been "nipped in the bud", if a vaccine had been developed and stockpiled sooner – a feat that would likely have been "do-able", said Professor Adrian Hill of Oxford University. A team led by Professor Hill is to begin trials of an experimental Ebola vaccine fast-tracked into development in a desperate bid to slow the spread of the virus in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia. If it passes safety and effectiveness trials, 10,000 doses of the vaccine – co-developed by the Britain's GSK and America's National Institutes of Health (NIH) – could be used to protect health workers in West Africa by December.
However, Professor Hill said that the fact that a vaccine had not been available to stop the disease when it emerged in Guinea six months ago represented a "market failure" of the commercial system of vaccine production which is dominated by the pharmaceutical giants. The scale of the Ebola outbreak and the devastation it is causing in terms of lives lost and social breakdown had led the World Health Organisation (WHO) to order an unprecedented acceleration of normal drug development processes. Experts are looking at 10 different unlicensed and experimental Ebola therapy and vaccine candidates, of which the GSK/NIH vaccine is among the most promising. Regulatory processes that usually take up to 15 years have been abandoned, to fast-track drugs and vaccines into the field….”
Read further here… www.independent.co.uk/biography/charlie-cooper
DON’T OVERLOOK WHAT’S UNDERFOOT – SAVE THE BUGS AND GERMS
One is tempted to ask the authors of the following article - where have you been all these years? But I guess ‘better late than never’. The article appeared online in The Conversation, 26 August 2014. If any of these folk had been around early in the 20th century they would have had access to the work of such ground-breaking pioneers as Sir Albert Howard of ‘composting’ fame and would have well understood the fundamental importance of the ‘bugs and germs’ in the soil. Also, social crediter, the late Dr Geoffrey Dobbs, was by profession a biologist and his speciality was the study of fungi. He could have told them quite a lot about the fungi… editor.
Don’t overlook what’s underfoot – save the bugs and germs
A handful of soil needs vital micro-organisms to grow the food we eat.
One of the biggest problems for conservation today is that it ignores 95% of all known species on Earth. Could a company ignore that proportion of its clients or a government so many of its voters? So why does this problem exist in conservation? Some 90% of all of the Earth’s species are either invertebrates or micro-organisms, and the folly of ignoring the latter is encapsulated by UK Professor Tom Curtis writing in Nature Reviews Microbiology:
I make no apologies for putting micro-organisms on a pedestal above all other living things, for if the last blue whale choked to death on the last panda, it would be disastrous but not the end of the world. But if we accidentally poisoned the last two species of ammonia-oxidisers, that would be another matter. It could be happening now and we wouldn’t even know […]
It’s good to save the whale but protect the little things too. Ammonia oxidisers are naturally occurring bacteria that are essential for maintaining the most economically valuable nutrient in soil: nitrogen. They are good examples of the other millions of mostly tiny soil species, either microbial or invertebrate, upon which all agriculture and forestry depends.
Their astonishing genetic, chemical, metabolic and population properties are those that generate the essential processes, such as nitrogen cycling, that drive all the primary industries. This being so, the primary industries are obviously biodiversity-based industries. Yet we are confronted every day with a wide range of opinion that agriculture and forestry are the greatest threats to biodiversity.
So how bad is this disconnect? We can’t see all the biodiversity
I once asked a farmer if he had any biodiversity on his land. He said that he had a few patches of remnant native vegetation that attracted some birds and other species. “How many species would that be,” I asked. He said he thought it would add up to several dozen. When I pointed out that the square metre of soil he was standing on likely harboured 2,000 different species he was staggered – even more so when I pointed out that they contributed directly to his yields and profits. Recent research has explored approximate dollar values of these components of biodiversity, and there is one example that provides some sharp insights. Across the world an economically vital invertebrate, the honey bee, is in catastrophic decline, threatening yields in many crops in many countries. Honey bees play a vital role in pollination but their populations are under threat in many parts of the world. While research is revealing the possible cause, farmers are increasingly looking for alternatives, especially native bee species and other suitable flying insects.
Honey bee pollination has an annual value of several billion dollars worldwide but it is beginning to look like other species, including native bees, beetles and flies, can maintain economically significant pollination rates. But very often the native bees' ability to survive in agricultural landscapes where they are needed and their conservation status – that is, their future as economic resources – is unknown.
It is important to note here that in addition to the primary industries, microbial and invertebrate biodiversity provides vital resources for an increasing variety of other industries.
These includes pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, construction materials and the species that drive the newer bio industries such as bio-control, bio-mining and bio-remediation.
But as Professor Curtis points out, we haven’t a clue whether or not any of these resource species require conservation – because nobody is looking. Industry too needs to protect biodiversity Perhaps the biodiversity-based industries provide hope for conservation. If a large component of biodiversity is essential to a large component of the economy, then its study and conservation becomes the business of the industries that depend on this biodiversity for their resources.
This opens the door to a massive change in attitude towards biodiversity conservation. It ceases to be an activity confined to conservationists but is directly in the interests of a variety of biodiversity-based industries at the core of every economy. Why hasn’t this happened? It is because the interests of those focused on the 5% of species on Earth that are plants and vertebrates have come to dominate the field. Thus, biodiversity has been sold short all along. There are many in conservation who argue passionately that conserving biodiversity for economic reasons – placing a dollar value on species – is unethical.
This is the point raised by US Professor Michelle Marvier of the Breakthrough Institute, writing in the Ecological Society of America: Setting up dichotomies of economic growth versus the protection of nature is a dead-end for conservation. Conserve all species great and small.
Humanity needs both the large, charismatic species of plants and animals, and the vast hordes of mostly microscopic species that greatly outnumber them. Importantly, there are many connections between them. The benefits flow in both directions. Pollinators are again a good example: areas of natural vegetation around crops supply native pollinators while the crops supply huge amounts of nectar and pollen to their insect benefactors. Natural biodiversity also supplies the predators and parasites of crop pests. There is less knowledge about interactions involving microbes but we do know that some modern agricultural methods greatly reduce the diversity of soil microbes. This is likely to be detrimental to ecologically sustainable food production.
It is going to take very serious resources to capture the knowledge required to work out the functions and conservation status of the millions of micro-organisms and invertebrates upon which we all depend. Sure it’s going to be a hard sell, but at least we should see conservation and industry as partners rather than rivals.
DON’T FORGET FOREIGN BUY-UPS
by Peter Ewer
The Foreign Investment Review Board is supposed to inhibit foreigners from buying fixed homes in all but exceptional circumstances, but the Board is allowing Chinese investment in established homes. Why? Because the government wants Australia to be bought up. Why is this? Because “our” government is not “our” government but a mere pawn of global money. Can you see the writing on the wall?
THE IMMIGRATION INVASION
by Chris Knight
WILL ANYTHING COME AFTER “GENERATION Z”?
by James Reed
CAMOUFLAGE AND COVERUP: NOT WORTH THE PAPER IT IS WRITTEN ON
Camouflage and Coverup: The Dutch Commission Report on the Malaysian MH17 Crash is “Not Worth the Paper it’s Written On” by Peter Haisenko, Global Research, September 11, 2014 Url of this article: https://www.globalresearch.ca/camouflage-and-coverup-the-dutch-commission-report-on-the-malaysian-mh17-crash-is-not-worth-the-paper-its-written-on/5400990
“Weasel wording” consists in using “words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific and/or meaningful statement has been made, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated, enabling the specific meaning to be denied if the statement is challenged.” … “Some weasel words may also have the effect of softening the force of a potentially loaded or otherwise controversial statement through some form of understatement.” (Gary Jason 1988)
One thing must be stated outright: This report does not lie. It just can’t lie since there is nothing new in it. I myself have never seen such a meaningless plane crash report. What comes as a surprise, however, is the report’s diplomatic, sophisticated choice of words, which loses itself in ambiguous terminology. It was probably planned this way, so each party can continue to defend their version of what happened with zeal.
Let’s take a closer look at this report.
The published conclusion points out that: “Crew communication gave no indication that there was anything abnormal with the flight.” Everything was normal, but the possible (and very probable) conversation in the cockpit is concealed, as well as radio transmissions from other aircrafts.
High Energy Objects – and other hazy formulations
Aha! says the astonished reader. We knew that already. We must take a closer look at this conclusion. In fact, it is not a conclusion. The report speaks of possibilities and probabilities: “appears to indicate”, “it is likely”. But this is the less enigmatic part.
The wordings “penetrated” and especially “high-energy objects” are interesting. It remains unclear how far these “objects” entered, or even if they went through the entire cockpit and came out on the other side of it, thus completely “penetrating” the cockpit. The background picture of the cockpit section shown in this report is of lower quality and in smaller scale than the one I provided myself and published in my analysis.
License to interpretations – The explanation appears different
That is not exactly what the report states, but it allows this interpretation – and that’s probably the point of this very flexible choice of words. Everybody can interpret what they want to believe according to their own taste. Especially if they are not native English speakers who spontaneously think of bullets. This “report” is not worth the paper it is written on. This is not surprising, because the Kiev Maidan government had to give their OK to what could be published. The report leaves open everything which could actually contribute to an explanation. The MH 017 could have been hit by a missile, whether surface-to-air or air-to-air. It could have been shot down by a fighter jet or, sarcastically, according to the astrophysics or quantum physics terms, by a large number of “high-energy objects” that rained down on the cockpit from the far reaches of the universe.
You can download the report in the original PDF here to make up your own mind.
More articles on MH 017:
Read Peter Haisenko’s earlier article:
Shocking analysis for launching the Malaysian MH 017 - Here you will find the high resolution image of the cockpit section, of which only a portion is shown in the report.
Resurrection, reinvention and linguistics
Barack Obama did the lot. And now he’s taking America to war in Syria as well as Iraq. Oh yes, and he’s going to defeat Isis, its “barbarism”, “genocide”, its “warped ideology” – until the bad guys are “vanquished from the earth”. What happened to George W Bush? But let’s go through this with a linguistic comb.
First, Obama is going to resurrect the Sunni “Awakening Council” militias – a creature invented by a certain General David Petraeus – who were paid to fight al-Qaeda by the Americans during the US occupation of Iraq, but who then got blasted by al-Qaeda and betrayed by the Shia-dominated Iraqi government. Obama has even invented a new name for these militias: he called them “National Guard Units” who will “help Sunni communities secure their own freedom from Isil”. National Guard indeed!
Then there’s the reinvention of the “moderate” Syrian opposition which was once called the Free Syrian Army – a force of deserters corrupted and betrayed by both the West and its Islamic allies – and which no longer exists. This ghost army is now going to be called the “Syrian National Coalition” and be trained – of all places – in Saudi Arabia, whose citizens have given zillions of dollars to al-Qaeda in Iraq, Isis, Isil, IS (you decide on the acronym), Jabhat al-Nusra and sundry other bad guys whom Obama now wants to “vanquish from the earth”.
And then the linguistics. Obama “will not hesitate to take action against Isil in Syria”. But that means that he is going to “vanquish” the enemies of the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, whom Obama was also going to “vanquish” last year – until he got cold feet and decided to leave him alone. So if the enemy of my enemy is my friend – as the Arabs supposedly tell each other – Assad can regard Washington as his new ally. But no. For then came the dodgy little explanations: America “cannot rely on an Assad regime that terrorises its people”, a regime that “will never regain the legitimacy it has lost”. But the US has never been asked to “rely” on Assad – it’s Assad who relies for support on Russia. And Assad’s legitimacy is accepted by China, Iran – with whom the Americans are having cosy nuclear talks – and Russia, whose armies clearly do not “hesitate to take action” in Ukraine.
All in all, then, a pretty state of affairs. And part of the problem is America’s non-existent institutional – or national – semantic memory. Obama tells us that America “will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country”. But I recall Vice- President George Bush telling his people after the US Marine bombing in Beirut in 1983 that “we are not going to let a bunch of insidious terrorist cowards shake the foreign policy of the United States”. Then the American military fled Beirut. Three years later, President Ronald Reagan said of Muammar Gaddafi of Libya (“the mad dog of the Middle East”) that “he can run – but he can’t hide”. But Gaddafi did hide – and was then kissed by Tony Blair after being forgiven for all his “terrorism” – only to be murdered by his enemies when he became a “terrorist” all over again.
One can see, of course, how difficult these lessons in Middle East history must be for the average American. All these forces of evil being vanquished over and over again, and then – bingo – there’s another force of evil to vanquish. So Obama produces words that are easy to swallow. “genocide”, “barbarism”, “cancer”.
Only occasionally is there a non-sequitur which Americans must ignore. There was, for example, Obama’s rather odd reference to “radical groups” which “exploit grievances for their own gain”. And what would these “grievances” be, I wonder? The illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq and its concomitant bloodbath? Our continued occupation of Afghanistan? The pulverisation of Gaza by America’s greatest ally?
Obama mercifully left that ally’s name unspoken, although it has a very big stake in America’s newly expanded war in the Middle East – after all, it shares a common border with Syria. But Saudi Arabia, Qatar and all the other Croesus leaders of the Arab Sunni Gulf might not like their people to be reminded that their latest alliance with Washington – training all those non-existent “moderate” chaps, for instance – is going to help Israel.
The clunking irony is that the “Islamic State’s” men do butcher, throat-slit and ethnically cleanse their enemies. Their claptrap “state” and their sadism have turned them into a weird combination of Mickey Mouse and Genghis Khan. Nor, weirdly, has the IS really tried to exploit the anonymous “grievances” to which Obama referred. So totally introverted is their “ideology” (the quotation marks are obligatory) that they uttered not a word of sympathy for the Palestinians of Gaza during their latest bloodletting. But grievances there are. They do exist. Will there be a Kurdistan? Will there ever be a Palestine?
Not a word did Obama utter on these infinitely graver matters. I’m afraid it’s the same old US policy: confronting the greatest crisis in the Middle East since the last greatest crisis in the Middle East. And we can depend on the Americans for that.
Obama says US will bomb ISIL in Syria
September 11, 2014 by legitgov
New on Imperialism, corpora-terrorism, and the New World Order https://www.legitgov.org/#breaking_news
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|