Sayyed Nasrallah Praises the Excellent Relation with Aoun: Aleppo’s New Victory To Impact All Region

Zeinab Essa

Hizbullah Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah delivered on Friday a televised speech in which he tackled the latest Lebanese developments, particularly the formation of the government.

 

Sayyed Nasrallah Praises the Excellent Relation with Aoun: Aleppo’s New Victory To Impact All Region


At the beginning of speech, Sayyed Nasrallah congratulated the Muslims and Christians on the holy occasions coming in December.

His Eminence warned that the Muslims and Christians in the region are facing challenges on the cultural and existential level. “These threats start from Palestine, where “Israel” continues to target sanctities among which is preventing the Azan [praying calls],” he stated.

In parallel, the Resistance Leader repeated that US and some Western countries have assisted and funded the takfiris throughout the past few years, and this was declared by US President-elect Donald Trump and Joe Biden as well as being highlighted by Hillary Clinton’s emails.

On the same level, Sayyed Nasrallah hoped that the holy occasions will unite the people in the region in face of the takfiri threat

Commenting on the recent media fabrications concerning Hizbullah’s positions from the Lebanese internal files, he clarified that Hizbullah does not have so-called sources and the quoting of Hizbullah close sources is incorrect.

“Hizbullah does not have media, political or parliamentary sources or sources close to the party that speak to the press. Anything attributed to Hizbullah sources is unreliable,” he added, noting that Hizbullah also do not depend on so-called March 8 sources.

According to His Eminence, Hizbullah is not used to sending messages via friends or embassies. “We talk with others directly and we have the logic, credibility and courage to declare our positions in internal meetings and media,” he announced.

In parallel, Sayyed Nasrallah underscored that Hizbullah does not use this approach and this is to respond to what has been attributed to Hizbullah about alleged messages to the new presidential tenure.

He went on to say: “We have previously said that after the presidential elections, we will witness a lot of disturbances targeting the relationships and alliances.”

Sayyed Nasrallah further mentioned: “We’re on the same relationship with the President and the head of the Free Patriotic Movement and the rest of our friends in the movement. There is constant contact and we always meet. And the relationship is completely positive. Our relationship with President Aoun is excellent and we are on daily contact with President Aoun and with President of the Free Patriotic Movement Gebran Bassil.”

“We might have different viewpoints over some issues and this is positive in discussing things and I stress that we do not need to send messages,” he added.Turning to the talks between the Free Patriotic Movement and Lebanese Forces, Sayyed Nasrallah announced that Hizbullah isn’t “busy with addressing the Lebanese Forces and its decisions. Our battle is outside Lebanon and isn’t concerned with local politics.”

He also revealed that when the dialogue between the Free Patriotic Movement and the Lebanese Forces took place, Hizbullah was informed of it. “We did not have any negative response and this does not bother us. However, we said if this thing can lead to the election of General Michel Aoun for the presidency, we welcome it.”

Moreover, Sayyed Nasrallah underscored that some sides are spreading rumors that Hizbullah is exerting all its efforts on breaking the relationship between the Free Patriotic Movement and the Lebanese Forces. “Some are trying to give the impression that Hizbullah is preoccupied with the issue of the Lebanese Force’s relation with the Free Patriotic Movement. This is not to underestimate the Lebanese Forces, which is an essential force, but everyone knows that we are busy somewhere else.”

Once again, he reiterated: “Our relation with President Aoun and the Free Patriotic Movement is excellent and built on deep trust,” advising all sides not to try to stir discord between Hizbullah, AMAL and the Free Patriotic Movement.

“Some sides are seeking to create a battle between the bilateral Shiite [parties] and the [bilateral or tripartite] Christian alliance. But they are delusional. There’s no battle here,” Hizbullah Secretary General confirmed, warning that “delusional battles will only lead to delusional results.”

As His Eminence stressed that Hizbullah’s battle is outside Lebanon and isn’t concerned with local politics, he stated: “Our battle will draw the future of the region. Hizbullah’s major battle now is against Daesh because if the latter had gained control over Syria and Iraq a catastrophe would have emerged.”

Sayyed Nasrallah further said: “We have no problem with President Aoun’s relationship with the Gulf countries, we were actually happy with the Saudi delegate’s visit to President Aoun.”

Meanwhile, he also announced: “We do not put a veto on General Aoun’s visit to Saudi Arabia and no one should put a veto on the president’s visit to Syria and Iran. We have no problem with the Lebanese president’s visit to any country he wants, except for the enemy, which we all agree on.”

Referring to Marada Movement leader MP Suleiman Franjieh, His Eminence said: “It’s every group’s right to be represented with a main portfolio.”

“We in the Christian arena, as friends and allies, have the right to return the relationship between the Free Patriotic Movement and Marada back to the normal,” he stated.

Assuring the Lebanese people that all the political parties are concerned of forming a government and that no one seeks to obstruct that, Sayyed Nasrallah emphasized that we are in constant contact with House Speaker Nabih Berri.

“There are those who tried to show that Speaker Berri is disrupting the formation of the government and this is not true. There are also those who are trying to show that Hizbullah or minister Franjieh are disrupting the formation of the government and this is unfair.”

“There are a lot of titles regarding the government’s formation that were agreed on as the form of representation and the number of ministers. The vast majority of ministerial portfolios were represented and there is a problem over one or two portfolios and the representation of the forces.”

Meanwhile, he said: “It is enough that President Aoun has the one third plus one in the parliament,” cautioning that there are those who are spreading claims as if the country was on the brink of civil war.

“Those who are targeting the Presidency, confidence in Lebanon and the confidence of the Lebanese in the political future are those who are making mountains out of molehills and exaggerating titles,” Sayyed Nasrallah added.

Regarding the divisions between local parties on the country’s new electoral law, His Eminence called on rivals to separate the formation of the government from talks on the new vote law.

“The legislature body can meet and agree on a new vote law that meet the aspirations of the Lebanese people away from talks on the formation of the new government that isn’t for the Presidency and President Aoun already said that task of this government is to set an electoral law and to hold parliamentary elections,” he explained.

Sayyed Nasrallah further stressed the importance of dialogue on the Lebanese arena, “With dialogue we can help each other and solve all the issues.”

On the electoral law, His Eminence announced Hizbullah’s support for the adoption of a proportional system. “We back the calls for separating the issue of the electoral law from the cabinet formation process,” he said, noting that “the only law that can lead to building a State is one fully based on proportional representation and on turning Lebanon into a single electorate or several large electorates.”

Assuring that Hizbullah doesn’t use regional developments in the internal issues, Sayyed Nasrallah declared that his party will not use the victory in Aleppo for political gains.

In this context, he urged the Lebanese to set aside regional developments. “Our fate and choice if we are seeking to build a strong nation is to strengthen our coexistence and civil peace, to cooperate and engage in dialogue and to accept each.”

“Major developments are currently happening in the region, similar to the battles in Aleppo and the new victory that will impact all the battles in the region,” he said, noting that “we are at a decisive and important stage… but I will not tackle the developments in the region until things are clear and the scenery will talk about itself.

Moreover, His Eminence unveiled that the region has entered a new stage. “We’re not ashamed of its path… We are publicly present in more than one arena.”

Source: al-Ahed news 

09-12-2016 | 23:03

Related videos

Related Articles

 

Listen to Eva Bartlett for the truth on Syria, Aleppo

Syria – Sovereignty and Peace. Press Conference, United Nations, 9 Dec

Full Press Conference at the United Nations. Against propaganda and regime change, for peace and national sovereignty. 9 December 2016, the Permanent Mission of the Syrian Arab Republic to the United Nations. Speakers: Dr. Bahman Azad, Member of the Coordinating Committee for the Hands Off Syria and Organization Secretary of US Peace Council, and Eva Bartlett, Independent Canadian Journalist.

The 2016 “Saker man of the year”: the American “basket of deplorables”

The Saker

December 08, 2016

Yeah, once again, I am going to engage in that silly business when I pretend that my blog is a “respectable media outlet” and, as such, to give myself the proper credibility and gravitas I have to copy Time magazine and others and chose a “man of the year”.  This year, however, this truly was a no-brainer.  The 2016 “man of the year” is, of course, the American “basket of deplorables.

No, not Trump.  Trump might well be Time’s man of the year, but as far as I am concerned, this man is just a promise, and he will remain that to me until he delivers on what he has promised the American voter.  No, the real heroes of our story today are, of course, the millions who dared defy the Empire and who voted for Trump.

Voting in the USA 1

The American voter who inflicted the worst bitch-slap to the US propaganda machine (aka “the mainstream media”) ever.  What happened in this election is nothing short of the biggest defeat in the history of propaganda.

As an ex Cold Warrior who studied the Soviet media for a living, I can say that the US media nowadays is infinitely worse in its willingness to not only lie, but condescendingly deny the obvious, show a total lack of conscience or even basic decency.  US presstitutes give prostitution a bad name.

The American voter was subjected to the most intensive (and, probably, expensive) propaganda barrage in history.  Keep in mind that in overtly dictatorial regimes most adults realize that they are being lied to.  In the USA, every American is brainwashed from birth to believe that the US press is the best and freest in the world and that the US democracy is also the best and freest in the world.  To vote for Trump, the US voter had to go against every single sacred dogma the US Empire has tried so hard to indoctrinate its subject in.  This is far harder than one would think.  Those interested in this topic can consult this article on the Asch conformity experiments or Milgram’s famous experiment on obedience and authority.

This is what the Empire has done to America

This is what the Empire has done to America

Furthermore, the psychological pressure was so intense that I can testify to the fact that many American were actually *afraid* of admitting that they would vote for Trump.  The atmosphere of rabid hatred against Trump and total intolerance and demonization of his supporters was such, that many Americans decided to hide their preference for Trump.  Some even pretended that they would vote for Hillary.  I know people who even lied to their own family members.

And, predictably, in the typical Neocon-style, as soon as it became clear that Trump would be elected, the US presstitutes began pouring out their hatred on the American people.  If in Britain only the old people could vote for the Brexit, in the USA all the Trump voters were described as poorly educated racists (“racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic” to quote Hillary).  I don’t recall ever seeing such an outpouring of hatred towards an entire nation (except, maybe, the typical hatred the Russian liberals have for the “common” Russian people).

But, apparently, the American people have had too much lies told to them.  From the pseudo-patriotic ramblings of Dubya to the endless list of promises betrayed by Obama – the “common” folks whom Hillary referred to as the “basket deplorables” finally fought back the only way they could – they voted not only for Trump and against Hillary, but also against the regime, the polity, the power structure and the 1%ers who control it.

The main consequence of this vote will probably not be an amazing Trump presidency (I have the greatest reservations about the man and his entourage) but the fact that yet again the very legitimacy of the US political system has been discredited.

Think about it: thanks to the “Occupy Wall Street” movement it has become mainstream public knowledge that the USA are run by about 1% of its population (in reality it is far less than 1%, but nevermind that).  So far from being a regime “of the people, for the people and by the people” we know all know that it is a regime “of the 1%ers, for the 1%ers and by the 1%ers”.  Strike one.  With the Trump election, we know also see that the USA is run by a bizarre cocktail of minorities who only have one thing in common: their hatred of the majority.  Strike two.  And, last but not least, it is now also clear that the US media is the most obnoxious, immoral and arrogant propaganda machine in world history.  Strike three.

Where does this leave the Empire?  As a joke or as an abomination.  Probably a mix of both.

How about the USA themselves? They are clearly an occupied country, occupied not by an external invading force, but by an internal enemy who subjugated the USA to its own alien agenda and worldview.

As for the American people, at least the “basket of deplorables” they are now the objective allies of all the other nations on the planet who struggle to free themselves from the yoke of the AngloZionist Empire.

By voting against the Empire the American people have sent a powerful message to the rest of the world “not in my name”.  In Russia, this message was received with outright enthusiasm by the people even if experts were mostly much more cautious.  I have always said that there the “other West”, the West of the regular people who do not support what their rulers do, but who are unable to meaningfully oppose it.  The vote against Hillary showed the world that the American people don’t want an Empire, all they want is make *America* (i.e. the USA, as opposed to world Empire) great again.

Voting in the USA 4

Oh, I know, I already see the trend in Trump nominations.  And yes, believe me, I am extremely skeptical about all this.  But none of that healthy skepticism makes any difference to the fact that the vote against Hillary and the AngloZionist 1% rulers of the USA was a seminal, beautiful, liberating and heroic moment in for not just the USA, but for the rest of the planet too (with Hillary, we were all heading for a nuclear war with Russia).

The way the American “basket of deplorables” defied their oppressors was nothing short of beautiful.  And this is why the American “basket of deplorables” is my “man” of the year 2016.

The Saker

PS: for all those who will get upset at my use of the word “American”, I have just added the following paragraph to my “terminology” page:

Addendum: American. I guess I should also explain why I do use the word “American” when the correct word would be “USAn” or “United Statesian” or something equally ugly.  Well, precisely: these are ugly.  Alas, there is no equivalent in English to the Spanish “Estadounidense“.  The same thing for Russian which also lacks such a word and uses “Amerikanets/Amerikanskii” instead.  Okay, I know.  the USA is a small subsection of the Americas and Americans are obnoxious (and ignorant) for calling themselves “Americans”.  But, in truth, “USAns” are “Americans” since they live in the Americas, it’s just the implied exclusion of the others from that category which is so irritating.  So, anyway, I apologize for this surrender to modern-speak but I just don’t have the courage to fight this losing battle and, frankly, I have bigger fish to fry.  But yeah – I am therefore guilty as charged🙂

 

New Attack on BDS: ‘Anti-Semitism Awareness Act’ Passes Senate Unanimously

synagprison

By Richard Edmondson

The latest assault on BDS and the Palestine solidarity movement seems to have arrived in the form of S.10, known as the “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2016,” a bill that was introduced into–and adopted by–the US Senate all in one day and without discussion, on December 1.

You can track the bill here. It’s aim is to provide a “definition of anti-Semitism” for purpose of enforcing anti-discrimination in education programs and activities. Basically it seeks to codify, or put into law, a definition of anti-Semitism that was put forth by the State Department in 2010, one which cites efforts to “delegitimize” Israel as an example of “contemporary” anti-Semitism.

The definition was coined by the State Department’s “Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism”–yes, there really is such an office within the State Department, the head of which is given the royal title, no less, of “Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism” or SEAS.

The current SEAS is Ira Forman, former Executive Director of the National Jewish Democratic Council. The SEAS in power in 2010, when the “Defining Anti-Semitism” paper was published, was Hannah Rosenthal. You can go here to see the full definition, although I am also reproducing it below.

The bill has been pushed by the Anti-Defamation League. Specifically it seeks to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964, with special focus on the the Act’s Title VI, described in the text of S.10 as “one of the principle antidiscrimination (sic) statutes enforced by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.”

Under the bill, any attempts to “demonize Israel,” which could include “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis,” would be defined as anti-Semitism. Universities which tolerate speech of this type on campus would be in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and presumably could be denied federal funding.

Sen. Tim Scott, R-SC

Well, if you’re going to attempt to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964, who better to lead the charge for you than an African-American member of Congress? S.10 was introduced by Sen. Tim Scott, one of only two African-American Republicans in the Senate.

Another backer of the bill is Sen. Robert Casey, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, who is listed as a co-sponsor. Both Scott and Casey are cited in an ADL press release put out on December 2 hailing the Senate’s passage of the measure.

“ADL played a central role in working with U.S. Senators Tim Scott (R-SC) and Bob Casey (D-PA) in crafting and promoting the legislation,” the press release states.

Also classified as anti-Semitism under the measure would be applying any kind of “double standard” to Israel. This would include requiring of the Jewish state “a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation,” and could also include “multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations.”

Also telling the obvious truth about who owns or controls the vast majority of the major media would be anti-Semitic as well, or specifically, as the bill would have it–spreading “the myth” about “Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.”

Accusing Jews of being “more loyal to Israel” than their own nations would equally be anti-Semitic, as would of course (it goes without saying) questioning the holocaust.

“We welcome the Senate passage of this important legislation, which will help the Department of Education and Department of Justice to effectively determine whether an investigation of an incident of anti-Semitism is warranted under federal education anti-discrimination laws,” said ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt.

The fact that this bill was introduced into the Senate and passed unanimously and without discussion all in one day provides glaring testimony in its own right about Jews “controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions”–or at least Congress at any rate.

Perhaps aware of the potential public relations blowback, a few Jewish writers have come out in opposition. One of these is Rachel Roberts, whose political correctness and angst-imbued manifesto in The Forward includes references to “stories my father told me about being young and Jewish in the 1950s” and likely will leave you rolling your eyes in places. A considerably more readable commentary is provided by Jacob Sullum in the New York Post, and there is also an article in the Jewish Business News allowing for the fact that “many” see the measure as “an attack on free speech,” an analysis that also questions whether the bill might in reality be “a bad idea.” Aside from this, however, Jewish opposition to the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2016 seems overall kind of sparse.

Below is the text of the definition adopted by the State Department in 2010. Should it become institutionalized as the law of the land by being incorporated into the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it will not merely be “an attack on free speech” or a “bad idea.” It will, if viewed from an incremental standpoint and with the surety that more such legislation will come down the pike in the future, likely be a step toward criminalization of any criticism of Israel and a further eroding of the First Amendment.

***

Defining Anti-Semitism
SPECIAL ENVOY TO MONITOR AND COMBAT ANTI-SEMITISM
Washington, DC
June 8, 2010

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/fs/2010/122352.htm

“Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” –Working Definition of Anti-Semitism by the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia

Contemporary Examples of Anti-Semitism

  • Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews (often in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion).
  • Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective—especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
  • Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, the state of Israel, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
  • Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
  • Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interest of their own nations.

What is Anti-Semitism Relative to Israel?

EXAMPLES of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel, taking into account the overall context could include:

DEMONIZE ISRAEL:

  • Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism to characterize Israel or Israelis
  • Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis
  • Blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions

DOUBLE STANDARD FOR ISRAEL:

  • Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation
  • Multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations

DELEGITIMIZE ISRAEL:

  • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist

However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.

The Mad Man Theory: Trump & Taiwan’

The Mad Man Theory: Trump & Taiwan'

MATTHEW JAMISON | 10.12.2016 | WORLD

The Mad Man Theory: Trump & Taiwan’

In Niccolò Machiavelli’s 1517 «Discourses on Livy» the famous Italian historian and political philosopher argued that sometimes it is «a very wise thing to simulate madness». The «Madman» theory was indeed a consciously deployed facet of President Richard Nixon’s foreign policy. The Nixon administration carefully projected a deliberate image of President Nixon as a volatile, erratic, almost deranged hot head. The objective was to create confusion among American adversaries, primarily in the Communist world, and unnerve them due to the unpredictability the «madman» Nixon engendered thus keeping them off balance allowing America to set the agenda, control responses, seize the initiative, keep US enemies constantly guessing and keep hostile provocations to the minimum for fear of a disproportionate response from the «unhinged» Nixon. President Nixon’s infamous Chief of Staff H. R. Haldeman, wrote that Nixon had confided to him:

«I call it the Madman Theory, Bob. I want the North Vietnamese to believe I’ve reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war. We’ll just slip the word to them that, ‘for God’s sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about communism. We can’t restrain him when he’s angry — and he has his hand on the nuclear button’ and Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days begging for peace».

Nixon’s National Security Advisor and later Secretary of State, the brilliant Dr Henry Kissinger, was in on the act and portrayed the 1970 US incursion into Cambodia as a symptom of Nixon’s «instability». I can just imagine Nixon conferring with Kissinger before a diplomatic meeting and telling him: «Right Henry, this is how we are going to play. I’ll storm in and wave my arms around, talk about how I feel like bombing the hell out of such and such, spit some profanities out and then storm off. You will then rush in and say ‘ now you can understand what I have to deal with! Leave it to me. I’ll calm the old man down». Could it be that the new President-elect of the United States, Donald J. Trump, is also employing the «Mad Man» theory? Indeed, as Polonius put it in Shakespeare’s Hamlet: «Though this be madness, yet there is method».

Over the weekend of December 2nd the news came through that the new President-elect had broken with over 35 years of diplomatic precedent and protocol with regards to the United States most strategically important bilateral relationship. Mr. Trump did something which would on the surface seem fairly innocuous. He took a congratulatory phone call from the President of Taiwan. Tsai Ing-wen.Then, all hell broke loose within the normally calm and ordered world of diplomatic affairs. This was due to the fact that no American President or President-elect has spoken with the President of Taiwan since 1979 when the Carter administration, building on the great legacy of Nixon and Kissinger’s visionary 1972 «Opening to China», embraced the Chinese concept of «One China» and officially terminated diplomatic ties with the Republic of China (Taiwan), though unofficially relations continued much as they had with American arms shipments to Taiwan. The American Embassy in Taiwan became the American Institute, a private nonprofit corporation though still staffed by American diplomats. Under the Taiwan Relations Act signed into law by President Carter the United States would maintain «unofficial» relations with the people of Taiwan, but all official inter-governmental relations between the American Government and Taiwanese Government ceased , including official interactions between American and Taiwanese Presidents.

All of this diplomatic ambiguity was due to the dispute between Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China dating all the way back to 1949 and the Communist victory over General Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang US backed nationalists in the Chinese civil war. The Kuomintang nationalists fled to the island of Taiwan were they set up shop and claimed to be the sole and legitimate Chinese Government for all of China including the Communist controlled mainland. Until Nixon’s «Opening to China» in the 1970s the United States maintained the fiction that the tiny island of Taiwan under the defeated nationalists represented all of China’s billion plus people and recognised it as the sovereign Chinese Government rather than the authority of the People’s Republic in Beijing. President Nixon, Dr Kissinger and later President Carter determined that this fiction could no longer continue and it was unwise to continue to try to isolate and alienate Beijing. So they prudently switched American recognition away from Taipei towards Beijing. While Taiwan had always claimed to be the rightful China, the People’s Republic had always viewed it as part of it’s true China.

So from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan, George Bush Snr to Bill Clinton, George Bush Jnr to Barack Obama, none of them have engaged officially with their Taiwanese counterparts and American Presidents have embraced officially the «One China» position of Beijing while still conducting unofficial relations with Taipei. This all changed, to a certain degree, over the weekend of December 2nd 2016, with the telephone call between US President-elect Donald Trump and Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wei. Trump tweeted with regards to the phone call: «The President of Taiwan CALLED ME (Trump’s capitals) today to wish me congratulations on winning the Presidency. Thank you!”. The President-elect followed this up with a further tweet: « Interesting how the US sells Taiwan billions of dollars of military equipment but I should not accept a congratulatory call».

The Chinese Foreign Minister reacted in the usually calm, measured, nonchalant style of Chinese diplomacy brushing off the phone call as nothing more than a «petty trick» on the part on the Taiwanese. But soon after Trump went on a the rampage on Twitter once again with critical tweets regarding China: «Did China ask us if it was OK to devalue their currency and build a massive military complex?» I don’t think so!» Well, of course not Mr. Trump, the fact is China is a sovereign, independent country who does not need to «ask» the permission of the United States to do anything! After this fracas the Chinese Government lodged a «solemn representation» with the White House reminding the Americans of the «One China» policy and the delicate equilibrium that has existed over the issues of Taiwan and has served American-Sino relations well for over three decades.

There was much amusement in the press that the incoming President seemed to be oblivious to the finer points of US-China diplomatic relations and that this latest blunder was evidence that Mr. Trump was clueless about international affairs. A Bull in a China Shop? Perhaps. Or perhaps it was more calculated than that. Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s campaign manager (who reminds me of something straight out of The Stepford Wives or the Brady Bunch) shot down the notion that Trump is ignorant of the nuances of America’s relationship with the second largest economy on the planet and rising superpower. Reports surfaced that Bob Dole, the 1996 Republican Presidential nominee, had his law firm lobby the Trump campaign on behalf of the Taiwanese Government for a new approach to US-Taiwan relations and the Republican Party Platform unveiled at their 2016 Convention evidenced stronger language on the subject of China. By accepting a phone call, and on the surface superficially that is all it was, Mr. Trump and his advisers could have calculated that with a low grade act they could at once signal a coming change in how the United States deals with China without inflicting any serious material damage on the relationship. Trump repeatedly throughout his campaign spoke in negative terms regarding China and how, falsely, it is «raping» the American economy.

There are some such as the deeply objectionable John Bolton and other neoconservative nutters, dinosaur Cold War Warriors and ultra nationalists around Mr. Trump who are itching for a confrontation, if not outright fight, with China. Please forgive the lapse into science fiction but when it comes to some of the things I hear and read about the foreign policy team around Trump I am reminded of the words of the Shakespeare quoting Klingon General Chang to Captain Kirk during the Battle of Kitomer in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country while he is bombarding the defenseless Enterprise: «Now be honest Captain, warrior to warrior. You do prefer it this way don’t you? As it was meant to be. No peace in our time. Once more on to the breach, dear friends».

Shortly after the protocol breaking Trump-Tsai phone call and the Trump China bashing twitter rampage the President-elect appointed his Ambassador to China, the Republican Governor of Iowa, Terry Branstad, who also happens to be a good, old friend of President Xi Jinping. They have known each other since the 1980s. It was probably one of Trump’s best appointments to date and the Chinese Foreign Ministry was delighted. Was this a master class in the madman theory attempting to confuse the Chinese and keep them off balance? Maybe so. But Mr. Trump should also be aware in the Chinese he has more than met his match, perhaps even his superior. These type of «mad man» stunts will not keep the Chinese off balance. They are far more adept at gaining the upper hand. In many ways when it comes to the American-Sino relationship, they already do enjoy the upper hand. Trump beware.

WikiLeaks Claims Prove Erdogan’s Family and Turkish Minister’s Links to ISIS

WikiLeaks Claims Prove Erdogan’s Family and Turkish Minister’s Links to ISIS 

WikiLeaks released thousands of emails of Turkish Minister Berat Albayrak, the son-in-law of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, proving his links to deals concluded with ISIS-controlled oilfields in Iraq, media sources said.

 

Berat Albayrak e61b9

Wikileaks released a cache of emails, demonstrating his insider knowledge of Powertrans that have had complete monopoly of Iraqi Kurdistan’s roads and rail system into Turkey, while Albayrak denied in the past that he had any connections to Powertrans, massdar news reported.

Powertrans have consistently been accused of facilitating ISIS blood-oil from reaching the fields in Iraq to Turkey.

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, justified the email release because of Erdogan’s crackdown on free media.

“The people of Turkey need a free media and a free internet,” Assange said.

In December 2015, sources close to the ISIS confirmed that Ankara supplies the Takfiri militants with weapons and ammunition through Qatari brokers in lieu of the oil the Takfiri terrorist group sells to Turkey through the same channel.

“The ISIS regularly sells crude it obtains from Iraqi and Syrian oil wells to Turkey through some Qatari middlemen,” the Arabic-language Al-Akhbar newspaper quoted unnamed sources inside ISIS as saying at the time.

The sources reiterated that Turkey also sold part of the oil it bought from the ISIS at cheap price to some East European countries.

Exploring The Top Censored Stories Of 2016 With Project Censored’s Mickey Huff

Exploring The Top Censored Stories Of 2016 With Project Censored’s Mickey Huff

As public trust in the mainstream media plummets amid widespread censorship and propaganda, media literacy expert Mickey Huff joins Mnar Muhawesh on ‘Behind the Headline’ to shed light on the year’s top censored stories.

MINNEAPOLIS — Censorship, a tool often wielded by despots, is also a pastime of democratic governments and their corporate media lapdogs.

Whether journalists are operating as part of a free press or as the puppets of a repressive government, the goal is the same: control public perceptions by carefully bending information to suit a particular agenda.

And while our corporate-owned media may have thought they’d mastered the art of propaganda, a recent Gallup poll suggests otherwise.

According to that poll, a staggering 72 percent of Americans don’t trust mass media.

Gallup Poll Media Trust

Much of this drop in public confidence can be traced to the media’s efforts to treat politics as theater and entertainment. It also doesn’t help that media figures serve as mouthpieces for the corporatocracy and the military-industrial complex.

In both cases, the media has failed to deliver on its most important public service: reporting news and information via a critical, questioning lens.

This is why truly free, independent media is so critical in the fight against censorship. As the corporate-owned, government-aligned mass media kowtows to the powers that be, independent media is there to shine a light on conflicts of interest, threats to constitutional rights, and other issues that the public has a right to know about.

Since its founding in 1976, Project Censored has unmasked propaganda surrounding the most pressing issues of the day, providing coverage that speaks truth to power.

Today, I’m joined by Mickey Huff, director of Project Censored, to discuss the top five censored stories of 2016 — stories the mainstream media swept under the rug or manipulated to suit corporate or government interests.

Learn more about fake news and see the top censored stories of 2016 in the full episode of Behind The Headline

%d bloggers like this: