Jump to content


Spartacus

Russia's "Pussy Riot" Stunt Supported by US State Department


45 replies to this topic

#1 Steven Gaal

Steven Gaal

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,845 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 August 2012 - 10:36 PM

Russia's "Pussy Riot" Stunt Supported by US State Department

by Tony Cartalucci
http://www.globalres...xt=va&aid=32395

America's troupe of "activists" continue attempts to divide and undermine Russian society.
When the US is overtly backing the terrorist invasion of Syria, seeing to the death, displacement, and disruption of millions of lives abroad, while hosting a mass murdering fugitive dictator at home, what then is it to back an act of hooliganism in a Russian church targeting a geopolitical rival?
The US State Department-backed so-called "punk band" going by the name of "Pussy Riot," stormed into a Moscow church, defaming the Russian government while mocking the beliefs of churchgoers with vulgarity and disruptive behavior. Marketed as an act of "freedom of expression" by the Western media and the West's collection of foreign ministries, it was in reality what would be called both a hate-crime and disorderly conduct in the West. Furthermore, in the West, such an act would come with it steep fines and lengthy jail sentences.
In fact, similar cases have played out in the West - minus the feigned indignation over the perceived violation of free speech of alleged bigots, racists, and hooligans that have preceded "Pussy Riot." In many cases, the West has actively pursued not only people harassing others and creating public disturbances, but also those distributing material to like minded people who's beliefs are simply perceived as "socially harmful."

The West Has Jailed Many For Similar or Lesser Offenses

3 Years in Jail for Revising History: In 2006, the BBC reported, "British historian David Irving has been found guilty in Vienna of denying the Holocaust of European Jewry and sentenced to three years in prison." The BBC also reported, "the judge in his 2000 libel trial declared him "an active Holocaust denier... anti-Semitic and racist."" Irving's beliefs, as unpopular as they may be, were expressed in his writings and speeches, not in the middle of a synagogue he had burst into.
4 Years and 2 Years in Jail for Operating "Racist" Website: For the crime of operating a US-based "racist" website and possessing with intent to distribute "racist material," two British men, Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle were sentenced to 4 years and 2 years respectively in the UK in 2009. The presiding judge, according to the BBC, "told the men their material was "abusive and insulting" and had the potential to cause "grave social harm."" Unlike Pussy Riot, however, these 2 men only crammed their leaflets into the door of a synagogue - instead of bursting in. Still they received 3-4 years in prison.
5 Years in Jail for Disagreeing With Mainstream History: Also in 2009, a man was jailed for 5 years for "propagating Nazi ideas and Holocaust denial" in Austria, Reuters reported. Gerd Honsik apparently wrote books and magazines which he attempted to distribute in schools, though it was the content of the material, not the manner in which he tried to distribute it that earned him his lengthy jail sentence. Unpopular though his ideas may be, according to the latest tirade by the West, he not only should've been allowed to proclaim them publicly, but do so in a place of worship amongst those he despised.
3 Years in Jail for Harassing a Jewish Man and Public Hate Speech: In 2011, an Australian man posted an "anti-Semitic" video on YouTube earning him a 3 year jail sentence. The video apparently showed the convicted man insulting a Jewish man before going on a tirade "in front of the Perth Bell Tower," reported ABC of Australia. Clearly insulting someone in Australia and creating a public disturbance is a punishable crime, yet somehow the Australian government sees insulting churchgoers in Russia as "freedom of expression." Equally as clear, is that hypocrisy and selective principles are being liberally exercised.
Detainment for "Hateful" Public Disturbance: This year, the British Daily Mail reported in their article, "Elmo in cuffs: Man dressed as Sesame Street character is carried away in Central Park after anti-Semitic rant in front of kids," that "the appearance of a hate-spewing man dressed up as Elmo was a jarring one for many New Yorkers who visited Central Park on Sunday afternoon." The article elaborated by saying that though the man was put in handcuffs and taken away, he was not arrested. While no arrest or sentence was handed down, the story clearly indicates that there is a line drawn as to what is "freedom of speech" and what is "disturbing the peace" in the United States.
Arrested for Aggravating "religious and racial" Facebook Comments: For the crime of posting "anti-Semitic" remarks on Facebook, the BBC reported that "five men and a 15-year-old youth" were arrested in May, 2012. The BBC would elaborate by reporting, "the six people arrested were charged with a breach of the peace with religious and racial aggravations."


Politically-Motivated Hypocrisy and Proxy Poseurs
Regardless of what one's beliefs may be on "freedom of expression" and what lines if any exist between responsible and irresponsible use of this freedom, one cannot ignore the astounding hypocrisy exhibited by the West - now wringing their hands in feigned disapproval over the jailing of "Pussy Riot" while their jails are full of "hate speech" perpetrators - many of whom did not even specifically target or disturb the subjects of their perceived scorn.

++++++++++++++ see site for images +++++++++++++++++
Images: "Pussy Riot's" support campaign is spearheaded by Oksana Chelysheva of the US State Department-funded "Russian-Chechen Friendship Society," a clearing house for Chechen terrorist propaganda. Along with US State Department-subsidized Alexey Navalny and the West's media outlets on their side, the hooligan anti-establishment "punk rockers" now on trial in Moscow have a decidedly "establishment" backing. Read more here. (click images to enlarge)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


The real reason why the Western media outlets have been so keen on covering the "Pussy Riot" trial has nothing to do with "free speech."
The West, and more specifically, the corporate-financier interests of Wall Street and London, see Russia's current government as a barrier to not only the return to the unmitigated plundering of the Russian people they had enjoyed in the 1990's, but a check and balance inhibiting their hegemonic ambitions globally. The West has propped up with money and political support the opposition movement from which "Pussy Riot" has emanated.
This latest stunt was designed specifically to breath new life into the crumbling, overtly foreign-backed "opposition" that has been attempting to divide and undermine both Russia and the government of President Vladamir Putin, before, during, and after his return to the presidency. Instead, this latest stunt does little more than further expose the increasingly visible hypocrisy and injustice pervading all parts of Western society.
Finally, "Pussy Riot" are not punk rockers. They are US State Department-backed instruments of corporate-financier hegemony, used as leverage against a Russian government standing in the way of Wall Street and London's order of international corporatocracy. The punk culture, ironically represents the antithesis of such an international order - ironic indeed that so many have superficially defended "Pussy Riot" as targeted "punkers" when substantively they are "poseurs."
===========================
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
===========================
Pussy Riot - The Secret History
By Israel Shamir
8-22-12



Universally admired, Pussy Riot (or PR for short) have been promoted as superstars. But what are they? A rock or punk group they are not. A British journalist marvelled: they produce no music, no song, no painting, nada, rien, nothing. How can they be described as “artists”? This was a severe test for their supporters, but they passed it with flying honours: that famous lover-of-art, the US State Department, paid for their first ever single being produced by The Guardian out of some images and sounds.
We are able to stomach obscenity and blasphemy; I am great admirer of Notre Dame de Fleurs by Jean Genet, who combined both. However the PR never wrote, composed or painted anything of value at all. Chris Randolph defended them in Counterpunch by comparing them with “the controversial Yegor Letov”. What a misleading comparison! Letov wrote poetry, full of obscenity but it still was poetry, while the PR have nothing but Public Relations.
Hell-bent on publicity, but artistically challenged, three young women from Russia decided ­ well, it sounds like a limerick. They stole a frozen chicken from a supermarket and used it as dildo; filmed the act, called it “art” and placed it on the web. (It is still there) Their other artistic achievements were an orgy in a museum and a crude presentation of an erect prick.
Even in these dubious pieces of art their role was that of technical staff: the glory went to a Russian-Israeli artist Plucer-Sarno of Mevasseret Zion, who claimed the idea, design and copyright for himself and collected a major Russian prize. The future PR members got nothing and were described by Plucer as “ambitious provincials on the make”, or worse.
Lately they have tried to ride a bandwagon of political struggle. That was another flop. They poured a flood of obscene words on Putin - in Red Square, in subway (underground) stations - with zero effect. They weren’t arrested, they weren’t fined, just chased away as a nuisance. And they did not attract attention of people. It is important to remember that Putin is an avowed enemy of Russian oligarchs, owners of the major bulk of Russian media and providers of the Moscow literati, so they print on daily basis so much of anti-Putin invectives, that it’s lost its shock value. You can’t invent a new diatribe against Putin ­ it has been already said and published. And Putin practically never interfered with the freedom of the press.
My foreign journalist friends are usually amazed by unanimity and ferocity of anti-Putin campaign in Russian media. It can be compared with the attacks on G W Bush in the liberal papers in the US, but in the US, there are many conservative papers that supported Bush. Putin has practically no support in the mainstream media, all of it owned by media barons. A valuable exception is TV, but it is expressly apolitical and provides mainly low-brow entertainment, also presented by anti-Putin activists like Mlle Xenia Sobtchak. So PR failed profoundly to wake up the beast.
Eventually the young viragos were mobilised for an attack on the Church. By that time they were willing to do anything for their bit of publicity. And the anti-Church campaign started a few months ago, quite suddenly as if by command. The Russian Church had 20 years of peace, recovering after the Communist period, and it was surprised by ferocity of the attack.
Though this subject calls for longer exposition, let us be brief. After collapse of the USSR, the Church remained the only important spiritual pro-solidarity force in Russian life. The Yeltsin and Putin administrations were as materialist as the communists; they preached and practiced social Darwinism of neo-Liberal kind. The Church offered something beside the elusive riches on earth. Russians who lost the glue of solidarity previously provided by Communists eagerly flocked to the alternative provided by the Church.
The government and the oligarchs treated the Church well, as the Church had a strong anti-Communist tendency, and the haves were still afraid of the Reds leading the have-nots. The Church flourished, many beautiful cathedrals were rebuilt, many monasteries came back after decades of decay. The newly empowered church became a cohesive force in Russia.
As it became strong, the Church began to speak for the poor and dispossessed; the reformed Communists led by the Church-going Gennadi Zuganov, discovered a way to speak to the believers. A known economist and thinker, Michael Khazin, predicted that the future belongs to a new paradigm of Red Christianity, something along the lines of Roger Garaudy’s early thought. The Red Christian project is a threat to the elites and a hope for the world, he wrote. Besides, the Russian church took a very Russian and anti-globalist position.
This probably hastened the attack, but it was just a question of time, when the global anti-Christian forces would step forward and attack the Russian Church like they attacked the Western Church. As Russia entered the WTO and adopted Western mores, it had to adopt secularization. And indeed the Russian Church was attacked by forces that do not want Russia to be cohesive: the oligarchs, big business, the media lords, the pro-Western intelligentsia of Moscow, and Western interests which naturally prefer Russia divided against itself.
This offensive against the Church began with some minor issues: media was all agog about Patriarch’s expensive watch, a present from the then President Medvedev. Anti-religious fervour went high among liberal opposition that demonstrated against Putin before the elections and needed a new horse to flog. A leading anti-Putin activist Viktor Shenderovich said he would understand if the Russian Orthodox priests were slain like they were in 1920s. Yet another visible figure among the liberal protesters, Igor Eidman, called to “exterminate the vermin”- the Russian Church ­ in rudest biological terms.
The alleged organiser of the PR, Marat Gelman, a Russian Jewish art collector, has been connected with previous anti-Christian art actions which involved icon-smashing, imitation churches of enemas. His ­ and PR problem was that it was difficult to provoke reaction of the Church. The PR made two attempts to provoke public indignation in the second cathedral of Moscow, the older Elochovsky Cathedral; both times they were expelled but not arrested. The third time, they tried harder; they went to St Savior Cathedral that was demolished by Lazar Kaganovich in 1930s and rebuilt in 1990s; they added more blasphemy of the most obscene kind, and still they were allowed to leave in peace. Police tried their best to avoid arresting the viragos, but they had no choice after the PR uploaded a video of their appearance in the cathedrals with an obscene soundtrack.
During the trial, the defence and the accused did their worst to antagonize the judge by threatening her with the wrath of the United States (sic!) and by defiantly voicing anti-Christian hate speeches. The judge had no choice but to find the accused guilty of hate crime (hooliganism with religious hate as the motive). The prosecution did not charge the accused with a more serious hate crime “with intent to cause religious strife”, though it could probably made stick. (It would call for a stiffer sentence; swastika-drawers charged with intent to cause strife receive five years of jail).
Two years’ sentence is quite in line with prevailing European practice. For much milder anti-Jewish hate talk, European countries customarily sentence offenders to two-to-five years of prison for the first offence. The Russians applied hate crime laws to offenders against Christian faith, and this is probably a Russian novelty. The Russians proved that they care for Christ as much as the French care for Auschwitz, and this shocked the Europeans who apparently thought ‘hate laws’ may be applied only to protect Jews and gays. The Western governments call for more freedom for the anti-Christian Russians, while denying it for holocaust revisionists in their midst.
The anti-Putin opposition flocked to support the PR. A radical charismatic opposition leader, the poet Eduard Limonov wrote that the opposition made a mistake supporting the PR, as they antagonise the masses; the chasm between the masses and the opposition grows. But his voice was crying in the wilderness, and the rest of the opposition happily embraced the PR cause, trying to turn it into a weapon against Putin. The Western media and governments also used it to attack Putin. The Guardian editorial called on Putin to resign. Putin called for clemency to the PR, and the government was embarrassed by the affair. But they were left with no choice: the invisible organisers behind PR wanted to have the viragos in jail, and so they did.
Commercially, they hit jackpot. With support of Madonna and the State Department, they are likely to leave the jail ready for the world tour and photo ops at the White House. They registered their name as a trade mark and began to issue franchises. And their competitors, the Femen group (whose art is showing off their boobs in unusual places) tried to beat the PR by chopping down a large wooden cross installed in memory of Stalin’s victims. Now sky is the limit.
In August, vacation season, when there is not much hard news and the newspaper readers are at the seashore or countryside, the PR trial provided much needed entertainment for man and beast. Hopefully it will drop from the agenda with the end of the silly season, but do not bet on it.
Israel Shamir reports from Moscow, his email is adam@israelshamir.net
==========================
RELATED
NGOs a Cover for Spying in Russia
http://www.globalres...text=va&aid=139

#2 Steven Gaal

Steven Gaal

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,845 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 August 2012 - 09:36 PM

PUSSY RIOT STORY IN PICTURES

http://www.tomatobub.../pussyriot.html

#3 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,146 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 September 2012 - 02:44 AM

Gee, What's next, we're going to find out the CIA backed the Beatles.

#4 Steven Gaal

Steven Gaal

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,845 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 September 2012 - 06:08 AM

Gee, What's next, we're going to find out the CIA backed the Beatles.

+++++++++++++++++
ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE,LOVE IS ALL YOU NEED
######################
USA RUSSIA IMPERIAL POLICY

War On All Fronts

Washington's three-front war: Syria, Lebanon, Iran in the Middle East, China in the Far East, Russia in Europe...


- by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts - 2012-07-18


An over-confident US government is determined to have a three-front war: Syria, Lebanon, and Iran in the Middle East, China in the Far East, and Russia in Europe.
The Russian government has finally caught on that its political opposition is being financed by the US taxpayer-funded National Endowment for Democracy and other CIA/State Department fronts in an attempt to subvert the Russian government and install an American puppet state in the geographically largest country on earth, the one country with a nuclear arsenal sufficient to deter Washington’s aggression.
Just as earlier this year Egypt expelled hundreds of people associated with foreign-funded “non-governmental organizations” (NGOs) for “instilling dissent and meddling in domestic policies,” the Russian Duma (parliament) has just passed a law that Putin is expected to sign that requires political organizations that receive foreign funding to register as foreign agents. The law is based on the US law requiring the registration of foreign agents.
Much of the Russian political opposition consists of foreign-paid agents, and once the law passes leading elements of the Russian political opposition will have to sign in with the Russian Ministry of Justice as foreign agents of Washington. The Itar-Tass News Agency reported on July 3 that there are about 1,000 organizations in Russia that are funded from abroad and engaged in political activity. Try to imagine the outcry if the Russians were funding 1,000 organizations in the US engaged in an effort to turn America into a Russian puppet state. (In the US the Russians would find a lot of competition from Israel.)
The Washington-funded Russian political opposition masquerades behind “human rights” and says it works to “open Russia.” What the disloyal and treasonous Washington-funded Russian “political opposition” means by “open Russia” is to open Russia for brainwashing by Western propaganda, to open Russia to economic plunder by the West, and to open Russia to having its domestic and foreign policies determined by Washington.
“Non-governmental organizations” are very governmental. They have played pivotal roles in both financing and running the various “color revolutions” that have established American puppet states in former constituent parts of the Soviet Empire. NGOs have been called “coup d’etat machines,” and they have served Washington well in this role. They are currently working in Venezuela against Chavez.
Of course, Washington is infuriated that its plans for achieving hegemony over a country too dangerous to attack militarily have been derailed by Russia’s awakening, after two decades, to the threat of being politically subverted by Washington-financed NGOs. Washington requires foreign-funded organizations to register as foreign agents (unless they are Israeli funded). However, this fact doesn’t stop Washington from denouncing the new Russian law as “anti-democratic,” “police state,” blah-blah. Caught with its hand in subversion, Washington calls Putin names. The pity is that most of the brainwashed West will fall for Washington’s lies, and we will hear more about “gangster state Russia.”
China is also in Washington’s crosshairs. China’s rapid rise as an economic power is perceived in Washington as a dire threat. China must be contained. Obama’s US Trade Representative has been secretly negotiating for the last 2 or 3 years a Trans Pacific Partnership, whose purpose is to derail China’s natural economic leadership in its own sphere of influence and replace it with Washington’s leadership.
Washington is also pushing to form new military alliances in Asia and to establish new military bases in the Philippines, S. Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, Australia, New Zealand, and elsewhere.
Washington quickly inserted itself into disputes between China and Vietnam and China and the Philippines. Washington aligned with its former Vietnamese enemy in Vietnam’s dispute with China over the resource rich Paracel and Spratly islands and with the Philippines in its dispute with China over the resource rich Scarborough Shoal.
Thus, like England’s interference in the dispute between Poland and National Socialist Germany over the return to Germany of German territories that were given to Poland as World War I booty, Washington sets the stage for war.
China has been cooperative with Washington, because the offshoring of the US economy to China was an important component in China’s unprecedented high rate of economic development. American capitalists got their short-run profits, and China got the capital and technology to build an economy that in another 2 or 3 years will have surpassed the sinking US economy. Jobs offshoring, mistaken for free trade by free market economists, has built China and destroyed America.
Washington’s growing interference in Chinese affairs has convinced China’s government that military countermeasures are required to neutralize Washington’s announced intentions to build its military presence in China’s sphere of influence. Washington’s view is that only Washington, no one else, has a sphere of influence, and
Washington’s sphere of influence is the entire world.

On July 14 China’s official news agency, Xinhua, said that Washington was interfering in Chinese affairs and making China’s disputes with Vietnam and the Philippines impossible to resolve.
It looks as if an over-confident US government is determined to have a three-front war: Syria, Lebanon, and Iran in the Middle East, China in the Far East, and Russia in Europe. This would appear to be an ambitious agenda for a government whose military was unable to occupy Iraq after nine years or to defeat the lightly-armed Taliban after eleven years, and whose economy and those of its NATO puppets are in trouble and decline with corresponding rising internal unrest and loss of confidence in political leadership.


http://www.spiegel.d...m-a-844127.html
++++++++++++++++++
US-NATO Sea-based Missile System Threatens Russia

A sophisticated multilayered missile defense architecture is being created in the immediate vicinity of Russia...
- by Vladimir Kozin - 2012-03-31
A sophisticated multilayered and multi-echelon missile defense architecture is being created in the immediate vicinity of Russia, encompassing Europe and Asia. It’s major specific feature is that in any emergency on the international scene, the architecture is going to interact most closely with US and NATO tactical and strategic nuclear potentials.


NEW COLD WAR? Russia "Concerned" Over Washington's Plans To Ship Arms To Georgia
- 2012-03-28


"Trusted Messengers" and "Humanitarian Groups" Target Russia and China, Endorse the US-NATO Mandate

- by Richard Nogueira - 2012-03-15



The Anglo-US Drive into Eurasia and the Demonization of Russia


Reframing the History of World War II
- by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya - 2009-10-02


U.S. Redeploys Missile Shield: The Geopolitical Encirclment of Russia
- by Rick Rozoff - 2009-09

#############################
YUP CIA HAD AN INFLUNCE IN MUSIC INDUSTRY ???? ...YUP.
http://educationforu...showtopic=19119
and
http://en.wikipedia....sychedelic_rock

Edited by Steven Gaal, 01 September 2012 - 06:27 AM.


#5 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 03 September 2012 - 01:22 AM

Unlike Mr. Gaal I don't have unlimited time. I have not been able to post for about two weeks because I was traveling. This is typical of the crap he posts here, citations are scarce and whentraced back to the original sources don't really support the claims made. Is Cartalucci upset that the cited neo-Nazis were punished in the various countries cited? If so he should object to Pussy Riot getting jail time as well. Or does he think that punishment for all of the above justified?

Rightly or wrongly some countries have democratically enacted laws criminalizing promoting racism. The Russian case is different, PussyRiot mocked the Orthodox Church not Orthodox Christians. The Church, the supposed victim, asked for leniency so we must presume their stiff sentence was due to their criticism of Putin.

So this was not really analogous the cases involving the antisemitism. As for Antisemitic Elmo, he was not arrested, he was taken to Bellevue for 'observation'. and released. He'd been harassing/startling toddlers on their way to the zoo. He does or did his shtick many times and seeming was only taken into custody once.






As for his latest post funny that he thinks backing of research involving psychedelics in the 1950s - 70s = control of the music industry in the 2010s. Also AFAIK the missile shield is better positioned to stop missiles from Iran than Russia

#6 Steven Gaal

Steven Gaal

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,845 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 September 2012 - 03:30 AM

Also AFAIK the missile shield is better positioned to stop missiles from Iran than Russia // end Colby
==============

ITS A AFAIK THAT THEY CAN BE USED FOR BOTH

The reference to crack troops relates to U.S. Marines recently dispatched to the nation, combat veterans of the Afghan and Iraqi wars, to train Georgian soldiers.
The EurasiaNet report also quoted Georgian member of parliament Davit Darchiashvili: “The US decision dovetails with our [security] needs. So long as the radar is stationed in the Caucasus, Georgian security needs would likely be met.
“This is the most important thing….[I]t is not of crucial significance as to where and how these defense systems will be deployed.” [9]
It also cites Russian military analyst Vladislav Shurygin remarking the self-evident fact that such radar in Georgia would be used against Russia, with him stating “We should not have any illusions about the US plans.”
++++++++++++++++++++
psychedelics in the 1950s - 70s to
depoliticize the left political movements and as tests for a spy agents ability

under stress are hypercreative,oddball solutions to perceived probllems IS analogous to using an absurd avant-garde PUNK ROCK group
to discredit PUTIN regime. A META ARGUMENT TO COMPLEX FOR ESTABLISHMENT CRETINS ,ITS SAD THAT SOME PEOPLE LACK DEPTH.
==

Edited by Steven Gaal, 03 September 2012 - 03:33 AM.


#7 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 03 September 2012 - 07:21 PM

Also AFAIK the missile shield is better positioned to stop missiles from Iran than Russia // end Colby
==============

ITS A AFAIK THAT THEY CAN BE USED FOR BOTH

The reference to crack troops relates to U.S. Marines recently dispatched to the nation, combat veterans of the Afghan and Iraqi wars, to train Georgian soldiers.
The EurasiaNet report also quoted Georgian member of parliament Davit Darchiashvili: “The US decision dovetails with our [security] needs. So long as the radar is stationed in the Caucasus, Georgian security needs would likely be met.
“This is the most important thing….[I]t is not of crucial significance as to where and how these defense systems will be deployed.” [9]
It also cites Russian military analyst Vladislav Shurygin remarking the self-evident fact that such radar in Georgia would be used against Russia, with him stating “We should not have any illusions about the US plans.”


The Russian complaint about the missile shield was that it could stop their missiles from hitting US and other NATO country targets including missile sites in Europe, thus short-circuiting Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) i.e. the US could attack Russia without fear of being wiped out. If you think such defences based in Georgia fit into this you really need to look at a map. Here's the article your author cherry picked quotes from.

http://www.eurasiane...av091809a.shtml

++++++++++++++++++++
psychedelics in the 1950s - 70s to
depoliticize the left political movements and as tests for a spy agents ability

under stress are hypercreative,oddball solutions to perceived probllems IS analogous to using an absurd avant-garde PUNK ROCK group
to discredit PUTIN regime. A META ARGUMENT TO COMPLEX FOR ESTABLISHMENT CRETINS ,ITS SAD THAT SOME PEOPLE LACK DEPTH.
==


LOL this from the guy who whines about personal attacks.

"Meta argument" means an argument about an argument or arguments, you obviously meant "meta analysis" which is combining the results of various studies but even this does NOT mean what many crackpots think it does, it does not mean that combining various weak fallacy based arguments adds up to evidence. Get back to us with actual evidence the CIA or some other intel agency controls the music industry and/or put Pussy Riot up to their 'stunt'.

#8 Steven Gaal

Steven Gaal

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,845 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 September 2012 - 09:34 PM

Get back to us with actual evidence the CIA or some other intel agency controls the music industry and/or put Pussy Riot up to their 'stunt'. // END COLBY
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Never said CIA controls the music industry. Bill Kelly brought up the Beatles. Said STATE DEPARTMENT gave aide to Pussy Riot. NGOs are working to take over Russia. Have posted about this before on this site. Just like NGOs are working in
Venezuela . Chavez increased his country's take of the oil money from below world average (with foreign producers) 10-15 %
to 20-25 % (average) ,thus he became EVIL and our NGOs moved on him. WHY DONT YOU READ THE FIRST POST ?? "GET BACK TO US WHEN YOU DO."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++
Russia exasperated with US over missile defense

A top Russian defense official today signaled growing frustration with the US, which has refused to provide legal guarantees that a planned missile-defense shield is not directed at Moscow.
By Fred Weir, Correspondent / March 22, 2012

Flurry of excitement ends in disappointment
Russian experts say the Kremlin has been extremely disappointed by the lack of response to its concerns by the Obama administration.

http://www.csmonitor...missile-defense

Edited by Steven Gaal, 03 September 2012 - 10:15 PM.


#9 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 04 September 2012 - 01:22 PM

Said STATE DEPARTMENT . NGOs are working to take over Russia. Have posted about this before on this site. Just like NGOs are working in
Venezuela . Chavez increased his country's take of the oil money from below world average (with foreign producers) 10-15 %
to 20-25 % (average) ,thus he became EVIL and our NGOs moved on him. WHY DONT YOU READ THE FIRST POST ?? "GET BACK TO US WHEN YOU DO."


There was little evidence that the US "gave aide to Pussy Riot" in the OP, or elsewhere in this thread. Such claims were made either with out citations or with links to other articles from Cartaluchi/Global Research or to primary sources that didn't really support such claims. Get back to us with links to independent confrimation of such claims.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++
Russia exasperated with US over missile defense

A top Russian defense official today signaled growing frustration with the US, which has refused to provide legal guarantees that a planned missile-defense shield is not directed at Moscow.
By Fred Weir, Correspondent / March 22, 2012



It's no secret that the Russians aren't happy about the shield. The CSM article seems to have been filed before it was announced much of it was being moved to Georgia which would make it of little use in "undermin[ing Russia's] nuclear deterrent". What the phuk does this have to do with Pussy Riot?

#10 Steven Gaal

Steven Gaal

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,845 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 September 2012 - 04:18 PM

War On All Fronts

36 FONT for emphasis......You missed it ??
######################################
The fact is that Washington hides behind a NATO facade with its deployment of the European BMD, while keeping absolute US control over it. Russia’s NATO envoy Dmitry Rogozin recently called the European portion of the US BMD a fig leaf for “a missile defense umbrella that says ‘Made in USA. European NATO members will have neither a button to push nor a finger to push it with.” 16
That’s clearly why Russia continues to insist on guarantees – from the United States – that the shield is not directed against Russia. Worryingly enough, to date Washington has categorically refused that. Could it be that the dear souls in Washington entrusted with maintaining world peace have gone bonkers? In any case the fact that Washington continues to tear up solemn international arms treaties and illegally proceed to install its global missile shield is basis enough for those in Moscow, Beijing or elsewhere to regard US promises, even treaties as not worth the paper they were written on.
http://www.globalres...ve-nuclear-war/

+++++++++++++++
PUSSY RIOT JUST PART OF THIS.

http://www.globalres...ssian-ngo-bill/
================================================================

see
http://www.informati...rticle32257.htm

A glance at AmnestyUSA.org reveals that each and every front the US State Department is currently working on and has prioritized is also coincidentally prioritized by Amnesty International. This includes rallies and campaigns to support US State Department-funded Russian opposition groups (currently fixated on "Pussy Riot"), undermining the Syrian government, toppling the government of Belarus, and supporting the Wall Street-London created Aung San Suu Kyi of Myanmar (still called by its British Imperial nomenclature of "Burma" by Suu Kyi herself).


+++++++++++


see http://www.exporter....and-liberation/
+++++++++++++++
ALSO VOICE OF RUSSIA


Paul Craig Roberts, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy and former assistant secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Ronald Reagan administration, said in a post on his website that Pussy Riot was “brutally deceived and used by the Washington-financed NGOs that have infiltrated Russia.”
Pussy Riot was recently sentenced to two years in prison for charges of hooliganism after the band entered Moscow's Christ the Savior Cathedral and played a “punk prayer” as a form of protest against current President Vladimir Putin. Three of the members were arrested in March while the two other members who participated fled the country.
Roberts writes that Washington needed a reason to demonize the Russian government “for standing up to Washington’s intention to destroy Syria, just as Washington destroyed Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, and as Washington intends to destroy Lebanon and Iran.”
The Russian government has maintained that dialogue is the best route for resolving the conflict in Syria, where more than 20,000 people have been killed, according to various estimates by international groups. The U.S., Great Britain and France have suggested military intervention, if necessary.
Pussy Riot, who Roberts calls gullible for being the “dupes of the Amerikan (sic) hegemony,” will now pay the price.
Before the trial, Putin said that the women shouldn’t be punished harshly and now that the women have been sentenced, Roberts said that Putin will not commute the sentences due to the nationalist opinion surrounding the case. Roberts blames the “Washington-organized protests, riots, property damage, assaults on state and religious images by Washington’s Russian dupes” for any possible government leniency but fails to specify the groups and dupes by name.
Roberts turns the table on the U.S., pointing out various hypocrisies in foreign policy, human rights and media coverage. He criticizes the U.S. for its manhunt of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and for Pfc. “Bradley Manning’s illegal detention and torture.”
Manning has been accusing of leaking diplomatic cables and other documents to WikiLeaks. He was arrested in May 2010 and he finally will go to trial in September.
Roberts also calls out the British government for failing to allow Assange to take a safe passage to Ecuador, where he has been granted political asylum, an entitlement recognized by international law.
He wraps up his argument by asking why people have not held Washington accountable for its actions and protested against “the example of democracy to the world.”

Edited by Steven Gaal, 04 September 2012 - 04:52 PM.


#11 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 05 September 2012 - 01:45 PM

War On All Fronts

36 FONT for emphasis......You missed it ??


Missed any mention of Pussy Riot or missile defence if that.


######################################
The fact is that Washington hides behind a NATO facade with its deployment of the European BMD, while keeping absolute US control over it. Russia’s NATO envoy Dmitry Rogozin recently called the European portion of the US BMD a fig leaf for “a missile defense umbrella that says ‘Made in USA. European NATO members will have neither a button to push nor a finger to push it with.” 16
That’s clearly why Russia continues to insist on guarantees – from the United States – that the shield is not directed against Russia. Worryingly enough, to date Washington has categorically refused that. Could it be that the dear souls in Washington entrusted with maintaining world peace have gone bonkers? In any case the fact that Washington continues to tear up solemn international arms treaties and illegally proceed to install its global missile shield is basis enough for those in Moscow, Beijing or elsewhere to regard US promises, even treaties as not worth the paper they were written on.
http://www.globalres...ve-nuclear-war/


Since they now seem to be planning on basing it in Georgia the above is moot.

+++++++++++++++
PUSSY RIOT JUST PART OF THIS.

http://www.globalres...ssian-ngo-bill/
================================================================


Missed any mention of Pussy Riot or missile defence if that.


see
http://www.informati...rticle32257.htm


A glance at AmnestyUSA.org reveals that each and every front the US State Department is currently working on and has prioritized is also coincidentally prioritized by Amnesty International. This includes rallies and campaigns to support US State Department-funded Russian opposition groups (currently fixated on "Pussy Riot"), undermining the Syrian government, toppling the government of Belarus, and supporting the Wall Street-London created Aung San Suu Kyi of Myanmar (still called by its British Imperial nomenclature of "Burma" by Suu Kyi herself).


Missed any mention of missile defence if that. So I guess Aung San is now on your villains list and the brutal Burmese regime to your list of governments to be kept in power. Here's Carataluchi's cited source, it says nothing of the sort about Aung San. Your favorite source is totally untrustworthy

http://burmacampaign.../DFIDReview.pdf

#12 Steven Gaal

Steven Gaal

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,845 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 September 2012 - 03:55 PM

SUPPORT REAL FREEDOM FROM ANGO-AMERICAN BANKING SYSTEM FOR MYANMAR
#######################
==============
"Trusted Messengers" and "Humanitarian Groups" Target Russia and China, Endorse the US-NATO Mandate
- by Richard Nogueira - 2012-03-15

Recently “humanitarian” groups such as Amnesty International and Avaaz have been targeting Russia (and China to a lesser extent) in relation to the current Syrian conflict.

The stance does not make much sense in relation to the general missions of these “humanitarian” groups.

A.I., a long standing effective and trusted player, is seen worldwide as an agency of impeccable credentials on human rights.

From seemingly nowhere (?) Avaaz has exploded onto the world-political-activist scene with enormous success (including membership enrollments involving millions of weekly outreach communications).

I described this activity as the state of being “infiltrated with the agenda of Empire” in a previous e-mail.

It is an extremely effective form of propaganda – these are deeply trusted messengers.

The entire effect is similar to how “P”BS is being used to prop up “commercial” network personalities (and mainstream/corp. media agendas), especially in affiliate with CBS and NBC/MSNBC).

A.I and Avaaz in particular should be pointed out and questioned in a prominent way in alternative media – it is an important observation to get out into the public domain.

The “structural” problem of their anti-Russia/China agenda, and its nonsensical juxtaposition to the mostly ignored problem of the U.S. Empire’s presence and effect is what sends up the red flags here.

If that isn’t pointed out to their politically earnest supporters, making this point can result in despair and alienation, or more probably in the (emotionally based) rejection of this news.

The grassroots supporters of groups like these need to understand that they must have a clear structural understanding of their own agendas, and divorce themselves as much as possible from the public “personalities” of these agencies in order to interact faithfully on pursuing genuinely and properly-informed political action for good will.

The “shape-shifting” usurpation of legitimate counter-establishment agencies is reaching new heights of efficiency and efficaciousness, and we must keep up pace.

Analogously, if these groups had been effectively interested in addressing the violence and bloodshed that was part of the recent Libyan coup they would have directed attention to the fact that NATO bombing and NATO-allied Libyan “insurrectionists” were the main causes of the death-tolls that spurred so much “humanitarian” interest, and that the U.S. had been deceptively arming factions (and creating even more factionalism than was already present within Libya) since at least two years prior to 2011.
======================================================== ALSO
The Anglo-US Drive into Eurasia and the Demonization of Russia
Reframing the History of World War II
- by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya - 2009-10-02


As tensions mount between the U.S. and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) on one side and Moscow and its allies on another, the history of the Second World War is being re-framed to demonize Russia, the legal successor state and largest former constituent republic (pars pro toto) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.). In 2009, the U.S.S.R. and the Nazi government of Germany started being portrayed as the two forces that ignited the Second World War.
The historicity behind such a narrative is incorrect and nothing can be further from the truth in regards to Moscow. The security of the European core of the Soviet Union was the main objective of the Kremlin as well as the recovery of lost territory. The Soviet government was also aware of war plans against the Soviet Union. Adolph Hitler thought Britain would join Germany in war against the Soviets, even until the latter part of the Second World War.
This discourse in itself is part of a broader roadmap to control Eurasia through the encirclement of any rival powers, such as Russia and China. To understand the geo-politics and strategic nature of the encirclement of Russia and China by the U.S. and NATO, as well as the Eurasian alliance being formed by Moscow and Beijing as a counter-measure, one must look at the historic Anglo-American drive to cripple and contain any power in Eurasia.
Geography is the basis of the social evolution of traditional power, whether in feudal societies or in industrial societies. For example the property ownership of the landed class, which originally was the nobility, gave rise to the factory system. The rise of financial power is somewhat different, but yet it is also tied to geography.
The United States, India and Brazil are all “natural great powers” — a term coined herein. Natural great powers are states that are bound, with time, to develop or evolve into major hubs of human production because of their geographic configuration or nature’s blessings. In the Eurasian landmass, above all others, there are three states that we can call natural great powers; these states are Russia, China, and India. They have large territories and vast resources and, due to the two former factors, possess great human capacity that can lead to major productivity.
Without human capacity, however, geography and resources are meaningless, and therefore any impairment of population growth or social development through war, civil strife, famine, political instability and/or economic instability can obstruct the emergence of a natural great power. This is exactly what has been happening in the Russian Federation and its earlier predecessors, the U.S.S.R. and the Russian Empire, for the last two hundred years - from the numerous episodes of civil war, the First World War, and the Second World War, to the Yeltsin era and the problems in Caucasia. This is also why the declining population of Russia is a major worry for the Kremlin. If left undisturbed, such nation-states like China and Russia, would dominate the global economy and, by extension, international politics.
This is exactly what Anglo-American foreign policy has been trying to prevent for almost three centuries, first strictly under British clout and then later through combined British and American cooperation. In Europe, the containment policy was first applied to France for centuries and later, after German unification under Prince Otto von Bismarck, to Germany. Later the policy was expanded in scope to all Eurasia (the proper geographic extension of Europe or the “Continent”, as the British called it).
Part of this policy included the prevention of Russian access to the shores of the Mediterranean Sea or the Persian Gulf, which would threaten British trade and eventually maritime supremacy. This is one of the main reasons that the British and French played Czarist Russia and Ottoman Turkey against one another and militarily supported the Ottoman Empire in the Crimean War, when the possibility of Russia, under Catherine II, gaining Ottoman territory on the Mediterranean Sea seemed real.
Why did the Soviets and Chinese Bear the Brunt of the Burden in the Second World War?

The U.S.S.R. and China suffered the greatest material, demographic and overall losses in the Second World War. A quantitative comparative overview and cross-examination of the casualty figures of Britain, the United States, the Soviet Union and China will show the staggering differences between the so-called “Western Allies” and the so-called “Eastern Allies.”

Britain suffered 400,000 casualties and the U.S. suffered just over 260,000 casualties. U.S. civilian casualties were virtually non-existent and no U.S. factories were even touched. On the other hand, the U.S.S.R. had about 10 million military casualties and 12 to 14 million civilian casualties, while China had about 4 to 5 million military casualties and civilian casualties that have been estimated in the range of 8 to 20 million deaths.
Suffering can not be qualified or quantified, but much is overlooked in regards to the Soviet Union and China. Without question the Soviet Union and China lost the greatest ratio of their populations amongst the major Allies. In many cases the casualties of the series of civil wars in the Soviet Union (which saw foreign involvement and even intervention) and the casualties of the Japanese invasion of China (30 million people, starting before 1939) are not counted as Second World War casualties by many historians in Western Europe and the Anglosphere.
Most the fighting in the Second World War also took place in the territories of China and Russia. Both Eurasian giants also faced the greatest destruction of infrastructure and material loss, which set their development back by decades. The agricultural and industrial capacity of China alone was cut in half. The Axis, specifically Germany and Japan (two economic rivals of the U.S. and Britain), also were crippled. In contrast, the U.S. was virtually untouched, while Britain as a state was totally depended on U.S. patronage. [1]
U.S. Economic Expansion: Global Wars and the Growth of U.S. Industrial and Economic Might

Both the First World War and the Second World War managed to eliminate any economic rivalry or challenge to U.S. corporations. While Europe and Asia were ravaged by war, the U.S. inversely grew economically. U.S. industrial might grew by leaps and bounds, while the industrial capacities of Europe and Asia were destroyed by both Allied and Axis sides in the Second World War and by the Allies and the Central Powers in the First World War.

By the end of the the Second World War, the U.S. literally owned half the global economy through loans, American foreign investment and war debts. U.S. economic expansion and the American export boom were unprecedented in the scale that took place during the period from 1910-1950, all of which was tied to the Eurasian warscape. Also, it was also only the U.S. that had the economic resources to rebuild the economies and industrial capacities of Europe and Asia, which it did with strings attached. These strings involved favourable treatment of U.S. corporations, preferential trade with the U.S., and the setting up of U.S. branch plants.
1945 was the beginning of Pax Americana. Even much of the foreign aid provided by the U.S. government (with the approval of Congress), to facilitate the reconstruction of European states, flowed back into the private bank accounts of the owners of U.S. corporations, because American firms were awarded many reconstruction-related contracts. War had directly fuelled the industrial might of the United States, while eliminating other rivals such as the Japanese who were a major economic threat to U.S. markets in Asia and the Pacific.
Just to show the extent of the American objectives to handicap their economic rivals one should look at the handling of Japan from 1945 till about October 1, 1949. After the surrender of Tokyo to the U.S. on the U.S.S. Missouri and the start of the American occupation and administration of Japan, the Japanese economy began to rapidly decline because of the calculated neglect of the U.S. through the office of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers (SCAP). In economic terms, the Japanese case was initially very similar to that of Anglo-American occupied Iraq.

In late-1949 all this began to change. Almost overnight, there was literally a complete change, or a flip-flop, in U.S. policy on Japan. It was only after October 1, 1949 when the People’s Republic of China was declared by Mao Zedong and the Communist Party of China that the U.S. began to allow Japan to recover economically, so as to use it as a counter-weight to China. As a side note, in a case of irony, the quick change in American policy regarding Japan allowed the U.S. to overlook the Japanese policy of not allowing foreign investment, which is one of the reasons for the economic success of Japan and one of the reasons why the financial elites of Japan form part of the trilateral pillar of the global economy along with the elites of the U.S. and Western Europe.

The “Open Doors” Policy of the Anglo-American Establishment

Anglo-American elites also made it clear that they wanted a global policy of “open doors” through the 1941 Atlantic Charter, which was a joint British and American declaration about what post-war international relations would be like. It is very important to note that the Atlantic Charter was made before the U.S. even entered the Second World War. The events and description above was the second clear phase behind the start of modern neo-liberal globalization; the first phase was the start of the First World War. In both wars the financial and corporate elite of the U.S., before the entry of the U.S. as a combatant, had funded both sides through loans and American investment, while they destroyed one another. This included the use of middlemen and companies in other countries, such as Canada.

The creation of the U.S. Federal Reserve in 1913, before the First World War and the U.S. domestic (not foreign, because of the regulations of other states) de-coupling of the gold standard from the U.S. dollar in 1933, before the Second World War, were required beforehand for the U.S. domination of other economies. Both were steps that removed the limits and restrains on the number of U.S. dollars being printed, which allowed the U.S. to invest and loan money to the warring states of Europe and Asia.
Norman Dodd, a former Wall Street banker and investigator for the U.S. Congress, who examined U.S. tax-exempt foundations, revealed in a 1982 interview that the First World War was anticipated by U.S. elites in order to further manage the global economy. [2] War or any form of large-scale traumatic occurences are the perfect events to use for restructuring societies, all in the name of the war effort and the common good. Civil liberties and labour laws can be suspended, while the press is fully censored and opposition figures arrested or demonized, while corporations and governments merge in close coordination and under the justification of the war effort. This was true of virtually all sides in the First World War and the Second World War, from Canada to Germany under Adolph Hitler.

In contrast to the views of its own citizens, the American government was never really neutral during both the First World War and the Second World War. The U.S. was funding and arming the British at the start of the Second World War. Also before the American entry in the Second World War, the U.S., Canada, and Britain started the process of joint war planning and military integration. Before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour on December 7, 1941 the U.S. and Canada, which was fighting Germany, on August 17, 1940 signed the Ogdensburg Agreement, which was an agreement that spelled out joint defence through the Permanent Joint Board of Defence and joint war planning against Germany and the Axis. In 1941, the Hyde Park Agreement formally united the Canadian and American war economies and informally united the U.S., Canadian, and British economies. The U.S. and British military command would also be integrated. In part, the monetary arrangement that was made through these war transactions between the U.S., Canada, and Britain would become the basis for the Bretton Woods formula.

Also, the empires of Britain, France, and other Western European states were not dismantled just due to the fact that they were all degraded because of the Second World War, but because of Anglo-American economic interests. The imperialist policies of these European states made it mandatory for their colonies to have preferential trade with them, which went against the “open doors” policy that would allow U.S. corporations to penetrate into other national economies, especially ones that were ravaged by war and thus perfect for U.S. corporate entrance.

The Reasons for the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact

Britain and the U.S. also deliberately delayed their invasion of Western Europe, calculating that it would weaken the Soviets who did most the fighting in Europe’s Eastern Front. This is why the U.S. and Britain originally invaded North Africa instead of Europe. They wanted the Third Reich and the Soviet Union to neutralize one another.

The German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact or the Ribeentrop-Molotov Pact caused shock waves in Europe and North America when it was signed. The German and Soviet governments were at odds with one another. This was more than just because of ideology; Germany and the Soviet Union were being played against one another in the events leading up to the Second World War, just as how previously Germany, the Russian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire were played against one another in Eastern Europe [3]
This is why Britain and France only declared war on Berlin, in 1939, when both the U.S.S.R. and Germany had invaded Poland. If the intentions were to protect Poland, then why only declare war against Germany when in reality both the Germans and the Soviets had invaded? There is something much deeper to be said about all this.
If Moscow and Berlin had not signed a non-aggression agreement there would have been no declaration of war against Germany. In fact Appeasement was a deliberate policy crafted in the hope of allowing Germany to militarize and then allowing the Nazi government the means, through military might, to create a common German-Soviet border, which would be the prerequisite to an anticipated German-Soviet war that would neutralize the two strongest land powers in Europe and Eurasia. [4]
British policy and the rationale for the non-aggression pact between the Soviets and Germans is described best by Carroll Quigley. Quigley, a top ranking U.S. professor of history, on the basis of the diplomatic agreements in Europe and insider information as an professor of the elites explains the strategic aims of British policy from 1920 to 1938 as:


[T]o maintain the balance of power in Europe by building up Germany against France and [the Soviet Union]; to increase Britain’s weight in that balance by aligning with her the Dominions [e.g., Australia and Canada] and the United States; to refuse any commitments (especially any commitments through the League of Nations, and above all any commitments to aid France) beyond those existing in 1919; to keep British freedom of action; to drive Germany eastward against [the Soviet Union] if either or both of these two powers became a threat to the peace [probably meaning economic strength] of Western Europe [and most probably implying British interests]. [5]
In order to carry out this plan of allowing Germany to drive eastward against [the Soviet Union], it was necessary to do three things: (1) to liquidate all the countries standing between Germany and [the Soviet Union]; (2) to prevent France from [honouring] her alliances with these countries [i.e., Czechoslovakia and Poland]; and (3) to hoodwink the [British] people into accepting this as a necessary, indeed, the only solution to the international problem. The Chamberlain group were so successful in all three of these things that they came within an ace of succeeding, and failed only because of the obstinacy of the Poles, the unseemly haste of Hitler, and the fact that at the eleventh hour the Milner Group realized the [geo-strategic] implications of their policy [which to their fear united the Soviets and Germans] and tried to reverse it. [6]

It is because of this aim of nurturing Germany into a position of attacking the Soviets that British, Canadian, and American leaders had good rapports (which seem unexplained in standard history textbooks) with Adolph Hitler and the Nazis until the eve of the Second World War.
In regards to appeasement under Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and its beginning under the re-militarization of the industrial lands of the Rhineland, Quigley explains:


This event of March 1936, by which Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland, was the most crucial event in the whole history of appeasement. So long as the territory west of the Rhine and a strip fifty kilometers wide on the east bank of the river were demilitarized, as provided in the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno Pacts, Hitler would never have dared to move against Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. He would not have dared because, with western Germany unfortified and denuded of German soldiers, France could have easily driven into the Ruhr industrial area and crippled Germany so that it would be impossible to go eastward. And by this date [1936], certain members of the Milner Group and of the British Conservative government had reached the fantastic idea that they could kill two birds with one stone by setting Germany and [the Soviet Union] against one another in Eastern Europe. In this way they felt that two enemies would stalemate one another, or that Germany would become satisfied with the oil of Rumania and the wheat of the Ukraine. It never occurred to anyone in a responsible position that Germany and [the Soviet Union] might make common cause, even temporarily, against the West. Even less did it occur to them that [the Soviet Union] might beat Germany and thus open all Central Europe to Bolshevism. [7]
The liquidation of the countries between Germany and [the Soviet Union] could proceed as soon as the Rhineland was fortified, without fear on Germany’s part that France would be able to attack her in the west while she was occupied in the east. [8]

In regards to eventually creating a common German-Soviet, the French-led military alliance had to first be neutralized. The Locarno Pacts were fashioned by British foreign policy mandarins to prevent France from being able to militarily support Czechoslovakia and Poland in Eastern Europe and thus to intimidate Germany from halting any attempts at annexing both Eastern European states. Quigley writes:


[T]he Locarno agreements guaranteed the frontier of Germany with France and Belgium with the powers of these three states plus Britain and Italy. In reality the agreements gave France nothing, while they gave Britain a veto over French fulfillment of her alliances with Poland and the Little Entente. The French accepted these deceptive documents for reason of internal politics (…) This trap [as Quigley calls the Locarno agreements] consisted of several interlocking factors. In the first place, the agreements did not guarantee the German frontier and the demilitarized condition of the Rhineland against German actions, but against the actions of either Germany or France. This, at one stroke, gave Britain the right to oppose any French action against Germany in support of her allies to the east of Germany. This meant that if Germany moved east against Czechoslovakia, Poland, and eventually [the Soviet Union], and if France attacked Germany’s western frontier in support of Czechoslovakia or Poland, as her alliances bound her to do, Great Britain, Belgium, and Italy might be bound by the Locarno Pacts to come to the aid of Germany. [9]

The Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935 was also deliberately signed by Britain to prevent the Soviets from joining the neutralized military alliance between France, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. Quigley writes:


Four days later, Hitler announced Germany’s rearmament, and ten days after that, Britain condoned the act by sending Sir John Simon on a state visit to Berlin. When France tried to counterbalance Germany’s rearmament by bringing the Soviet Union into her eastern alliance system in May 1935, the British counteracted this by making the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 18 June 1935. This agreement, concluded by Simon, allowed Germany to build up to 35 percent of the size of the British Navy (and up to 100 percent in submarines). This was a deadly stab in the back of France, for it gave Germany a navy considerably larger than the French in the important categories of ships (capital ships and aircraft carriers), because France was bound by treaty to only 33 percent of Britain’s; and France in addition, had a worldwide empire to protect and the unfriendly Italian Navy off her Mediterranean coast. This agreement put the French Atlantic coast so completely at the mercy of the German Navy that France became completely dependent on the British fleet for protection in this area. [10]

The Hoare-Laval Plan was also used to stir Germany eastward instead of southward towards the Eastern Mediterranean, which the British saw as the critical linchpin holding their empire together and connecting them through the Egyptian Suez Canal to India. Quigley explains:


The countries marked for liquidation included Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland, but did not include Greece and Turkey, since the [Milner] Group had no intention of allowing Germany to get down onto the Mediterranean ‘lifeline.’ Indeed, the purpose of the Hoare-Laval Plan of 1935, which wrecked the collective-security system by seeking to give most Ethiopia to Italy, was intended to bring an appeased Italy in position alongside [Britain], in order to block any movement of Germany southward rather than eastward [towards the Soviet Union]. [11]

Both the Soviet Union, under Joseph Stalin, and Germany, under Adolph Hitler, ultimately became aware of the designs for the planning of a German-Soviet war and because of this both Moscow and Berlin signed a non-aggression pact prior to the Second World War. The German-Soviet arrangement was largely a response to the Anglo-American stance. In the end it was because of Soviet and German distrust for one another that the Soviet-German alliance collapsed and the anticipated German-Soviet war came to fruition as the largest and deadliest war theatre in the Second World War, the Eastern Front.
The Origins of the Russian Urge to Protect Eurasia

With this understanding of the Anglo-American strategic mentality of weakening Eurasia the ground can be paved for understanding the Russian mentality and mind frame for protecting themselves through protecting their European core and uniting Eurasia through such organizations as the Warsaw Pact, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and such Russian policies as the Primakov Doctrine and allying Moscow with Iran and Syria.

As spheres of influence were carved in Europe, it was understood that Greece would fall into the Anglo-American orbit, while Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia would fall within the Soviet orbit. Due to this understanding the Red Army of the Soviet Union watched as the Greek Communists were butchered and the British militarily intervened in the Greek Civil War. The reason for these agreements involving spheres of influence in Europe was that the Soviets wanted a buffer zone to protect themselves from any further invasions from Western Europe, which had been plaguing the U.S.S.R. and Czarist Russia.
In reality, the Cold War did not start because of Soviet aggression, but because of a long-standing historic impulse by Anglo-American elites to encircle and control Eurasia. The Soviet Union honoured its agreement with Britain and the U.S. not to intervene in Greece, which even came at the expense of Yugoslav-Soviet relations as Marshal Tito broke with Stalin over the issue. This, however, did not stop the U.S. and Britain from falsely accusing the Soviets of supporting the Greek Communists and declaring war on the Soviets through the Truman Doctrine. This move was a part of the Anglo-American bid to encircle the Soviet Union and to control Eurasia. Today this policy, which existed before the First World War and helped spark the Second World War, has not changed and Anglo-American elites, such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, still talk about partitioning Russia, the successor state of the Soviet Union.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) specializing in geopolitics and strategic issues.

NOTES

[1] British elites, however, had managed to incorporate themselves into the economic livelihood of the U.S., forming an Anglo-American elite and effectively separating themselves from the interests of the majority of British citizens.

[2] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East”, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), November 18, 2006.
[3] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, The “Great Game”: Eurasia and the History of War, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), December 3, 2007.
[4] China at this time was already being limited by Japan and before that by combined Japanese, Russian, and Western European policies. This would leave Germany and the U.S.S.R. as the two main threats to Anglo-American interests.
[5] Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden (San Pedro, California: GSG & Associates Publishers, 1981), p.240.
[6] Ibid., p.266.
[7] Ibid., p.265.
[8] Ibid., p.272.
[9] Ibid., p.264.
[10] Ibid., pp.269-270.
[11] Ibid., p.273.

Edited by Steven Gaal, 05 September 2012 - 04:47 PM.


#13 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 07 September 2012 - 03:41 PM

SUPPORT REAL FREEDOM FROM ANGO-AMERICAN BANKING SYSTEM FOR MYANMAR
#######################




Suu Kyi spent decades under house arrest and even some time in prison during this period she was unable to see her husband and children, you're right she's probably doing it for power and money. Get back to us with evidence that she is a tool of the ”ANGO-AMERICAN BANKING SYSTEM”. Why do you insist on using the name for the country imposed by the military junta?


==============
"Trusted Messengers" and "Humanitarian Groups" Target Russia and China, Endorse the US-NATO Mandate
- by Richard Nogueira - 2012-03-15

Recently “humanitarian” groups such as Amnesty International and Avaaz have been targeting Russia (and China to a lesser extent) in relation to the current Syrian conflict.



Who the fluke is Richard Nogueira? Since he didn't provide any citations why should we believe him?



======================================================== ALSO
The Anglo-US Drive into Eurasia and the Demonization of Russia
Reframing the History of World War II
- by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya - 2009-10-02


As tensions mount between the U.S. and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) on one side and Moscow and its allies on another, the history of the Second World War is being re-framed to demonize Russia, the legal successor state and largest former constituent republic (pars pro toto) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.). In 2009, the U.S.S.R. and the Nazi government of Germany started being portrayed as the two forces that ignited the Second World War.







You've already posted apologetics for Assad and the Burmese military junta so I was not surprised to see you post one for Stalin? I guess Hitler is next or perhaps Pol Pot. Note the lack of citations for the most sensational claims in this revisionist polemic which is completely irrelevant to the topics under discussion.


Still waiting for evidence the USG backed Pussy Riot before the stunt in the church.

#14 Steven Gaal

Steven Gaal

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,845 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 September 2012 - 04:00 PM

Government does KOOKY things for its goals. Pussy Riot Kooky thing.
============================================================
The CIA's Technical Services Division planned to lace Castro's cigars with a super-hallucinogen (perhaps BZ), to embarrass him publicly by causing a wild acid trip during a public appearance.
The CIA also planned to embarrass Fidel by sneaking thallium salts into Castro's shoes; thallium salts are a "potent depilatory that would cause his beard, eyebrows, and pubic hair to fall out... like a follicle deprived Samson."
see (( http://www.historyho...history/castro/ ))

########################################################
Top 10 Weirdest CIA Programs
http://www.toptenz.n...ia-programs.php

Over the years, the American Central Intelligence Agency has gained a reputation for being the most far-reaching, sophisticated, and effective government intelligence agency on the planet. At the same time, the CIA has also become known for its incredible paranoia and propensity to undertake costly, sometimes illegal, and often downright absurd projects in the name of gaining an edge on the competition. From spy cats to psychic hippies, the following are ten of the weirdest spy programs the government has proposed and funded over the years.

#15 Steven Gaal

Steven Gaal

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,845 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 September 2012 - 04:07 PM

completely irrelevant to the topics under discussion. //END COLBY
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
IRRELEVANT ????????? ITS THE WHOLE POINT. What part of the word DEMONIZATION dont you understand ??

The Anglo-US Drive into Eurasia and the Demonization of Russia
Reframing the History of World War II

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NGOs used for regeim change today. Russia just recently caught on.
=
http://themoderatevo...-pravda-russia/


Support of Anti-Putin America for Pussy Riot ‘Disgusting and Ridiculous’ (Komsomolskaya Pravda, Russia)
Is American sympathy for a band of young women who chose a church to express disillusionment with Vladimir Putin just the latest reflection of bias against a resurgent Russia? For Komsomolskaya Pravda, columnist Alexei Pankin lashes out at America and the West for mismanaging the Soviet collapse, its long-held suspicion of Putin, and most of all, widespread U.S. and Western support for Pussy Riot – a female punk band that Putin has made an example of by putting members of the group behind bars.
------------------------------------
For Komsomolskaya Pravda Alexei Pankin writes in part:
The entire period of Putin’s rule has been a continuous series of propaganda campaigns by Western mass media, NGOs, and American Congressmen against a president popular among Russians. The campaigns range from pinning personal responsibility on Putin for the demise of the Kursk [nuclear submarine] to accusations of murdering [KGB defector] Alexandr Litvinenko.

So now the global buzz is about the “cheap whores” [Pussy Riot]. This is such a farce, that it is not only disgusting, but ridiculous. One suspects either collective dementia or complete venality of the Western democracies.

“This universal howl over “rabid female genitalia” [another Russian rendering of Pussy Riot] could have been trumped up only with a massive PR investment. Now even such pillars of free press as The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times are comparing the “pussies” to Andrei Sakharov and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and Putin to Stalin.” This was written by Eduard Lozanskii, president of the American University in Moscow and a Soviet dissident with a more than tumultuous anti-Soviet biography. It isn’t clear whether to laugh or cry to see shining through the centuries-old tradition of the democratic West the sly mug of [exiled oligarch] Boris Abramovich Berezovsky.

#######################################
West's battle for Russian ‘hearts and minds’: NGOs on steroids (Op-Ed)

The Russian Duma has just passed amendments to the Russian NGO law.
Russian NGOs receiving foreign funding will now have to register at the Ministry of Justice as an “NGO carrying out functions as a foreign agent”, make public their sources of funding by marking it on the materials they distribute, and report semi-annually to the Ministry of Justice on their activities.
This law, a great majority of Russians believe, is long overdue. In the past 25 years, billions of dollars have been pouring into Russia from the US State Department and its subsidiary agencies like the US Agency for International Development (USAID – nearly $3 billion alone), as well as from so-called “private foundations” like the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House, and George Soros’s Open Society Institute. All of these institutions, judging by their activities and leadership’s biographies, have important ties to the US State Department, the intelligence community, Cold War and the “color revolutions”.
The goal of all this money was not to express Washington’s generous love of Russia, its culture or its people. In addition to building a loyal infrastructure, it aimed at “winning hearts and minds” – and along the way oil, gas, and military capacity. It has all been about “opening” – “open society”, “open economy”, “open Russia”, “open government” – open for brainwashing, economic plunder, for hijacking Russia’s domestic and foreign policies.
Conquest by war is always an option for the US, as we have seen in the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, and now in Syria. But “victory without war” is cheaper and more effective, as the collapse of Soviet Union has tragically shown.
What did Western funding do to the Russian civil society while pursuing military objectives by “peaceful means”? Might it have accidentally contributed to building democracy in Russia? The word “democracy” here is understood in its original sense, as government of the people for the people, not in Washington’s interpretation as a loyal regime subservient to US interest.
In fact, the multibillions of Western funding have profoundly distorted Russian civil society. A marginal pro-American group of NGOs that was pumped up with US dollars like a bodybuilder with steroids -it has gained much muscle and shine. Those few Russians willing to serve foreign interests were provided nice offices, comfortable salaries, printing presses, training, publicity, and political and organizing technology which gave them far more capacity, visibility, and influence that they could possibly have had on their own. Money and spin are the only means to promote unpopular ideas, alien to national interests.
On the other side is the silent majority of people who is squeezed out of the public space. In Western, and also in Russian media, civil society turns out to be represented by Ludmila Alekseyeva (The Helsinki Group), Boris Nemtsov and Gary Kasparov, rather than by a worker from the Urals, teacher from Novosibirsk or a farmer from Krasnodar Region.
Moreover, Russian NGOs not addicted to Western funding are put under serious pressure from Western funders and their local outlets to join the club. Once the Russian organization shows its effectiveness, its leadership receives a call from US Embassy, and an invitation to visit. Money offers follow shortly. If the Russian NGO dares to refuse the bait, one or several mirror organizations are created that, with massive funding and publicity, hijack the subject, fill it out with its agenda and occupy the field.
For projects in education, for example, suddenly it will be all Anglo-Saxon models and values. For projects fighting abuse by the police, this fight will be selective and serving to compile incriminatory evidence on loyal officials designed to create hostility to the government in general, rather than truly fighting these intolerable practices. In the field of business associations, one Russian NGO was denounced by a major US-allied corporation for “excessively defending the rights of domestic producers”.
No, Western funding does not contribute to strengthening Russian democracy. It only extends the battle field for pro-American forces against patriotic forces. Like steroids, Western funding is injected in the weaker spots of the targeted civil society. Like steroids, it is addictive. Like steroids, it corrupts the mind and body of the political organism. It transforms the target nation into a sick and dependent collaborating entity deprived of independent will, mind, and heart.
Russia and other countries subject to Western funding infusions must take charge of their domestic problems. Building a patriotic civil society cannot be outsourced. Democratic processes and national security cannot be outsourced – all the more so to openly hostile governments.
These NGO amendments, by correcting an evident gap in our laws, take a major step in leveling the playing field. But this step needs to be followed by further measures that strengthen our national civil societies.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
­Veronika Krasheninnikova, Director General of the Institute for Foreign Policy Research and Initiatives in Moscow, for RT
­The statements, views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Edited by Steven Gaal, 07 September 2012 - 04:14 PM.




Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users