Jon G. Tidd Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) Re the Boston Marathon bombing: I and some others who have the expertise to do so seriously doubt the official story of the bombs and how they were made. The world was told the bombs were made of pressure cookers and that the explosive material contained in the bombs was extracted from fireworks purchased in New Hampshire. As I understand, the official story is also that the explosive material propelled metal parts (bolts, screws, whatever) embedded in the explosive material. The problem with the official story is that that's a lousy and ineffective way to make a bomb. How do I know? I've made from scratch and flown rockets, beginning at age 15 in 1960, and know pretty much what there is to know about making rocket propellants, flash powders, and downright dangerous stuff that no one who isn't either very foolish or very careful should get near. I can say that no self-respecting amateur rocket maker would deign to use commercially prepared explosive powder. One can make FAR SUPERIOR explosive powder from chemicals delivered to one's front door, no signature required. The knowledge and materials needed are easily available online. What the Tsarnaev brothers allegedly did in making their bomb is equivalent to a skilled hunter's taking "Oswald's" rickety and rusted Carcanno on a big-game hunting expedition. Sure, the hunter might be able to bag a trophy with the Carcanno and four rounds. But a knowledgeable hunter wouldn't go on the expedition that way. It's a lousy way. Same with the Tsarnaevs. Al Qaeda's colorful "Inspire" magazine shows a better way to construct a bomb in your kitchen...using matcheads and sugar as an explosive mix. Matcheads and sugar are OK, used the right way. Far better than the typical powder one might extract from retail fireworks. An experienced amateur rocketeer, however, can make two or three dozen other mixes, easily prepared, that are far better for the intended nefarious purpose. Experienced amateur rocket makers, by the way, are scrupulous about obeying the law. Rocket making and bomb making are completely different, and law-abiding rocket makers do not make bombs...even though they know how. Now the Tsarnaevs weren't complete dummies. And they did, as I understand, get some training in Chechnya. I'd advise them to seek a full refund on whatever they paid for their training. Edited January 13, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Roy Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Stephen, you evidently believe Boston bombing to be real. The problems arise in the evidence we are presented with. Jeff Bauman, would not have lived having two legs severed, he would have gone into shock and then bled out within seconds. People do not survive with this sort of extreme injury. The loss of just one leg would likely result in death. The Vogt photograph is compelling that these two men are one and the same, they have identical appearances and not coincidentally the exact same injuries. Vogt no doubt was injured in combat and had to have his legs amputated. If Vogt had had his legs severed as Bauman appeared to have, Vogt would be dead. This is a medical reality. Robert, I was there. I saw Bauman with his legs blown apart and I've spoken with him several times. Your speculation about the way people always must react in situations is wrong. There is much more variance and nuance than you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Roy Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Re the Boston Marathon bombing: I and some others who have the expertise to do so seriously doubt the official story of the bombs and how they were made. The world was told the bombs were made of pressure cookers and that the explosive material contained in the bombs was extracted from fireworks purchased in New Hampshire. As I understand, the official story is also that the explosive material propelled metal parts (bolts, screws, whatever) embedded in the explosive material. The problem with the official story is that that's a lousy and ineffective way to make a bomb. How do I know? I've made from scratch and flown rockets, beginning at age 15 in 1960, and know pretty much what there is to know about making rocket propellants, flash powders, and downright dangerous stuff that no one who isn't either very foolish or very careful should get near. I can say that no self-respecting amateur rocket maker would deign to use commercially prepared explosive powder. One can make FAR SUPERIOR explosive powder from chemicals delivered to one's front door, no signature required. The knowledge and materials needed are easily available online. What the Tsarnaev brothers allegedly did in making their bomb is equivalent to a skilled hunter's taking "Oswald's" rickety and rusted Carcanno on a big-game hunting expedition. Sure, the hunter might be able to bag a trophy with the Carcanno and four rounds. But a knowledgeable hunter wouldn't go on the expedition that way. It's a lousy way. Same with the Tsarnaevs. Al Qaeda's colorful "Inspire" magazine shows a better way to construct a bomb in your kitchen...using matcheads and sugar as an explosive mix. Matcheads and sugar are OK, used the right way. Far better than the typical powder one might extract from retail fireworks. An experienced amateur rocketeer, however, can make two or three dozen other mixes, easily prepared, that are far better for the intended nefarious purpose. Experienced amateur rocket makers, by the way, are scrupulous about obeying the law. Rocket making and bomb making are completely different, and law-abiding rocket makers do not make bombs...even though they know how. Now the Tsarnaevs weren't complete dummies. And they did, as I understand, get some training in Chechnya. I'd advise them to seek a full refund on whatever they paid for their training. First off, there WAS a bombing, and the victims and the area were covered with hardware and metal. Your argument seems to be your opinion that it was a "lousy" method to choose. Somebody built two devices filled with hardware and exploded them at the Marathon. Coincidentally, right about the spot where videos show the Tsarnaevs carrying backpacks, then not carrying backpacks. What a coincidence. The same Tsarnaevs who subsequently had a shootout with the police. Coincidences abound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Stephen, I agree there was a bombing. A bombing can cause injuries. I and others have been injured by explosions in home-made labs. No dispute. My issue goes to cause, not effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) Thanks Thomas. The result of that type of thinking is to justify the negative connotation of conspiracy theorist. Well, Paul, when thinking about the JFK assassination I'm a conspiracy theorist myself. But, unlike several members of this forum, I don't automatically blame the CIA for what took place in France recently, or what's taking place in eastern Ukraine, or ... --Tommy (Gaaal) Last weekend, Czech President Milos Zeman deplored the warmongering attitude of the Kiev regime, denouncing the CIA-installed Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk as “the prime minister of war.” mycatbirdseat JAN 7 [...] This is the ex-felon and embezzler Yanukovych, whom the Ukrainians threw out of office and into Russian exile last year after his snipers had killed several demonstrators in Maidan Square. Unfortunately this gave Vlad Putin an "excuse" for his clandestine and continuing invasion of eastern Ukraine and his annexation of the Crimean peninsula. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30777844 --Tommy PS As regards your Milos Zeman, he's is a Czech Mafia-connected, brown-noser-of-Putin "joke". He joined the Communist Party in 1968, the same year that Russia and the Warsaw Pact countries invaded Czechoslovakia and put an end to the liberalizing "Prague Spring". Last November, while giving a speech on the 25th anniversary of Czech freedom from communistic rule, Zeman was pelted with eggs by his own countrymen and countrywomen who were angry about his communist past, his cozy relations with "Vlad" Putin, and his self-serving hypocrisy. Of course he's an apologist for Putin's actions in Ukraine. He knows which side of his bread gets the lard, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30087621 Edited January 15, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 This looks more like a thread which belongs in Political Conspiracies, and I'm contemplating moving it off of this Forum to the PC area. Thank you! --Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Thanks Thomas. The result of that type of thinking is to justify the negative connotation of conspiracy theorist. Well, Paul, when thinking about the JFK assassination I'm a conspiracy theorist myself. But, unlike several members of this forum, I don't automatically blame the CIA for what took place in France recently, or what's taking place in eastern Ukraine, or ... --Tommy Last weekend, Czech President Milos Zeman deplored the warmongering attitude of the Kiev regime, denouncing the CIA-installed Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk as “the prime minister of war.” mycatbirdseat JAN 7 =================================================== Part of The Best of Print in 2014 http://www.foreignaffairs.com/ Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin By John J. Mearsheimer JOHN J. MEARSHEIMER is R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago. See more by this author From our September/October 2014 Issue A man takes a picture as he stands on a Soviet-style star re-touched with blue paint so that it resembles the Ukrainian flag, Moscow, August 20, 2014. (Maxim Shemetov / Courtesy Reuters) ---------------------------------------o According to the prevailing wisdom in the West, the Ukraine crisis can be blamed almost entirely on Russian aggression. Russian President Vladimir Putin, the argument goes, annexed Crimea out of a long-standing desire to resuscitate the Soviet empire, and he may eventually go after the rest of Ukraine, as well as other countries in eastern Europe. In this view, the ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014 merely provided a pretext for Putin’s decision to order Russian forces to seize part of Ukraine. But this account is wrong: the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West. At the same time, the EU’s expansion eastward and the West’s backing of the pro-democracy movement in Ukraine -- beginning with the Orange Revolution in 2004 -- were critical elements, too. Since the mid-1990s, Russian leaders have adamantly opposed NATO enlargement, and in recent years, they have made it clear that they would not stand by while their strategically important neighbor turned into a Western bastion. For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected and pro-Russian president -- which he rightly labeled a “coup” -- was the final straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the West. Putin’s pushback should have come as no surprise. After all, the West had been moving into Russia’s backyard and threatening its core strategic interests, a point Putin made emphatically and repeatedly. Elites in the United States and Europe have been blindsided by events only because they subscribe to a flawed view of international politics. They tend to believe that the logic of realism holds little relevance in the twenty-first century and that Europe can be kept whole and free on the basis of such liberal principles as the rule of law, economic interdependence, and democracy. =================================== Register for free to continue reading. Registered users get access to two free articles every month. Register Have an account? Log in. ================= @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Czech President: “Only Poorly Informed People” Don’t Know About Ukraine Coup By Eric Zuesse Global Research, January 05, 2015 ========================= The Czech Republic’s President Milos Zeman said, in an interview, in the January 3rd edition of Prague’s daily newspaper Pravo, that Czechs who think of the overthrow of Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych, on 22 February 2014, as having been like Czechoslovakia’s authentically democratic “Velvet Revolution” are seeing it in a profoundly false light, because, (as Russian Television translated his statement into English) “Maidan was not a democratic revolution.” He said that this is the reason why Ukraine now is in a condition of “civil war,” in which the residents of the Donbass region in Ukraine’s southeast have broken away from the Ukrainian Government. He furthermore said that, “Judging by some of the statements of Prime Minister Yatsenyuk, I think that he is rather a prime minister of war because he does not want a peaceful solution, as recommended by the European Union (EU), but instead prefers to use force.” He added, by way of contrast to Yatsenyuk, the possibility that Ukraine’s President, Petro Poroshenko “might be a man of peace.” So: though Zeman held out no such hope regarding Yatsenyuk (who was Obama’s choice to lead Ukraine), he did for Poroshenko (who wasn’t Obama’s choice, but who became Ukraine’s President despite Obama’s having wanted Yatsenyuk’s sponsor, the hyper-aggressive Yulia Tymoshenko, to win the May 25thPresidential election, which was held only in Ukraine’s pro-coup northwest, but claimed to possess authority over the entire country). What this statement from Zeman indicates is that the European Union is trying to deal with Poroshenko, as the “good cop” in a “good cop, bad cop” routine, with Yatsenyuk playing the bad cop; and, so, the EU’s policies regarding Ukraine will depend upon what comes forth from Poroshenko, not at all upon what comes from the more clearly pro-war, anti-peace, Yatsenyuk. Furthermore, Zeman’s now publicly asserting that the overthrow of Yanukovych was a coup instead of having merely expressed the democratic intentions of most of the Maidan demonstrators, constitutes a sharp break away from U.S. President Barack Obama, who was behind that Ukrainian coup and who endorses its current leaders. Zeman isn’t yet going as far as Hungary’s President Viktor Orban did in his siding with Russia’s President Putin against America’s President Obama, but Zeman is indicating that, unless Obama will get Poroshenko to separate himself more clearly from Yatsenyuk (whom the U.S. State Department’s Victoria Nuland actually selected onFebruary 4th to become Ukraine’s Prime Minister in the coup just 18 days later, and so there can be no reasonable question that he is an Obama stooge), Czech policy regarding Ukraine will separate away from Obama’s war against Putin, and will join instead with Putin’s defense against Obama’s Ukrainian assault. Zeman is thus now in very much the same position that Orban had been prior to Orban’s clear decision recently to side with Putin: each is a head-of-state of a former Soviet satellite nation, which had waged a democratic revolution (in 1956 in Hungary, and in 1968 in Czechoslovakia) against the Soviet communist tyranny. He is saying to his own countrymen, that the tyrant now is the United States, under its President Barack Obama, and is not Russia, under its President Vladimir Putin. That’s a seismic shift, away from the U.S., because of the Ukrainian coup. Zeman was careful in his selection of which Czech news-medium would hold this interview with him. As wikipedia has noted, Pravo “is the only Czech national daily that is not owned by a foreign company.” The message that this fact sends to Czechs is that Zeman wanted to make clear that foreign influences, and any currying of favor with aristocrats (who own the ‘news’ media) in foreign countries, will not dictate his policies; only the Czech Republic’s own democratic values, and the behavior of Poroshenko, will. Zeman is indirectly telling Obama: Back off from me — you’re trying to get too close, and I won’t tolerate this. When Victoria Nuland said “F—k the EU,” she expressed Obama’s view, and all of them recognized the fact; some, like Orban and Zeman, don’t like to be treated this way; others, such as Germany’s Angela Merkel, seem not to mind. It’s also interesting that the first two EU nations to indicate that they might leave the EU for an alliance with Russia are both former Soviet satellite countries that revolted against the Soviet dictatorship; both are Eastern European, not Western European. Perhaps these leaders are more loathe to be controlled by tyrants than are the ones for whom the very idea of being subordinate to a tyrant is just a mere abstraction. (Merkel, however, seems simply to love whatever is conservative, even if it might happen to be nazi, as in Ukraine.) In any case, Ukraine’s coup has already produced one earthquake of historical magnitude, in Hungary, with Orban, and might soon do the same in the Czech Republic, with Zeman (which will depend upon Poroshenko reducing his war against Ukraine’s former east — which, in turn, will depend upon what instructions Obama provides to Poroshenko). The European Union could actually be in the process of breaking up; and not only because of the Ukrainian civil war, but also because Obama’s forcing each and every one of the EU nations to choose up sides in Obama’s Ukrainian war against Putin will have very different economic effects upon the various individual EU member-nations, some of which will lose far more business with Russia, from adhering to Obama’s sanctions against Russia, than will others that go along with those sanctions. U.S. President Obama is thus now pressing his pedal to the metal in order to achieve maximum destructive force against Russia, regardless of how many or what nations will follow him — perhaps even over the cliff, into a nuclear war. Obama is, in effect, now saying to each and every European head-of-state: Either you’re with us, or you’re against us. He’s George W. Bush II, only with regard to Russia, instead of to Iraq. It’s “choosing up sides” time, yet again; and, this time, Obama and Putin are both waiting, no doubt each somewhat nervously, to see what his team will consist of, and what the opposing team will turn out to be. However, there can be no reasonable doubt that Obama was the aggressor here. A coup followed by an ethnic cleansing is nazi, not at all democratic. That’s not opinion; it’s fact; and so it warrants to be noted in a news report, even though (if not especially because) others don’t report this fact, so that it’s still news, for long after it should have been reported as being “news.” Unfortunately, it remains as news, even today. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Czech President Milos Zeman and JOHN J. MEARSHEIMER the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago TWO THOMAS GRAVES ZERO = Czech President Milos Zeman stated those who dont know the Ukrainian coup was of Western origin are uninformed. ==== > Please Mr. Graves raise your hand. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30777844 This is the convicted rapist whom the Ukrainians threw out of office and into Russian exile last year, which action prompted Vlad Putin's clandestine and continuing invasion of eastern Ukraine and his annexation of the Crimean peninsula. --Tommy bumped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) March 10, 2014 The EU-IMF Economic Agenda for Ukraine US Imperialism and the Ukraine Coup by JEFF MACKLER ============================ The recent Ukrainian Maidan (Independence Square) mobilizations are a grotesque caricature of the mass protests of workers and youth in Egypt that led to the demise of the U.S.-backed dictator, Hosni Mubarak. At the recent Kiev “mass mobilizations” of 250,000 that drove Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych out of the country to seek refuge in Russia, the best organized forces were those of the fascist, anti-Semitic, hyper-nationalist groupings—most prominently, the Svoboda (“Freedom”) Party, which traces its roots to the pro-Nazi Social-National Party of World War II. These armed, club-wielding, and often Molotov-cocktail bomb-throwing beasts had been let loose by the rump Fatherland Party “opposition” Ukrainian parliamentary oligarchs. And this was accomplished with the complicity, if not overt support, of U.S. officials, who likely seized on the charge (now highly suspect) that Yanukovych had employed snipers to attack and murder 89 demonstrators and wound 100 others on Feb. 20 as the perfect moment to shift the debate over a European Union vs. Russian “trade agreement” toward a violent mobilization for Yanukovych’s removal. A now confirmed taped phone call between the Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet and European Union Foreign Affairs Minister Catherine Ashton, originally reported by a Russian press agency and then in the British Guardian and other newspapers, reveals Paet’s view that forces among the Maidan protesters had orchestrated the deadly sniper fire on Feb. 20. Paet stated in the taped conversation that “the same snipers [were] killing people from both sides. … There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition.” The call took place after the Estonian foreign minister had visited Kiev on Feb. 25, at the height of the Maidan protests. The Estonian government later denied that Paet “was giving an assessment of the opposition’s involvement in the violence.” There is little doubt, however, that U.S. officials have applied pressure on the Estonians to “reinterpret” the tape. While the full truth may never be revealed, it is unquestionable that U.S. imperialism has never rejected using manufactured “smoking guns” to achieve reactionary ends. Need we refer to Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction” and the Vietnam-era “Tonkin Bay incident,” both of which were consciously manufactured by the U.S. government to justify the mass murder of the people of Iraq and Vietnam—in the latter case 4 million Vietnamese? Even today, reports by independent investigators question U.S. intelligence allegations that Syrian government missiles carrying deadly sarin gas killed hundreds of civilians.* This rump Ukrainian government, convened without the presence of Yanukovych or his Party of the Regions, cleared the streets of the official police and military in order to give free rein to the extreme right. The tiny handful of revolutionary socialists who were present, intent on trying to present a working-class and socialist alternative to Ukrainian and Russian capitalism to workers who had legitimate grievances against government corruption, violence, and the selling of Ukraine to the highest bidder, included a few Ukrainian members of the Fourth International. They and other socialists were run off the streets, their flyers torn to shreds. Evidence of the reactionary nature of the new Ukrainian regime appears in a March 5 on-line British Channel 4 news account: “The man facing down Putin’s aggression as secretary of the Ukrainian National Security and Defence Council is Andriy Parubiy. He oversees national security for the nation, having previously served as security commandant during the anti-government protests in Kiev.” Channel 4 identifies Parubiy as a member of Svoboda and a founder of its pro-Nazi predecessor, the Social National Party. Moreover, “overseeing the armed forces alongside Parubiy as the Deputy Secretary of National Security is Dmytro Yarosh, the leader of the Right Sector—a group of hardline nationalist streetfighters, who previously boasted they were ready for armed struggle to free Ukraine.” Other Svoboda leaders in the top echelons of the new government include Deputy Prime Minister Oleksandr Sych, Ecology Minister Andriy Mokhnyk, Agriculture Minister Ihor Shvaika, and acting Prosecutor General Oleh Makhnitsky. Top U.S. officials visit Kiev U.S. Republican Party firebrand and former presidential candidate John McCain had paid a previous visit to the Maidan, sharing the stage with Svoboda’s anti-Semitic leader Oleg Tyahnybok. McCain tried to rouse the crowd with cries of “democracy” and promises of “freedom and independence”—American style. But “democracy” was to be granted only after the looting government of oligarchs had approved the austerity terms that came with the European Union’s (EU) proposed “bailout” package, called the “Association Agreement.” U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Europe Victoria Nuland also participated in the protests—to pass out cookies, no less—in a well-orchestrated imperial stage-crafting effort to present the United States as a nation with the most benevolent and generous of intentions. She had previously boasted about U.S. funding of the “democratic opposition” to the tune of $5 billion over the past 10 years, not to mention the creation of some 40,000 NGOs to spread the “democracy” of U.S. imperialism. Nuland has since become famous for her off-the-cuff “xxxx the EU” statement, which has been circulated by bloggers around the world. A Russian surveillance team caught her red-handed in denouncing the European Union negotiating team for its deal with former President Yanukovych. Nuland’s Russian-acquired exchange with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt called for the U.S., rather than the EU, to determine who would compose the new Ukrainian government. Yanukovych’s agreement with EU top officials from Germany, France and Poland, his third reversal regarding who would plunder and subject his country to imperial control, had him appointing top opposition leaders to major government posts. Nuland disagreed with key appointments, indicating that “Yats” was to be the U.S. choice. Indeed, “Yats,” or Arseniy P. Yatsenyuk, is today’s Ukrainan Prime Minister. Nuland preferred figures who had shown themselves to be loyal to Western interests and to IMF-type austerity. If there is a “war” in Ukraine today, it is to determine which of the imperialist Western powers will have priority “rights” in absorbing this nation of 46 million people into its orbit to become yet another sub-colony of imperialism, along with the other nine nations that two decades ago constituted the former Soviet Union and today are largely incorporated in Europe’s capitalist economy and military alliance, NATO. With the U.S.-instigated coup, Russian capitalism has been effectively marginalized as a player in the Ukraine. Nuland’s apology for her poor choice of words was not accompanied by any apology for U.S. moves to dominate the future neoliberal exploitation of Ukraine, as opposed to handing over this right to longstanding U.S. competitors—not to mention to the wannabe imperialist Russian President Vladimir Putin and his billionaire oligarch regime. He and his predecessors gave birth to the Russian oligarchy some 20-plus years ago when the USSR’s wealth and resources were stolen, with U.S. complicity, by the tiny layer of former Stalinist bureaucrats who now preside over capitalist Russia, today a minor player in the world imperialist configuration. Assistant Secretary Nuland directed her ire not against Russia but rather Germany, France, and Poland—who brokered the deal as to the future composition of the Ukrainian government and the distribution of that nation’s industrial strength and rich and fertile agricultural resources. This was an unacceptable arrangement in the eyes of imperial America. The irrefutably recorded discussions between Nuland and Pyatt revealed their choice of United Nations “glue,” said Nuland, to cement any Ukraine deal. In that scenario, the U.S.-handpicked and subservient UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon would be called in to “negotiate” the nation’s future, rather than a more pro-EU assortment of capitalist plunderers. On March 4, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry visited Kiev in a further attempt to shoulder aside EU competitors in a deal. Kerry offered $1 billion in loan guarantees to the Ukrainian coup-makers and promised to send in a host of U.S. “technical experts” to help re-align the country’s national bank and finance ministry. In today’s game of re-dividing and re-colonizing the world, the Russians are bit players as compared to the U.S. imperialists and their not-too-happy lesser competitors in the EU, ever scrambling to maintain their perceived share of the booty extracted from their former colonies and new ones to be assimilated across Eastern Europe. At the level of military power, Russia’s less than a handful of bases outside its borders pales before the 1100 maintained by the U.S. around the world and another 1000 or so stationed in the U.S. Today’s Russian billionaires are puny compared to the multi-trillionaire U.S. bankers who looted the U.S. Treasury (the term was “government bailout”) to the tune of some $30 trillion. This was accomplished with the absolute complicity of the subservient Obama administration, which is little more than the governmental mask or façade of America’s real ruling class. In the United States, according to Oxfam International, the wealthiest one percent has captured 95 percent of post-financial-crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90 percent has become poorer. Yanukovych and his government’s original intention to resolve its virtual bankruptcy via the EU austerity plan momentarily gave way to Russian President Putin’s counter-offer of $15 billion in bail-out loans to the Ukrainian oligarchs—mostly former Stalinist bureaucrats themselves—which are peanuts in comparison to the $51 billion the Russians spent on the Sochi Olympic spectacle. The latter, aimed at glorifying Russia’s pretended emergence as a great power (it came in first in the medal total in Sochi!), was a trifle as compared to what U.S. and Western imperialism had to offer to buy Ukraine’s near bankrupt government and its workers and resources. The Russians’ subsequent offer to reduce the price of oil and gas by 55 percent to the heavily oil-dependent Ukraine was nearly instantly countered by EU pledges to substitute Polish coal and other fossil fuels. The coup regime has also agreed to a deal with Chevron Corporation for large-scale shale-gas fracking operations in western Ukraine. The Yanukovich government, before its ignominious demise, had previously signed production-sharing agreements with Shell and Chevron. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that Ukraine has Europe’s fourth largest shale-gas reserves. EU-IMF economic agenda for Ukraine The original EU offer to Ukraine (the one that Yanukovych temporarily rejected on Nov. 21) had certainly come with strings attached. These debilitating conditions were outlined by Marilyn Vogt-Downey, a revolutionary socialist with a long career as an analyst of Ukrainian and Russian politics, in a Feb. 27 CounterPunch article entitled, “An Imperialist Invasion Without an Imperialist Army: Whither Ukraine?” Her assessment rings with a truth that has rarely entered the discussion. Vogt-Downey suggested that Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych might have “easily calmed the rebellion in Independence Square in Ukraine’s capital Kiev early on if he had simply told the crowds the truth about what the Association Agreement with the European Union would mean to their lives and futures.” She pointed out that the “Free Trade section alone—removing tariff barriers and export duties—would convert Ukraine into one big “free trade zone,” where the anti-environment, anti-labor, and pro-business laws would prevail. … It would create the economic devastation of the type that NAFTA has created in Mexico. Vogt-Downey said that Yanukovych might then have “gone on to outline what the pending IMF ‘financial aid package’ would do to further worsen their lives. ” She cited the Feb. 23 New York Times report on Yanukovych’s flight, which summarized what the “EU option” would mean. “The economy will remain the greatest problem facing the country,” The Times reported, and then went on: “The International Monetary Fund remains a potential source of financing to replace the $15 billion that Russia had made available before the protests. But that comes with an insistence on austerity and economic changes that will inflict considerable pain.” Marilyn Vogt-Downey continued: “Considerable pain, indeed!! The IMF loans will require in Ukraine, as they do everywhere, that the government undertake broad-scale privatization of resources and basic public services, cut government spending on education, health care, pensions, housing, and benefits for the needy, as well as laws that hinder the accumulation and free movement of capitalist profits. And that’s just for starters. All this will further lower the wages and standard of living of the mass of the population of Ukraine, which are already lower than the European average.” Vogt-Downey pointed out that Ukrainian acceptance of the Association Agreement with the EU and the IMF aid package would remove any semblance of independence for the country. She listed the following points to back up her thesis: “1. It stipulates that Ukraine cannot accept any financial support from Russia. “2. It would make impossible any Ukrainian economic planning that did not follow the guidelines established by the IMF and other imperialist lending agencies. “3. Because of the nature of the IMF-imposed economic agenda, Ukraine would find it very difficult to ever escape the debt cycle. The IMF mandates, for example that capitalist profits be only minimally taxed, the government provide generous financial support and tax breaks for capitalist ventures, public services be privatized, and restrictions on transfer of capitalist profits abroad be minimal. As a result, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for any Ukrainian government to raise funds for basic institutions people need to live a quality life.” “However,” Vogt-Downey continued, “Yanukovych could not say such things. It is not just that he is not a man of integrity. The problem is that during his time in power, he—like all the Ukrainian rulers since Ukraine became independent with the collapse of the USSR in 1992—had already been pursuing measures similar to those the IMF would impose. These include measures such as privatizing public resources, cutting public spending, cutting subsidies for major industries—leading to stagnation, non-payment of wages, and benefit cuts—and imposing market mechanisms.” And while the standard of living has fallen for the majority of the population, “politicians and their cronies have managed to considerably enrich themselves and acquire vast fortunes from resources that should belong to the Ukrainian working people.” Russian troops enter Crimea Despite the onerous conditions that it imposed, Yanukovych’s deal with the EU was initially approved by the parliament but quickly unraveled when the fascist-led and undoubtedly U.S.-instigated protests caused Yanukovych to flee, in his own words, for his life. In a matter of hours, Ukraine’s rump parliament changed course, adopted some 21 of the most reactionary and chauvinist laws imaginable, and effectively agreed to the terms imposed by the Western powers. The super-nationalist regime now in power even eliminated the Russian language as one of the country’s official languages, disregarding the fact that half of all Ukrainians speak Russian as their primary language. Putin’s response was to send Russian soldiers to the Crimea, a semi-autonomous region of Ukraine where Russia maintains its Black Sea fleet via a lease that expires in 2045. The corporate media initially sounded the alarm, along with the new Ukrainian regime’s proclaiming that Russia has issued a “declaration of war.” But the real war in Ukraine is over. U.S. imperialism and its subservient EU allies have won, at least for the time being—that is, until the Ukrainian working masses absorb the lessons of imperialist exploitation and organize independently of their capitalist oppressors everywhere, in the West and in the East. Indeed, the terribly poor Ukrainian people have already tasted the effects of Western “aid.” Eighty percent of all Foreign Direct Investment in that country has been from the West, with little or no tangible results for the Ukrainian people and billions in profits, as always, for the corporate investors and financial speculators. Clearly, Putin is alarmed at the prospect of having a slavishly pro-EU and American regime established on Russia’s border. The Western powers are salivating at the possibility of establishing oil-drilling rights on Russia’s Arctic frontier, and perhaps eventually in Russia itself. But his momentary display of “power” by sending in some 16,000 soldiers to the Crimea, according to the new Ukrainian regime, is his version of imperial stagecraft, more akin to his Olympic victory than a military threat to Ukraine. Not a single shot has been fired to date. Putin is fully capable of compromising with Western imperialism in a deal that would require him to withdraw the troops in the not too distant future. Indeed, as of March 4, Putin was already in negotiations with Secretary of State John Kerry. In truth, the future of the people of the Crimea will be determined by their own independent and revolutionary mobilization as opposed to reliance on any capitalist power, West or East. Putin had no problem voting for the UN’s “humanitarian” resolution that paved the way for the NATO/U.S. devastation of Libya and its subsequent sequestration of Libyan oil. We hear no Russian objections to the recent U.S. declaration to send an army of 5000 U.S. troops to Libya, with that nation now reduced to warring and out-of-control fundamentalist militias. After a few rhetorical threats, the Obama administration made clear that it had no intention of going to war with Russia—a largely defanged and pathetic world power, although one with a nuclear arsenal. The worst that the Obama administration could threaten were possible economic sanctions or staging a boycott of the upcoming G-8 conference in Sochi. Legacy of Great Russian chauvinism Whatever threat Russia poses to the people of the Ukraine reflects its legacy of plunder and repression, beginning with the pre-1917 Tsarist era. This was interrupted with magnificent results immediately following the 1917 Russian Revolution, which guaranteed not only the right of self-determination to all of Russia’s former colonies but the right to independence and succession. The leadership of Lenin and Trotsky during this historic period brought enlightenment, solidarity, and equality between the Russian and Ukrainian peoples. But this was abruptly ended with the coming to power of Stalin and his counter-revolutionary bureaucratic regime. Since that time, the Ukrainian people have once again been subjected to the brutal tyranny of Great Russian chauvinism, including after the break-up of the former USSR. The very same Stalinist core of largely Soviet-era bureaucrats-cum-oligarchs that dominated the Ukraine then still prevails today. They have continued the Stalinist policy of subjugating the Ukraine, today in the name of capitalism and aimed at the enrichment of the few at the expense of the many. This is central to understanding the receptivity to pro-Western propaganda of Ukrainians who have suffered greatly under both the grotesque caricature of socialism that Stalinism always represented and the present capitalism brought in by these same bureaucrats. The absence of a mass revolutionary socialist alternative in Ukraine, as well as in the Middle East and worldwide, weighs heavily on the world’s working masses, who have proved capable of rising up in the tens of millions time and again against the most powerful of tyrants and dictators, only to suffer setbacks and defeats because an authoritative, deeply rooted, and revolutionary mass party of all the oppressed and exploited has yet to be constructed. This is the critical task for revolutionary-minded activists everywhere. Vogt-Downey pointed out in CounterPunch that “what is unfolding right now in Ukraine is not a revolution but imperialist consolidation of the capitalist counterrevolution by imperialist finance capital and the army of international capitalist investors who seek unfettered opportunities to milk every ounce of profit they can from the Ukrainian working class and the resources in their territory.” For the moment, U.S. imperialism, the central player in a crisis-ridden world economy in decay, has undoubtedly scored a significant victory in the Ukraine, again at the expense of the working masses. Opposition to U.S. imperialism in all its manifestations must be a top priority of any successful antiwar movement. Ukraine demonstrates in bold relief that oppression and exploitation can be achieved in more ways than overt military intervention. Privatized death squads and drone warfare around the globe, surveillance of the world’s people and the corporate media’s manufacture—Orwellian style—of a pseudo-democracy in America that masks mass murder, racism, and plunder everywhere are also in today’s imperialist arsenal. The imperial beast takes many forms, all aimed at advancing, by any means necessary, the interests of the ruling-class minority. Edited January 14, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) March 10, 2014 The EU-IMF Economic Agenda for Ukraine US Imperialism and the Ukraine Coup by JEFF MACKLER ============================ The recent Ukrainian Maidan (Independence Square) mobilizations are a grotesque caricature of the mass protests of workers and youth in Egypt that led to the demise of the U.S.-backed dictator, Hosni Mubarak. At the recent Kiev “mass mobilizations” of 250,000 that drove Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych out of the country to seek refuge in Russia, the best organized forces were those of the fascist, anti-Semitic, hyper-nationalist groupings—most prominently, the Svoboda (“Freedom”) Party, which traces its roots to the pro-Nazi Social-National Party of World War II. These armed, club-wielding, and often Molotov-cocktail bomb-throwing beasts had been let loose by the rump Fatherland Party “opposition” Ukrainian parliamentary oligarchs. And this was accomplished with the complicity, if not overt support, of U.S. officials, who likely seized on the charge (now highly suspect) that Yanukovych had employed snipers to attack and murder 89 demonstrators and wound 100 others on Feb. 20 as the perfect moment to shift the debate over a European Union vs. Russian “trade agreement” toward a violent mobilization for Yanukovych’s removal. A now confirmed taped phone call between the Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet and European Union Foreign Affairs Minister Catherine Ashton, originally reported by a Russian press agency and then in the British Guardian and other newspapers, reveals Paet’s view that forces among the Maidan protesters had orchestrated the deadly sniper fire on Feb. 20. Paet stated in the taped conversation that “the same snipers [were] killing people from both sides. … There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition.” The call took place after the Estonian foreign minister had visited Kiev on Feb. 25, at the height of the Maidan protests. The Estonian government later denied that Paet “was giving an assessment of the opposition’s involvement in the violence.” There is little doubt, however, that U.S. officials have applied pressure on the Estonians to “reinterpret” the tape. While the full truth may never be revealed, it is unquestionable that U.S. imperialism has never rejected using manufactured “smoking guns” to achieve reactionary ends. Need we refer to Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction” and the Vietnam-era “Tonkin Bay incident,” both of which were consciously manufactured by the U.S. government to justify the mass murder of the people of Iraq and Vietnam—in the latter case 4 million Vietnamese? Even today, reports by independent investigators question U.S. intelligence allegations that Syrian government missiles carrying deadly sarin gas killed hundreds of civilians.* This rump Ukrainian government, convened without the presence of Yanukovych or his Party of the Regions, cleared the streets of the official police and military in order to give free rein to the extreme right. The tiny handful of revolutionary socialists who were present, intent on trying to present a working-class and socialist alternative to Ukrainian and Russian capitalism to workers who had legitimate grievances against government corruption, violence, and the selling of Ukraine to the highest bidder, included a few Ukrainian members of the Fourth International. They and other socialists were run off the streets, their flyers torn to shreds. Evidence of the reactionary nature of the new Ukrainian regime appears in a March 5 on-line British Channel 4 news account: “The man facing down Putin’s aggression as secretary of the Ukrainian National Security and Defence Council is Andriy Parubiy. He oversees national security for the nation, having previously served as security commandant during the anti-government protests in Kiev.” Channel 4 identifies Parubiy as a member of Svoboda and a founder of its pro-Nazi predecessor, the Social National Party. Moreover, “overseeing the armed forces alongside Parubiy as the Deputy Secretary of National Security is Dmytro Yarosh, the leader of the Right Sector—a group of hardline nationalist streetfighters, who previously boasted they were ready for armed struggle to free Ukraine.” Other Svoboda leaders in the top echelons of the new government include Deputy Prime Minister Oleksandr Sych, Ecology Minister Andriy Mokhnyk, Agriculture Minister Ihor Shvaika, and acting Prosecutor General Oleh Makhnitsky. Top U.S. officials visit Kiev U.S. Republican Party firebrand and former presidential candidate John McCain had paid a previous visit to the Maidan, sharing the stage with Svoboda’s anti-Semitic leader Oleg Tyahnybok. McCain tried to rouse the crowd with cries of “democracy” and promises of “freedom and independence”—American style. But “democracy” was to be granted only after the looting government of oligarchs had approved the austerity terms that came with the European Union’s (EU) proposed “bailout” package, called the “Association Agreement.” U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Europe Victoria Nuland also participated in the protests—to pass out cookies, no less—in a well-orchestrated imperial stage-crafting effort to present the United States as a nation with the most benevolent and generous of intentions. She had previously boasted about U.S. funding of the “democratic opposition” to the tune of $5 billion over the past 10 years, not to mention the creation of some 40,000 NGOs to spread the “democracy” of U.S. imperialism. Nuland has since become famous for her off-the-cuff “xxxx the EU” statement, which has been circulated by bloggers around the world. A Russian surveillance team caught her red-handed in denouncing the European Union negotiating team for its deal with former President Yanukovych. Nuland’s Russian-acquired exchange with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt called for the U.S., rather than the EU, to determine who would compose the new Ukrainian government. Yanukovych’s agreement with EU top officials from Germany, France and Poland, his third reversal regarding who would plunder and subject his country to imperial control, had him appointing top opposition leaders to major government posts. Nuland disagreed with key appointments, indicating that “Yats” was to be the U.S. choice. Indeed, “Yats,” or Arseniy P. Yatsenyuk, is today’s Ukrainan Prime Minister. Nuland preferred figures who had shown themselves to be loyal to Western interests and to IMF-type austerity. If there is a “war” in Ukraine today, it is to determine which of the imperialist Western powers will have priority “rights” in absorbing this nation of 46 million people into its orbit to become yet another sub-colony of imperialism, along with the other nine nations that two decades ago constituted the former Soviet Union and today are largely incorporated in Europe’s capitalist economy and military alliance, NATO. With the U.S.-instigated coup, Russian capitalism has been effectively marginalized as a player in the Ukraine. Nuland’s apology for her poor choice of words was not accompanied by any apology for U.S. moves to dominate the future neoliberal exploitation of Ukraine, as opposed to handing over this right to longstanding U.S. competitors—not to mention to the wannabe imperialist Russian President Vladimir Putin and his billionaire oligarch regime. He and his predecessors gave birth to the Russian oligarchy some 20-plus years ago when the USSR’s wealth and resources were stolen, with U.S. complicity, by the tiny layer of former Stalinist bureaucrats who now preside over capitalist Russia, today a minor player in the world imperialist configuration. Assistant Secretary Nuland directed her ire not against Russia but rather Germany, France, and Poland—who brokered the deal as to the future composition of the Ukrainian government and the distribution of that nation’s industrial strength and rich and fertile agricultural resources. This was an unacceptable arrangement in the eyes of imperial America. The irrefutably recorded discussions between Nuland and Pyatt revealed their choice of United Nations “glue,” said Nuland, to cement any Ukraine deal. In that scenario, the U.S.-handpicked and subservient UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon would be called in to “negotiate” the nation’s future, rather than a more pro-EU assortment of capitalist plunderers. On March 4, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry visited Kiev in a further attempt to shoulder aside EU competitors in a deal. Kerry offered $1 billion in loan guarantees to the Ukrainian coup-makers and promised to send in a host of U.S. “technical experts” to help re-align the country’s national bank and finance ministry. In today’s game of re-dividing and re-colonizing the world, the Russians are bit players as compared to the U.S. imperialists and their not-too-happy lesser competitors in the EU, ever scrambling to maintain their perceived share of the booty extracted from their former colonies and new ones to be assimilated across Eastern Europe. At the level of military power, Russia’s less than a handful of bases outside its borders pales before the 1100 maintained by the U.S. around the world and another 1000 or so stationed in the U.S. Today’s Russian billionaires are puny compared to the multi-trillionaire U.S. bankers who looted the U.S. Treasury (the term was “government bailout”) to the tune of some $30 trillion. This was accomplished with the absolute complicity of the subservient Obama administration, which is little more than the governmental mask or façade of America’s real ruling class. In the United States, according to Oxfam International, the wealthiest one percent has captured 95 percent of post-financial-crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90 percent has become poorer. Yanukovych and his government’s original intention to resolve its virtual bankruptcy via the EU austerity plan momentarily gave way to Russian President Putin’s counter-offer of $15 billion in bail-out loans to the Ukrainian oligarchs—mostly former Stalinist bureaucrats themselves—which are peanuts in comparison to the $51 billion the Russians spent on the Sochi Olympic spectacle. The latter, aimed at glorifying Russia’s pretended emergence as a great power (it came in first in the medal total in Sochi!), was a trifle as compared to what U.S. and Western imperialism had to offer to buy Ukraine’s near bankrupt government and its workers and resources. The Russians’ subsequent offer to reduce the price of oil and gas by 55 percent to the heavily oil-dependent Ukraine was nearly instantly countered by EU pledges to substitute Polish coal and other fossil fuels. The coup regime has also agreed to a deal with Chevron Corporation for large-scale shale-gas fracking operations in western Ukraine. The Yanukovich government, before its ignominious demise, had previously signed production-sharing agreements with Shell and Chevron. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that Ukraine has Europe’s fourth largest shale-gas reserves. EU-IMF economic agenda for Ukraine The original EU offer to Ukraine (the one that Yanukovych temporarily rejected on Nov. 21) had certainly come with strings attached. These debilitating conditions were outlined by Marilyn Vogt-Downey, a revolutionary socialist with a long career as an analyst of Ukrainian and Russian politics, in a Feb. 27 CounterPunch article entitled, “An Imperialist Invasion Without an Imperialist Army: Whither Ukraine?” Her assessment rings with a truth that has rarely entered the discussion. Vogt-Downey suggested that Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych might have “easily calmed the rebellion in Independence Square in Ukraine’s capital Kiev early on if he had simply told the crowds the truth about what the Association Agreement with the European Union would mean to their lives and futures.” She pointed out that the “Free Trade section alone—removing tariff barriers and export duties—would convert Ukraine into one big “free trade zone,” where the anti-environment, anti-labor, and pro-business laws would prevail. … It would create the economic devastation of the type that NAFTA has created in Mexico. Vogt-Downey said that Yanukovych might then have “gone on to outline what the pending IMF ‘financial aid package’ would do to further worsen their lives. ” She cited the Feb. 23 New York Times report on Yanukovych’s flight, which summarized what the “EU option” would mean. “The economy will remain the greatest problem facing the country,” The Times reported, and then went on: “The International Monetary Fund remains a potential source of financing to replace the $15 billion that Russia had made available before the protests. But that comes with an insistence on austerity and economic changes that will inflict considerable pain.” Marilyn Vogt-Downey continued: “Considerable pain, indeed!! The IMF loans will require in Ukraine, as they do everywhere, that the government undertake broad-scale privatization of resources and basic public services, cut government spending on education, health care, pensions, housing, and benefits for the needy, as well as laws that hinder the accumulation and free movement of capitalist profits. And that’s just for starters. All this will further lower the wages and standard of living of the mass of the population of Ukraine, which are already lower than the European average.” Vogt-Downey pointed out that Ukrainian acceptance of the Association Agreement with the EU and the IMF aid package would remove any semblance of independence for the country. She listed the following points to back up her thesis: “1. It stipulates that Ukraine cannot accept any financial support from Russia. “2. It would make impossible any Ukrainian economic planning that did not follow the guidelines established by the IMF and other imperialist lending agencies. “3. Because of the nature of the IMF-imposed economic agenda, Ukraine would find it very difficult to ever escape the debt cycle. The IMF mandates, for example that capitalist profits be only minimally taxed, the government provide generous financial support and tax breaks for capitalist ventures, public services be privatized, and restrictions on transfer of capitalist profits abroad be minimal. As a result, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for any Ukrainian government to raise funds for basic institutions people need to live a quality life.” “However,” Vogt-Downey continued, “Yanukovych could not say such things. It is not just that he is not a man of integrity. The problem is that during his time in power, he—like all the Ukrainian rulers since Ukraine became independent with the collapse of the USSR in 1992—had already been pursuing measures similar to those the IMF would impose. These include measures such as privatizing public resources, cutting public spending, cutting subsidies for major industries—leading to stagnation, non-payment of wages, and benefit cuts—and imposing market mechanisms.” And while the standard of living has fallen for the majority of the population, “politicians and their cronies have managed to considerably enrich themselves and acquire vast fortunes from resources that should belong to the Ukrainian working people.” Russian troops enter Crimea Despite the onerous conditions that it imposed, Yanukovych’s deal with the EU was initially approved by the parliament but quickly unraveled when the fascist-led and undoubtedly U.S.-instigated protests caused Yanukovych to flee, in his own words, for his life. In a matter of hours, Ukraine’s rump parliament changed course, adopted some 21 of the most reactionary and chauvinist laws imaginable, and effectively agreed to the terms imposed by the Western powers. The super-nationalist regime now in power even eliminated the Russian language as one of the country’s official languages, disregarding the fact that half of all Ukrainians speak Russian as their primary language. Putin’s response was to send Russian soldiers to the Crimea, a semi-autonomous region of Ukraine where Russia maintains its Black Sea fleet via a lease that expires in 2045. The corporate media initially sounded the alarm, along with the new Ukrainian regime’s proclaiming that Russia has issued a “declaration of war.” But the real war in Ukraine is over. U.S. imperialism and its subservient EU allies have won, at least for the time being—that is, until the Ukrainian working masses absorb the lessons of imperialist exploitation and organize independently of their capitalist oppressors everywhere, in the West and in the East. Indeed, the terribly poor Ukrainian people have already tasted the effects of Western “aid.” Eighty percent of all Foreign Direct Investment in that country has been from the West, with little or no tangible results for the Ukrainian people and billions in profits, as always, for the corporate investors and financial speculators. Clearly, Putin is alarmed at the prospect of having a slavishly pro-EU and American regime established on Russia’s border. The Western powers are salivating at the possibility of establishing oil-drilling rights on Russia’s Arctic frontier, and perhaps eventually in Russia itself. But his momentary display of “power” by sending in some 16,000 soldiers to the Crimea, according to the new Ukrainian regime, is his version of imperial stagecraft, more akin to his Olympic victory than a military threat to Ukraine. Not a single shot has been fired to date. Putin is fully capable of compromising with Western imperialism in a deal that would require him to withdraw the troops in the not too distant future. Indeed, as of March 4, Putin was already in negotiations with Secretary of State John Kerry. In truth, the future of the people of the Crimea will be determined by their own independent and revolutionary mobilization as opposed to reliance on any capitalist power, West or East. Putin had no problem voting for the UN’s “humanitarian” resolution that paved the way for the NATO/U.S. devastation of Libya and its subsequent sequestration of Libyan oil. We hear no Russian objections to the recent U.S. declaration to send an army of 5000 U.S. troops to Libya, with that nation now reduced to warring and out-of-control fundamentalist militias. After a few rhetorical threats, the Obama administration made clear that it had no intention of going to war with Russia—a largely defanged and pathetic world power, although one with a nuclear arsenal. The worst that the Obama administration could threaten were possible economic sanctions or staging a boycott of the upcoming G-8 conference in Sochi. Legacy of Great Russian chauvinism Whatever threat Russia poses to the people of the Ukraine reflects its legacy of plunder and repression, beginning with the pre-1917 Tsarist era. This was interrupted with magnificent results immediately following the 1917 Russian Revolution, which guaranteed not only the right of self-determination to all of Russia’s former colonies but the right to independence and succession. The leadership of Lenin and Trotsky during this historic period brought enlightenment, solidarity, and equality between the Russian and Ukrainian peoples. But this was abruptly ended with the coming to power of Stalin and his counter-revolutionary bureaucratic regime. Since that time, the Ukrainian people have once again been subjected to the brutal tyranny of Great Russian chauvinism, including after the break-up of the former USSR. The very same Stalinist core of largely Soviet-era bureaucrats-cum-oligarchs that dominated the Ukraine then still prevails today. They have continued the Stalinist policy of subjugating the Ukraine, today in the name of capitalism and aimed at the enrichment of the few at the expense of the many. This is central to understanding the receptivity to pro-Western propaganda of Ukrainians who have suffered greatly under both the grotesque caricature of socialism that Stalinism always represented and the present capitalism brought in by these same bureaucrats. The absence of a mass revolutionary socialist alternative in Ukraine, as well as in the Middle East and worldwide, weighs heavily on the world’s working masses, who have proved capable of rising up in the tens of millions time and again against the most powerful of tyrants and dictators, only to suffer setbacks and defeats because an authoritative, deeply rooted, and revolutionary mass party of all the oppressed and exploited has yet to be constructed. This is the critical task for revolutionary-minded activists everywhere. Vogt-Downey pointed out in CounterPunch that “what is unfolding right now in Ukraine is not a revolution but imperialist consolidation of the capitalist counterrevolution by imperialist finance capital and the army of international capitalist investors who seek unfettered opportunities to milk every ounce of profit they can from the Ukrainian working class and the resources in their territory.” For the moment, U.S. imperialism, the central player in a crisis-ridden world economy in decay, has undoubtedly scored a significant victory in the Ukraine, again at the expense of the working masses. Opposition to U.S. imperialism in all its manifestations must be a top priority of any successful antiwar movement. Ukraine demonstrates in bold relief that oppression and exploitation can be achieved in more ways than overt military intervention. Privatized death squads and drone warfare around the globe, surveillance of the world’s people and the corporate media’s manufacture—Orwellian style—of a pseudo-democracy in America that masks mass murder, racism, and plunder everywhere are also in today’s imperialist arsenal. The imperial beast takes many forms, all aimed at advancing, by any means necessary, the interests of the ruling-class minority. Jeff Mackler? The 2006 write-in senatorial candidate for the (Trotskyist) Socialist Action Party? Now there's an objective, unbiased opinion for you -- Jeff Mackler. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Action_(United_States) LOL --Tommy Edited January 14, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Kathy Beckett I agree with your intention to move this topic, it does not belong in the JFK assassination section. I don't know if there is any more that can or will be posted concerning "Charlie", false flags or drills, but I would ask you to leave the thread here until all is said, these issues are pertinent to our future and are more important than any thing else we could possibly be discussing. As long as there is interest and activity I would ask that you leave this thread here so that readers of this thread might benefit from the knowledge being posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) Jeff Mackler? The 2006 write-in senatorial candidate for the (Trotskyist) Socialist Action Party? Now there's an objective, unbiased opinion for you -- Jeff Mackler. // GRAVES ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ LOL ?? Knows more geopolitcs than you ,right ?? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ March 05, 2014 Footprints of the US State Department Chronology of the Ukrainian Coup = by RENEE PARSONS = Listening to the US media, even the most diligent news junkie would find it difficult to know that the U.S. State Department played not only a vital role in the violence and chaos underway in Ukraine but was also complicit in creating the coup that ousted democratically elected President Viktor Yanuyovch. Given the Russian Parliament’s approval of Putin’s request for military troops to be moved into Crimea, Americans uninformed about the history of that region might also be persuaded that Russia is the aggressor and the sole perpetrator of the violence. Let’s be clear about what is at stake here: NATO missiles on the adjacent Ukraine border aimed directly at Russia would make that country extremely vulnerable to Western goals and destabilization efforts while threatening Russia’s only water access to its naval fleet in Crimean peninsula, the Balkans, the Mediterranean Sea and the Middle East – and not the least of which would allow world economic dominance by the US, the European Union, the IMF, World Bank and international financiers all of whom had already brought staggering suffering to millions around the globe. The fact is that democracy was not a demand on the streets of Kiev. The current record of events indicates that protests of civil dissatisfaction were organized by reactionary neo-Nazi forces intent on fomenting a major domestic crisis ousting Ukraine’s legitimate government. As events continue to spiral out of control, here is the chronology of how the coup was engineered to install a government more favorable to EU and US goals. April 11, 2011 – A Kiev Post article entitled “Ukraine Hopes to Get $1.5 Billion from IMF in June” states that the loan is dependent on pension cuts while “maintaining cooperation with the IMF, since it influences the country’s interaction with other international financial institutions and private investors” and further that the “attraction of $850 million from the World Bank in 2011, depended on cooperation with the IMF.” Well, that about says it all – if Ukraine played ball. then the loan money would pour in. November 21, 2013 – fast forward to the EU summit in Lithuania when President Yanuyovch embarrassed the European Union by rejecting its Agreement in favor of joining Russia’s Common Union with other Commonwealth Independent States. November 27, 2013 – it was not until February 23, 2014 when Anonymous Ukraine hackers released a series of emails from a Lithuanian government advisor to opposition leader and former boxer Vitaly Klitschko regarding plans to destabilize Ukraine; for example: “Our American friends promise to pay a visit in the coming days, we may even see Nuland or someone from the Congress.” 12/7/2013 “Your colleague has arrived ….his services may be required even after the country is destabilized.” 12/14/2013 “I think we’ve paved the way for more radical escalation of the situation. Isn’t it time to proceed with more decisive action?” 1/9/2014 November 29, 2013 – well-orchestrated protestors were already in the streets of Kiev as European Commission President Jose Manual Barroso announced that the EU would “not accept Russia’s veto” of the Agreement. December 13, 2013 – As if intent on providing incontrovertible evidence of US involvement in Ukraine, Assistant US Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia Victoria Nuland proudly told a meeting of the International Business Conference sponsored by the US-Ukrainian Foundation that the US had ‘invested’ more than $5 billion and ‘five years worth of work and preparation” in achieving what she called Ukraine’s ‘European aspirations.” Having just returned from her third trip to Ukraine in five weeks, Nuland boasted of her ‘coordinated high level diplomacy’ and a more than two hour ‘tough conversation’ with Yanukovych. Already familiar with Nuland as former Secretary Clinton’s spokesperson at State, one can imagine her discourteous tone and manner when she says she made it “absolutely clear” to Yanukovych that the US required “immediate steps” …to “get back into conversation with Europe and the IMF.” While Western media have portrayed Yanukovych as a ‘weak’ leader, Nuland’s description of a ‘tough’ meeting can only mean that he resisted her threats and intimidations. In what must have been a touching moment, Nuland spoke about a show of force by government police on demonstrators who “sang hymns and prayed for peace.” What Nuland did not reveal on December 13 was that her meetings with ‘key Ukrainian stakeholders’ included neo-Nazi Svoboda party leader Oleh Tyahnybok and prime minister wannabe Arsenly Yatsenyuk of the Fatherland Party. At about the same time Nuland was wooing fascist extremists, Sen. John McCain (R-Az) and Sen. Chris Murphy (D- Conn) shared the stage in Kiev with Tyahnybok offering their support and opposition to the sitting government. The Svoboda party which has roots with extreme vigilante and anti-semitic groups has since received at least three high level cabinet posts in the interim government including deputy prime minister. There is no doubt that the progenies of west Ukraine’s historic neo-fascist thugs that fought with Hitler are now aligned with the US as represented by Victoria Nuland. January 24, 2014 – President Yanukoyvch identified foreign elements participating in Kiev protests warning that armed radicals were a danger to peaceful citizens. Independent news agencies also reported that “not all of Kiev’s population backs opposition rule, which depends mainly on a group from the former Polish town of Lvov, which holds sway over Kiev downtown – but not the rest of the city.” January 30, 2014 – The State Department’s website Media Note announced Nuland’s upcoming travel plans that ”In Kyiv, Assistant Secretary Nuland will meet with government officials, opposition leaders, civil society and business leaders to encourage agreement on a new government and plan of action.” In other words, almost a month before President Yanukovych was ousted, the US was planning to rid the world of another independently elected President. February 4, 2014 – More evidence of Ms. Nuland’s meddling with extremist factions and the high level stakes of war and peace occurred in her taped conversation with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt discussing their calculations of who’s in and who’s out to replace Yanukovych. Note mention of Nazi leader Oleh Tyahnybok. Here are some selected excerpts: Nuland: “What do you think?” Pyatt: “I think we’re in play… the [Vitali] Klitsch piece is obviously the complicated electron here especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister. Your argument to him which you’ll need to make, I think the next phone call we want to set up is exactly the one you made to Yats [Yatsenyuk]. And I’m glad you sort of put him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario and I’m very glad he said what he said in response.” Nuland: “I don’t think Klitsch should go into government. I don’t think its necessary. I don’t think it’s a good idea.” Pyatt: “yeah…I mean I guess. You think…what…in terms of him not going into the government, just let him sort of stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I’m just thinking in terms of the process moving ahead, we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok and his guys. I’m sure that’s what Yanukoyvch is calculating on all this.” Nuland: “I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. What he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside and he needs to be talking to them four times a week you know…I think with Klitsch going in at that level working for Yats, it’s not going to work.” Nuland: “My understanding is that the big three [Yatsenyuk, Klitsch and Tyahnybok] were going in to their own meeting and that Yats was going to offer in that context a three plus one conversation with you.” Pyatt: “ That’s what he proposed but knowing the dynamic that’s been with them where Klitsch has been top dog; he’s going to take a while to show up at a meeting, he’s probably talking to his guys at this point so I think you reaching out to him will help with the personality management among the three and gives us a chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it before they all sit down and he explains why he doesn’t like it.” Nuland: … “when I talked to Jeff Feltman this morning, he had a new name for the UN guy …Robert Serry – he’s now gotten both Serry and Ban ki Moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday… so that would be great I think to help glue this thing and have the UN help glue it and you know xxxx the EU.” Pyatt: “Exactly. I think we’ve got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure the Russians will be working behind the scenes. ….Let me work on Klitchko and I think we want to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help midwife this thing.” Nuland: ”…Sullivan’s come back to me saying you need Biden and I said probably tomorrow for an” ‘atta’ boy’ and get the deeds to stick so Biden’s willing.” February 20, 2014 – Foreign ministers from Poland, Germany and France visiting Kiev secured President Yanukovych’s agreement that would commit the government to an interim administration, constitutional reform and new parliamentary and presidential elections. With “no clear sign that EU or US pressure has achieved” the desired effect, opposition leaders rejected Yanukovych’s compromise which would have ended the three month stand-off. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called on the German, French and Polish foreign ministers to step in and take responsibility for upholding the deal they helped forge and not let “armed extremists” directly threaten Ukrainian sovereignty. February 21, 2014 – At a special summit in Brussels, European foreign ministers agreed to adopt sanctions on Ukraine including visa bans and asset freezes. The EU decision followed “immense pressure from the US for the European powers to take punitive action against the Ukrainian regime.” Washington had already imposed travel bans on 20 leading Ukrainians. February 22, 2014 – An hour after refusing to resign, the Ukrainian Parliament voted, according to Russian president Vladimir Putin, in an unconstitutional action to oust President Yanukovych and that pro-EU forces staged a ‘coup’. Yanukovych departed Kiev in fear for his life. March 1, 2014 – During a conversation initiated by the vice president, Biden delivered his ‘atta boy’ with a phone call to newly installed prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk reaffirming US support for Ukraine’s ‘territorial integrity.” All of the above machinations expose an incoherent and corrupt American foreign policy with a litany of US hypocrisy that might be hilarious if not for potentially grave global implications. The comment “you just don’t behave by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext” might just win Secretary of State John Kerry the Hypocrisy of the Year Award. Kerry, of course, famously supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq seeking weapons of mass destruction. But then again, the President’s own comments that “..countries have deep concerns and suspicions about this kind of meddling..” and that “…as long as none of us are inside Ukraine trying to meddle and intervene.. with decisions that properly belong to Ukrainian people…” while announcing $1 billion aid package to Ukraine (but not Detroit) would be a close runner-up for the Award. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Renee Parsons was a staffer in the U.S. House of Representatives and a lobbyist on nuclear energy issues with Friends of the Earth. in 2005, she was elected to the Durango City Council and served as Councilor and Mayor. Currently, she is a member of the Treasure Coast ACLU Board. ################################# ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo = The United States plotted the coup which took place in Ukraine in February 2014 in response to Russia’s policy in Syria, says George Friedman, the founder and CEO of Stratfor, known as “Shadow CIA”. The United States is behind the February coup in Kiev, which came in response to Russia’s stance on Syria, said George Friedman, the founder and CEO of Stratfor, a global intelligence company. Russia has repeatedly said that the coup in Kiev was organized by the US, Friedman told Kommersant newspaper. Indeed, it was the most overt coup in history, the political analyst stressed. The United States decided to act following Russia’s successes in the Middle East, a key region for the US. Americans saw that Russians could influence what was happening in the Middle East, Friedman said. Russians are one of the many challenges in the region that the US faces, he stated. The US thought Russia’s activities were an attempt to harm Washington, the political analyst told the newspaper, adding that events in Ukraine should be viewed in this context. Russians seem to have underestimated how seriously the US would react to Moscow’s activities in the region and that they would easily respond, Friedman said. The US understood that the thing Russia wants the least is instability in Ukraine, he added. The head of Stratfor, also known as “The Shadow CIA,” insisted that Russia’s involvement in Syria was not the only reason for the Ukrainian crisis. However, many in Washington started to perceive Russia as a problem, the expert told the newspaper, adding that at that time the US decided to divert Russia’s attention away from the Middle East. Syria has been in a civil war since March 2011. Over 100,000 people have died as a result of the armed conflict. Russia repeatedly stated that the election of Syria’s president Bashar Assad was legitimate, and that the people of Syria should control their future. From the beginning of the war the US supported the opposition and stated that the conflict would not be over with Assad in power. Edited January 14, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) New info confirms CIA was behind Paris attackPosted by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich on January 14, 2015 The new information has almost confirmed that Paris attack was a false flag operation carried out by the CIA. Masked gunman run towards a victim of their gunfire outside the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo’s office, in Paris, January 7, 2015. Soraya Sepahpour Ulrich = Listen to the full interview here: PRESS TV = The new information has almost confirmed that Paris attack was a false flag operation carried out by the CIA. According to The Associated Press, one of the men responsible for last week’s terrorist attack that killed 12 people in the French capital claimed to have lived with the Nigerian man behind the failed al-Qaeda “underwear bomb” plot five years ago, Yemeni Journalist and researcher Mohammed al-Kibsi who met Said Kouachi, the alleged Paris attacker, said on Monday. In a phone interview with Press TV on Tuesday, Ulrich said, “The whole Paris incident has been a puzzle for many… and one has to find connections to find what really is going on.” “We have been told by the mainstream media, the Western media, that a Yemeni reporter has claimed that he had interviewed Kouachi who was responsible for the Paris attack, or one of those who were responsible,” she said. “And he had ties with ‘the underwear bomber’, ‘the underwear bomber’ who was held responsible for wanting to blow up an airliner at Christmas in 2009,” Ulrich added. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was convicted of attempting to detonate plastic explosives hidden in his underwear while on board Northwest Airlines Flight 253, en route from Amsterdam to Detroit, Michigan. “Well, it so happens that the mainstream media here is so busy turning up this information that they turned to forget the very information they gave us in the first place. For example, in 2012, we were told that ‘the underwear bomber’ was in fact working with the CIA intelligence and with the Saudis,” she pointed out. Underwear bomber’ involved in a plot to attack jet was in fact working as an undercover informer with the CIA. Photograph: Yahya Arhab/EPA US and Yemeni officials told The Associated Press in May 2012 that the so-called underwear bomber was in fact working under cover for Saudi intelligence and the CIA when he was given a new non-metallic type bomb aimed at getting past airport security. Ulrich said it iss important to mention that the so-called underwear bomber slipped past the security “when Israeli intelligence was in charge of the Amsterdam airport — [its] security.” She added that intelligence officials failed to scrutinize the bomb and helped the bomber get on the plane, which “indicates to me that they all were aware of this individual’s job.” “Six or seven months ago, the UK airport security supposedly received a warning from the US intelligence… that al-Qaeda terrorists were going to attack airports and airliners using a new generation of non-metallic bombs developed by them in Syria and Yemen,” Ulrich said. “What is really very alarming for me is all this information, or misinformation we are getting,” she stated. “We have to understand who gain from” all this. A spate of violent incidents, including the attack at the Paris office of controversial magazine Charlie Hebdo, left at least 17 people dead last week in the French capital. Two days after the Charlie Hebdo attack, Said and Cherif Kouachi, suspects, were killed after being cornered at a printing workshop in the French town of Dammartin-en-Goele. “So at the end of the day, we have to understand who is gaining by all these alleged attacks,” Ulrich emphasized. People are not being told the truth; they are “told a bunch of lies that are supposedly not connected and somehow when they do get connected we trace it back to the intelligence services, like the CIA.” “So we have to be very alert, and do not forget what we read yesterday in order to absorb what we are reading today and connect the dots ourselves,” she warned. “I mean many have had doubts about the veracity of the incident in Paris. Many had thought it to be a false flag operation. And now with this new information they are feeding us and tying [it] to the underwear bomber who worked for the CIA, it has virtually established the fact that it was indeed a false flag operation,” Ulrich concluded. ################################## ################################## World news THEGAURDIAN 'Underwear bomber' was working for the CIA Bomber involved in plot to attack US-bound jet was working as an informer with Saudi intelligence and the CIA, it has emerged 'Underwear bomber' involved in a plot to attack jet was in fact working as an undercover informer with the CIA, it has emerged. Photograph: Yahya Arhab/EPA Paul Harris and Ed Pilkington in New York Tuesday 8 May 2012 20.05 EDT = A would-be "underwear bomber" involved in a plot to attack a US-based jet was in fact working as an undercover informer with Saudi intelligence and the CIA, it has emerged. The revelation is the latest twist in an increasingly bizarre story about the disruption of an apparent attempt by al-Qaida to strike at a high-profile American target using a sophisticated device hidden in the clothing of an attacker. The plot, which the White House said on Monday had involved the seizing of an underwear bomb by authorities in the Middle East sometime in the last 10 days, had caused alarm throughout the US. It has also been linked to a suspected US drone strike in Yemen where two Yemeni members of al-Qaida were killed by a missile attack on their car on Sunday, one of them a senior militant, Fahd Mohammed Ahmed al-Quso. But the news that the individual at the heart of the bomb plot was in fact an informer for US intelligence is likely to raise just as many questions as it answers. Citing US and Yemeni officials, Associated Press reported that the unnamed informant was working under cover for the Saudis and the CIA when he was given the bomb, which was of a new non-metallic type aimed at getting past airport security. The informant then turned the device over to his handlers and has left Yemen, the officials told the news agency. The LA Times, which first broke the news that the plot had been a "sting operation", said that the bomb plan had also provided the intelligence leads that allowed the strike on Quso. Earlier John Brennan, Barack Obama's top counter-terrorism adviser and a former CIA official, told ABC's Good Morning America that authorities are "confident that neither the device nor the intended user of this device pose a threat to us". US officials have said the plot was detected in its early stages and that no American airliner was ever at risk. The FBI is conducting forensic tests on the bomb as a first step towards discovering whether it would have cleared existing airport scanning systems. Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic senator for California who heads the Senate intelligence committee, gave an early hint when she said that she had been briefed about the device which she called "undetectable". But AP quoted an unnamed US official as saying current detection methods probably would have spotted the shape of the explosive in the latest device. Just how major an escalation in threat is posed by the bomb remains unclear. Security sources have told news agencies that it was a step up in levels of sophistication from the original underwear bomb that was used in a failed attempt to blow up an airliner over Detroit on Christmas Day in 2009. The device used a more refined detonation system, and Brennan said "it was a threat from a standpoint of the design". When it comes to who made the device the focus is on an al-Qaida's offshoot, Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Matthew Levitt, a counter-terrorism expert at the Washington Institute, said that the interception of the plot amounted to a significant achievement for US security agencies. He said: "The FBI is holding the device, which suggests that this was done by having boots on the ground. This was a sophisticated operation that shows we are making in-roads in serious places." Levitt, who was involved as a senior analyst in the FBI's investigation into 9/11, said that it was natural to be sceptical in a presidential election year about security announcements. "But this was not political, it didn't come from the White House and my sense was that it was a really unique success," he said. Levitt said that the spotlight would now be even more intense on Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri, AQAP's assumed bomb-making chief, who is thought to be hiding out in Yemen. Asiri is believed to have been the creator of the Detroit underwear bomb as well as explosives that were packed into printer cartridges bound for Chicago in 2010. ##################################### RELATED FBI terrorists among us: the 1993 WTC Bombing (CLINK LINK) ==== takes place and the FBI investigates it, things are never what they seem. Federal attorney Andrew C McCarthy prosecuted the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing case. A review of his book, Willful Blindness, states: “For the first time, McCarthy intimately reveals the real story behind the FBI’s inability to stop the first World Trade Center bombing even though the bureau had an undercover informant in the operation — the jihadists’ supposed bombmaker. “In the first sentence of his hard-hitting account, the author sums up the lawyerly — but staggeringly incomprehensive — reason why the FBI pulled its informant out of the terrorist group even as plans were coming to a head on a major attack: ********************************************************************** @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ See also The FBI Allowed the 1993 WTC Bombing to Happen (CLICK LINK) Federal attorney Andrew C McCarthy who prosecuted the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing case states :staggeringly incomprehensive — reason why the FBI pulled its informant out of the terrorist group even as plans were coming to a head on a major attack: (UNLESS U WANTED IT TO HAPPEN,GAAL) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ even as plans were coming to a head on a major attack the FBI pulled its informant out of the terrorist group // Federal attorney Andrew C McCarthy who prosecuted the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing case states (UNLESS U WANTED IT TO HAPPEN,GAAL) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ even as plans were coming to a head on a major attack the FBI pulled its informant out of the terrorist group // Federal attorney Andrew C McCarthy who prosecuted the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing case states (UNLESS U WANTED IT TO HAPPEN,GAAL) WANTED IT TO HAPPEN ..... Sacrebleu !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Edited January 14, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I don't buy the Boston Marathon bombing as a false flag. I do however entertain the possibility that the Boston event was orchestrated by one agency of the National Security State to put other agencies on the spot. I'm not married to this scenario. It's light flirtation. I'm going steady with the notion that Edward Snowden is a CIA cat's paw knocking hard on the NSA/DEA -- the most dramatic example of National Security State internecine warfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Calls for an EU Superstate Intelligence Agency Follow Hebdo Attack… As Planned(CLICK LINK) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ “Boots On The Ground”? Obama To Seek Authorization For Military Force Against ISIS (CLICK LINK)Having unveiled his non-boots-on-the-ground strategy in September, President Obama’s “promise” was quickly proved fragile when General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, indicated to the House of Representatives armed services committee that the strength of ISIS relative to the Iraqi army may be such that he would recommend abandoning Obama’s oft-repeated pledge against returning US ground troops to combat in Iraq. It seems another promise is about to be broken as Bloomberg reports Senator John Cornyn said President Obama told congressional leaders during meeting today at White House he would seek authorization for military force on Islamic State. Boehner’s office, in separate statement after meeting, said Republicans would work with him to build support. ))))))))))))))))))))))))))) EU ministers push ISPs to censor web after Paris attacks (click link)======================================= France to deploy aircraft carrier to fight ISIS—report (CLICK LINK)The French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle and its fleet will be deployed to the Gulf to support operations against the Islamic State group, a military news site reported on Tuesday. (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( La guerre, c'est l'enfer (war is hell) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted January 15, 2015 Author Share Posted January 15, 2015 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-13/turkish-presidents-stunning-outburst-french-are-behind-charlie-hebdo-massacre-mossad Turkish and Russian viewpoints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now