Is this the BBC or an Israeli Hasbara Unit?

March 31, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

There’s not a lot left of the BBC’s ‘impartiality.’ In fact, this type of discussion is what one would expect from USSR state TV in the 1970s.

But we shouldn’t be surprised.

In 1948, when he was working at the BBC, George Orwell identified the British inclination toward authoritarianism. And in his masterpiece 1984,  Orwell had  Immanuel Goldstein lead the controlled opposition. This  was written  almost seven decades before Jewish Voice for Labour and Momentum were formed to define the boundaries of ‘freedom of speech on Israel’ and dissent in general…

If they want to burn it , you want to read it..

cover bit small.jpg

Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto

Amazon.co.uk  ,  Amazon.com  and   here  (gilad.co.uk)

Advertisements

Hezbollah Hails Palestinians’ Heroic March of Return

31-03-2018 | 09:12

Hezbollah issued the following statement:
 
Hezbollah Flag

The resistance Palestinian people has once again in Gaza presented the purest images of sacrifice, stressing with the blood of its martyrs, their raised fists and echoing cries their stable right to a liberated and dignified Palestine that embraces all its sons whether those who are inside, abroad or all over the diaspora.


Friday’s events have stressed again that the Palestinian cause is alive and that the resistant Palestinian people is always ready to pay huge sacrifices for the sake of liberating its land and nation.

The March of Return, that witnessed massive participation, caused despair to the enemies of the Palestinian people as well as all the betrayers and conspirers against their cause. It is a strong massive response to the so-called “deal of the century”, showing the Palestinians’ adherence to their historical and patriotic rights and that they would never compromise any right of them no matter what are the sacrifices.

As Hezbollah hails and respects its people in Palestine on their Land Day, it expresses deep condolences to the families of hero martyrs and pray for those wounded to get well soon. Hezbollah further calls all the free people of the world, especially the Arab and Muslim peoples, to hold their responsibilities in backing the Palestinian people and offer all possible kinds of support in their struggle to liberate their land and restore their sanctities.
Source: Hezbollah Media Relations, Translated by website team
Related Videos

Related Articles

THE SAKER: HOW THE EAST CAN SAVE THE WEST

shutterstock_1041209524

30.03.2018

Written by The Saker; Originally appeared at The Unz Review

Europe: My honor is solidarity!

“That tells you all you need to know about the difference between modern Britain and the government of Vladimir Putin. They make Novichok, we make light sabers. One a hideous weapon that is specifically intended for assassination. The other an implausible theatrical prop with a mysterious buzz. But which of those two weapons is really more effective in the world of today?”.

(Boris Johnson)

Let’s begin this discussion with a few, basic questions.

Question one: does anybody sincerely believe that “Putin” (the collective name for the Russian Mordor) really attempted to kill a man which “Putin” himself had released in the past, who presented no interest for Russia whatsoever who, like Berezovskywanted to return back to Russia, and that to do the deed “Putin” used a binary nerve agent?

Question two: does anybody sincerely believe that the British have presented their “allies” (I will be polite here and use that euphemism) with incontrovertible or, at least, very strong evidence that “Putin” indeed did such a thing?

Question three: does anybody sincerely believe that the mass expulsion of Russian diplomats will somehow make Russia more compliant to western demands (for our purposes, it does not matter what demands we are talking about)?

Question four: does anybody sincerely believe that after this latest episode, the tensions will somehow abate or even diminish and that things will get better?

Question five: does anybody sincerely believe that the current sharp rise in tensions between the AngloZionist Empire (aka the “West”) does not place the Empire and Russia on collision course which could result in war, probably/possibly nuclear war, maybe not deliberately, but as the result of an escalation of incidents?

If in the zombified world of the ideological drones who actually remain in the dull trance induced by the corporate media there are most definitely those who answer “yes” to some or even all of the questions above, I submit that not a single major western decision maker sincerely believes any of that nonsense. In reality, everybody who matters knows that the Russians had nothing to do with the Skripal incident, that the Brits have shown no evidence, that the expulsion of Russian diplomats will only harden the Russian resolve, that all this anti-Russian hysteria will only get worse and that this all puts at least Europe and the USA, if not the entire planet, in great danger.

And yet what just happened is absolutely amazing: instead of using fundamental principles of western law (innocent until proven guilty by at least a preponderance of evidence or even beyond reasonable doubt), basic rules of civilized behavior (do not attack somebody you know is innocent), universally accepted ethical norms (the truth of the matter is more important than political expediency) or even primordial self-preservation instincts (I don’t want to die for your cause), the vast majority of western leaders chose a new decision-making paradigm which can be summarized in two words:

  • “highly likely”
  • “solidarity”

This is truly absolutely crucial and marks a fundamental change in the way the AngloZionist Empire will act from now on. Let’s look at the assumptions and implications of these two concepts.

First, “highly likely”. While “highly likely” does sound like a simplified version of “preponderance of evidence” what it really means is something very different and circular: “Putin” is bad, poisoning is bad, therefore it is “highly likely” that “Putin” did it. How do we know that the premise “Putin is bad” is true? Well – he does poison people, does he not?

You think I am joking?

Check out this wonderful chart presented to the public by “Her Majesty’s government” entitled “A long pattern of Russian malign activity”:

The Saker: How the East can save the West

In the 12 events listed as evidence of a “pattern of Russian malign activity” one is demonstratively false (2008 invasion of Georgia), one conflates two different accusations (occupation of Crimea and destabilization of the Ukraine), one is circular (assassination of Skripal) and all others are completely unproven accusations. All that is missing here is the mass rape of baby penguins by drunken Russian sailors in the south pole or the use of a secret “weather weapon” to send hurricanes towards the USA. You don’t need a law degree to see that, all you need is an IQ above room temperature and a basic understanding of logic. For all my contempt for western leaders, even I wouldn’t make the claim that they all lack these. So here is where “solidarity” kicks-in:

“Solidarity” in this context is simply a “conceptual placeholder” for Stephen Decatur‘s famous “my country, right or wrong” applied to the entire Empire. The precedent of Meine Ehre heißt Treue just slightly rephrased into Meine Ehre heißt Solidarität also comes to mind.

Solidarity simply means that the comprador ruling elites of the West will say and do whatever the hell the AngloZionist tell them to. If tomorrow the UK or US leaders proclaim that Putin eats babies for breakfast or that the West needs to send a strong message to “Putin” that a Russian invasion of Vanuatu shall not be tolerated, then so be it: the entire AngloZionist nomenklatura will sing the song in full unison and to hell with facts, logic or even decency!

Solemnly proclaiming lies is hardly something new in politics, there is nothing new here. What is new are two far more recent developments: first, now everybody knows that these are lies and, second, nobody challenges or debunks them. Welcome to the AngloZionist New World Order indeed!

The Empire: by way of deception thou shalt do war

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it.

(John 8:44)

Over the past weeks I have observed something which I find quite interesting: both on Russian TV channels and in the English speaking media there is a specific type of anti-Putin individual who actually takes a great deal of pride in the fact that the Empire has embarked on a truly unprecedented campaign of lies against Russia. These people view lies as just another tool in a type of “political toolkit” which can be used like any other political technique. As I have mentioned in the past, the western indifference to the truth is something very ancient coming, as it does, from the Middle-Ages: roughly when the spiritual successors of the Franks in Rome decided that their own, original, brand of “Christianity” had no use for 1000 years of Consensus Patrum. Scholasticism and an insatiable thrust for worldly, secular, power produced both moral relativism and colonialism (with the Pope’s imprimatur in the form of the Treaty of Tordesillas). The Reformation (with its very pronounced Judaic influence) produced the bases of modern capitalism which, as Lenin correctly diagnosed, has imperialism as its highest stage. Now that the West is losing its grip on the planet (imagine that, some SOB nations dare resist!), all of the ideological justifications have been tossed away and we are left with the true, honest, barebones impulses of the leaders of the Empire: messianic hubris (essentially self-worship), violence and, above all, a massive reliance on deception and lies on every single level of society, from the commercial advertisements targeted at children to Colin Powell shaking some laundry detergent at the UNSC to justify yet another war of aggression.

Self-worship and a total reliance on brute force and falsehoods – these are the real “Western values” today. Not the rule of law, not the scientific method, not critical thought, not pluralism and most definitely not freedom. We are back, full circle, to the kind of illiterate thuggery the Franks so perfectly embodied and which made them so infamous in the (then) civilized world (the south and eastern Mediterranean). The agenda, by the way, is also the same one as the Franks had 1000 years ago: either submit to us and accept our dominion, or die, and the way to accept our dominion is to let us plunder all your riches. Again, not much difference here between the sack of the First Rome in 410, the sack of the Second Rome in 1204 and the sack of the Third Rome in 1991. As psychologists well know, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

Interestingly, the Chinese saw straight through this strategic psyop and they are now sounding the alarm in their very official Global Times: (emphasis added)

The accusations that Western countries have hurled at Russia are based on ulterior motives, similar to how the Chinese use the expression “perhaps it’s true” to seize upon the desired opportunity. From a third-person perspective, the principles and diplomatic logic behind such drastic efforts are flawed, not to mention that expelling Russian diplomats almost simultaneously is a crude form of behavior. Such actions make little impact other than increasing hostility and hatred between Russia and their Western counterparts (…) The fact that major Western powers can gang up and “sentence” a foreign country without following the same procedures other countries abide by and according to the basic tenets of international law is chilling. During the Cold War, not one Western nation would have dared to make such a provocation and yet today it is carried out with unrestrained ease. Such actions are nothing more than a form of Western bullying that threatens global peace and justice. (…) It is beyond outrageous how the US and Europe have treated Russia. Their actions represent a frivolity and recklessness that has grown to characterize Western hegemony that only knows how to contaminate international relations. Right now is the perfect time for non-Western nations to strengthen unity and collaborative efforts among one another. These nations need to establish a level of independence outside the reach of Western influence while breaking the chains of monopolization declarations, predetermined adjudications and come to value their own judgment abilities. (…) The West is only a small fraction of the world and is nowhere near the global representative it once thought it was. The silenced minorities within the international community need to realize this and prove just how deep their understanding is of such a realization by proving it to the world through action.

As the French say “à bon entendeur, salut!”: the Chinese position is crystal clear, as is the warning. I would summarize it as so: if the West is an AngloZionist doormat, then the East is most definitely not.

[Sidebar: I know that there are some countries in Europe who have, so far, shown the courage to resist the AngloZionist Diktat. Good for them. I will wait to see how long they can resist the pressure before giving them a standing ovation]

The modern Ahnenerbe Generalplan Ost

The decision, therefore, lies here in the East; here must the Russian enemy, this people numbering two hundred million Russians, be destroyed on the battlefield and person by person, and made to bleed to death

(Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler)

Still, none of that explain why the leaders of the Empire have decided to engage in a desperate game of “nuclear chicken” to try to, yet again, force Russia to comply with its demands to “go away and shut up”. This is counter-intuitive and I get several emails each week telling me that there is absolutely no way the leaders of the AngloZionist Empire would want a war with Russia, especially not a nuclear-armed one. The truth is that while western leaders are most definitely psychopaths, they are neither stupid nor suicidal, but neither were Napoleon or Hitler! And, yes, they probably don’t really want a full-scale war with Russia. The problem is that these rulers are also desperate, and for good cause.

Let’s look at the situation just a few months ago. The US was defeated in Syria, ridiculed in the DPRK, Trump was hated in Europe, the Russians and the Germans were working on North Stream, the British leaders forced to at least pretend to work on Brexit, the entire “Ukrainian” project had faceplanted, the sanctions against Russia had failed, Putin was more popular than ever and the hysterical anti-Trump campaign was still in full swing inside the USA. The next move by the AngloZionist elites was nothing short of brilliant: by organizing a really crude false flag in the UK the Empire achieved the following results:

  • The Europeans have been forced right back into the Anglosphere’s fold (“solidarity”, remember?)
  • The Brexiting Brits are now something like the (im-)moral leaders of Europe again.
  • The Russians are now demonized to such a degree that any accusation, no matter how stupid, will stick.
  • In the Middle-East, the US and Israel now have free reign to start any war they want because the (purely theoretical) European capability to object to anything the Anglos want has now evaporated, especially now that the Russians have become “known chemical-criminals” from Ghouta to Salisbury
  • At the very least, the World Cup in Russia will be sabotaged by a massive anti-Russian campaign. If that campaign is really successful, there is still the hope that the Germans will finally cave in and, if maybe not outright cancel, then vat least ery much delay North Stream thereby forcing the Europeans to accept, what else, US gas.

This is an ambitious plan and, barring an unexpected development, it sure looks like it might work. The problem with this strategy is that it falls short of getting Russia to truly “go away and shut up”. Neocons are particularly fond of humiliating their enemies (look at how they are still gunning for Trump even though by now the poor man has become their most subservient servant) and there is a lot of prestige at stake here. Russia, therefore, must be humiliated, trulyhumiliated, not just by sabotaging her participation in Olympic games or by expelling Russian diplomats, but by something far more tangible like, say, an attack on the very small and vulnerable Russian task force in Syria. Herein lies the biggest risk.

The Russian task force in Syria is tiny, at least compared to the immense capabilities of CENTCOM+NATO. The Russians have warned that if they are attacked, they will shoot down not only the attacking missiles but also their launchers. Since the Americans are not dumb enough to expose their aircraft to Russian air defenses, they will use air power only outside the range of Russian air defenses and they will use only cruise missiles to strike targets inside the “protection cone” of the Russians air defenses. The truth is that I doubt that the Russians will have the opportunity to shoot down many US aircraft, at least not with their long-range S-300/S-400 SAMs. Their ubiquitous and formidable combined short to medium range surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft artillery weapon system, the Pantsir, might have a better chance simply because it’s location is impossible to predict. But the real question is this: will the Russians shoot back at the USN ships if they launch cruise missiles at Syria?

My strictly personal guess is that they won’t unless Khmeimim, Tartus or another large Russian objective (official Russian compounds in Damascus) are hit. Striking a USN ship would be tantamount to an act of war and that is just not something the Russians will do if they can avoid it. The problem with that is this restraint will, yet again, be interpreted as a sign of weakness, not civilization, by the “modern Franks” (visualize a Neanderthal with a nuclear club in his fist). Should the Russians decide to act à la American and use violence to “send a message”, the Empire will immediately perceive that as a loss of face and a reason to immediately escalate further to reestablish the “appropriate” hierarchy between the “indispensable nation” and the “gas station masquerading as a country”. So here is the dynamic at work

Russia limits herself to words of protests ==>> the Empire sees that as a sign of weakness and escalates
Russia responds in kind with real actions ==>> The Empire feels humiliated and escalates

Now look at this from a Russian point of view for a second and ask yourself what you would do in this situation?

The answer, I think, is obvious: you try to win as much time as possible and you prepare for war. The Russians have been doing exactly that since at least early 2015.

For Russia this is really nothing new: been there, done that, and remember it very, very well, by the way. The “western project” for Russia has always been the same since the Middle-Ages, the only difference today is the consequences of war. With each passing century the human cost of the various western crusades against Russia got worse and worse and now we are not only looking at the very real possibility of another Borodino or Kursk, and not even at another Hiroshima, but at something which we can’t even really imagine: hundreds of millions of people die in the course of just a few hours.

How do we stop that?

Is the West even capable of acting in a different way?

I very much doubt it.

The one actor who can stop the upcoming war: China

There is one actor which might, maybe, stop the current skidding towards Armageddon: China. Right now, the Chinese have officially declared that they have what they call a “comprehensive strategic partnership of cooperation” later shortened to “strategic partnership”. This is a very apt expression as it does not speak of an “alliance”: two countries of the size of Russia and China cannot have an alliance in the traditional sense – they are too big and different for that. They are, however, in a symbiotic relationship, that both sides understand perfectly (see this White Paper for details). What this means in very simple terms is this: the Chinese cannot let Russia be defeated by the Empire because once Russia is gone, they will be left one on one with a united, triumphal and infinitely arrogant West (likewise I would argue that Russia cannot afford to have Iran defeated by the Empire for exactly the same reasons, and neither can Iran let the Israelis destroy Hezbollah). Of course, in terms of military power, China is a dwarf compared to Russia, but in terms of economic power Russia is the dwarf when compared to China in this “strategic community of interests”. Thus, China cannot assist Russia militarily. But remember that Russia does not need this if only because military assistance is what you need to win a war. Russia does not want to win a war, Russia desperately needs to avoid a war! And here is where China can make a huge difference: psychologically.

Yes, the Empire is currently taking on both Russia and China, but everybody, from its leaders to its zombified population, seems to think that these are two, different and separate foes. [We can use this opportunity to most sincerely thank Donald Trump for so “perfectly” timing his trade war with China.] They are not: not only are Russia and China symbionts who share the same vision of a prosperous and peaceful Eurasia united by a common future centered around the OBOR and, crucially, free from the US dollar or, for that matter, from any type of major US role, but Russia and China also stand for exactly the same notion of a post-hegemonic world order: a multi-polar world of different and truly sovereign nations living together under the rules of international law. If the AngloZionists have their way, this will never happen. Instead, we will have the New World Order promised by Bush, dominated by the Anglosphere countries (basically the ECHELON members, aka the “Five Eyes”) and, on top of that pyramid, the global Zionist overlord. This is something China cannot, and will not allow. Neither can China allow a US-Russian war, especially not a nuclear one because China, like Russia, also needs peace.

Conclusion

I don’t see what Russia could do to convince the Empire to change its current course: the US leaders are delusional and the Europeans are their silent, submissive servants. As shown above, whatever Russia does it always invites further escalation from the Empire. Of course, Russia can turn the West into a pile of smoldering radioactive ashes. This is hardly a solution since, in the inevitable exchange, Russia herself will also be turned into a similar pile of smoldering radioactive ashes by the Empire. In spite of that, the Russian people have most clearly indicated by their recent vote that they have absolutely no intention of caving in to the latest western crusade against them. As for the Empire, it will never accept the fact that Russia refuses to submit. It therefore seems to me that the only thing which can stop Armageddon would be for the Chinese to ceaselessly continue to repeat to the rulers of the Empire and the people of the West what the wrote in the article quoted above: that “The West is only a small fraction of the world and is nowhere near the global representative it once thought it was” and “the silenced minorities within the international community need to realize this and prove just how deep their understanding is of such a realization by proving it to the world through action.”

History teaches us that the West only strikes against those opponents it sees as defenseless or, at least, weaker. The fact that the Popes, Napoleon or Hitler were wrong in their evaluation of the strength of Russia does not change this truism. In fact, the Neocons today are making exactly the same mistake. So telling them about the fact that Russia is much stronger than what the western propaganda says and which, apparently, many western rulers believe (you always end up believing your own propaganda), does not help. Russian “reminders of reality” will do no good simply because the West is out of touch with reality and lacks the ability to understand its own limitations and weaknesses. But if China stepped in and conveyed that crucial message “The West is only a small fraction of the world” and that the rest of the world will prove this “through action” then other countries will step in and a war can be averted because even the current delusion-based “solidarity” will collapse in the face of a united Eurasia.

Russia alone cannot continue to carry the burden of stopping the messianic psychopaths ruling the Empire.

The rest of the world, led by China, now needs to step in to avert the war.

 

It’s a miracle, Last Act Of ‘Novichok’ Drama Revealed – ‘The #Skripals’ Resurrection’

Fake news…

Last Act Of ‘Novichok’ Drama Revealed – ‘The Skripals’ Resurrection

undefinedIt seems that the ‘Novichok’ fairy-tale the British government plays to us provides for a happy ending – the astonishing and mysterious resurrection of the victims of a “military grade” “five to eight times more deadly than VX gas” “nerve agent” “of a type developed by” Hollywood.Happy Easter!

Yulia Skripal no longer in critical condition, say Salisbury doctors

The condition of Yulia Skripal, who was poisoned with a nerve agent in Salisbury along with her father, is improving rapidly, doctors have said.

Salisbury NHS foundation trust said on Thursday the 33-year-old was no longer in a critical condition, describing her medical state as stable.

Christine Blanshard, medical director for Salisbury district hospital, said: “I’m pleased to be able to report an improvement in the condition of Yulia Skripal. She has responded well to treatment but continues to receive expert clinical care 24 hours a day.”

Her father’s condition is still described by the hospital as critical but stable.

Only yesterday the Skripals chances to survive was claimed to be 1 out of 99. Nerve agents are deadly weapons. A dose of ten milligram of the U.S. developed VX nerve agent will kill 50% of those exposed to it. The ‘Novichok’ agents are said to be several times more deadly than VX.

It seems less and less likely that the British government claim about ‘Novichok’ poisoning is actually true. Way more likely are other explanations, for example food poisoning or an allergic shock soon after eating out at a fish restaurant.

The claims of a nerve agent and ‘Novichok’ seem to have been taken from the script of the British-American spy drama Strike Back (clip) which recently ran on British and U.S. TV. The sole purpose of the ‘Novichok’ drama is to implicate and damage Russia.

As the former MI6 spook Alastair Crooke writes:

The evidence is beside the point: here was the opportunity to close-off Trump’s ‘illusion’ of a possible détente with Russia. The narrative is all. We will likely never know the full story.

Yulia and Sergej Skripal were found unconscious on the afternoon of March 4.

The U.S. State Department says that its campaign to use the Skripal incident as a tool against Russia started on March 6, only two days after the incident and six full days before the British government raised accusations against Russia.

In her press briefing on March 27 the U.S. State Department spokeswomen Heather Nauert talked about the coordinated ousting of Russian diplomats by some “western” countries:

Our Deputy Secretary Sullivan, Assistant Secretary Wess Mitchell, and many others in the building across the interagency process have worked tirelessly over the past three weeks to achieve this unprecedented level of cooperation and also coordination. The end result – 151 Russian intelligence personnel sent home to Moscow – is a testimony of how seriously the world takes Russia’s ongoing global campaign to undermine international peace and stability, to threaten the sovereignty and security of countries worldwide, and to subvert and discredit Western institutions.

The above quote is from Nauert’s prepared remarks, not the more free wheeling Q&A section.

The British prime minister made her allegations against Russia only on March 12:

“It is now clear that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a military grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia.

This is part of a group of nerve agents known as ‘Novichok’.”

(See our earlier pieces, linked below, for many details on ‘Novichok’ and its history.)

May’s announcement was similar to Tony Blair’s “45 minutes” claim. A lie, concocted in a common propaganda operation with the U.S. government. As the Downing Street Memos said of the preparations for the war on Iraq:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

There are several details that debunk the ‘Novichok’ thesis.

The specialists in the British chemical weapon laboratory in Porton Down, which gets millions of U.S. military research dollars, did not agree with the ‘Novichok’ claim for whatever effected the Skripals. May’s phrase “of a type developed by Russia’ was politically negotiated. As ambassador Craig Murray provided:

I have now received confirmation from a well placed FCO source that Porton Down scientists are not able to identify the nerve agent as being of Russian manufacture, and have been resentful of the pressure being placed on them to do so. Porton Down would only sign up to the formulation “of a type developed by Russia” after a rather difficult meeting where this was agreed as a compromise formulation.

But was there really a nerve agent involved?

A doctor who administered first aid to Yulia Skripal for 30 minutes was not effected at all. The emergency services suspected the victims had received on overdose of fentanyl.

Doctor Steven Davies, who leads the emergency service of the Salisbury District Hospital, wrote in a letter to the London Times:

Sir, Further to your report “Poison exposure leaves almost 40 needing treatment”, (Mar 14), may I clarify that no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury and there have only been ever been three patients with significant poisoning.

A Court of Protection judgment about the Skripals issued on March 22 quotes as witness a Porton Down chemical and biological analyst:

Blood samples from Sergei Skripal and Yulia Skripal were analysed and the findings indicated exposure to a nerve agent or related compound. The samples tested positive for the presence of a Novichok class nerve agent or closely related agent.

“Indicated exposure” is a rather weak formulation. It means that no ‘novichok’ was found but decomposition products of something that may have been a nerve agent or not. A blood sample may “test positive” for all kinds of stuff but that does not say anything about the amount or about the lethality of any of the “positive tested” elements. The ‘Novichok’ nerve agents are organophosphates like many of the usual insecticides are. These break down relatively fast. A walk through a field freshly sprayed with some insecticide or the domestic use of such a product might leave similar decomposition products in the bloodstream as a nerve agent attack.

The Court of Protection also said that no relative or friend contacted the authorities about the Skripals. That was evidently false (ru).

Today, 25 days after the incident, the police say they suspect that the Skripals were poisoned from the front door of their home. Today, 25 days after the incident, they removed the front door. I believe that this decision was based on a “most plausible story” guess and not on material evidence. If the door had tested positive for a nerve agent it would have been removed weeks ago. This is, like those people in high protection suits roaming around Salisbury, just theater.

The Skripals were said to have left their home at 9:00am in the morning. They collapsed relatively sudden at 4:00pm in the afternoon. Is this seven hour delay consistent with being severely affected by a “military grade” highly toxic nerve agent? I doubt it.

But even if a nerve agent of the ‘novichok’ type was involved the jump to allegations against Russia is completely baseless. David B. Collum isProfessor for Organic Chemistry at Cornell University. He really, really knows this stuff:

Dave Collum @DavidBCollum – 12:54 AM – 27 Mar 2018
I will say it again: Anybody who tells you this nerve agent must have come from Russia is a liar–a complete and utter liar. They are simple compounds.

The Skripals are getting better. Good for them. But their resurrection from certain death is a further dint in the British government’s claim of ‘nerve agent’ ‘of a type developed by Russia’.

The whole anti-Russian campaign constructed out of it is just ridiculous and deeply dishonest. The five page propaganda handout the British provided to other governments is a joke. It provided no solid facts on the case. To respond to it rationally, as Russia tries to do, makes little sense.

An editorial (recommended) in the Chinese Global Times captures the utter disgust such behavior creates elsewhere:

The fact that major Western powers can gang up and “sentence” a foreign country without following the same procedures other countries abide by and according to the basic tenets of international law is chilling.

Over the past few years the international standard has been falsified and manipulated in ways never seen before.

It is beyond outrageous how the US and Europe have treated Russia. Their actions represent a frivolity and recklessness that has grown to characterize Western hegemony that only knows how to contaminate international relations. Right now is the perfect time for non-Western nations to strengthen unity and collaborative efforts among one another.

Resurrection or not – the result of the ‘Novichok’ nonsense will not be to our ‘western’ favor.

MASSACRE IN GAZA #enoughisenough

Watch: Massacre in Gaza (5 minute video report)

MASSACRE IN GAZA- over 17 dead and 1,400 wounded

Jeremy Corbyn must stop pandering to Labour’s israel lobby #enoughisenough

Jeremy Corbyn must stop pandering to Labour’s Israel lobby

Asa Winstanley

Jewish Voice for Labour supporters demonstrating against false claims of anti-Semitism, in London on 26 March.

For almost three years now, the Labour Party has faced a consistent barrage of allegations that it has a “problem with anti-Semitism.”

This mendacious campaign has had the same aim all along – to topple Jeremy Corbyn.

The party leader’s history in Palestine solidarity groups, and past endorsement of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement, have made him the number one enemy of the Israel lobby.

This fraudulent campaign has been led by an ad hoc alliance: establishment press, right-wing Labour lawmakers and a network of front groups for the Israeli embassy.

This week it reached a crescendo, as the chair of the Jewish Leadership Council unleashed an unprecedented personal attack on Corbyn.

Jonathan Goldstein claimed on the BBC’s Today program that Corbyn is “the figurehead of an anti-Semitic political culture.” Yet again, grave assertions of anti-Semitism against a man with a long, proud history of fighting racism were made with no evidence presented.

This campaign of lies has proceeded in the same fashion all along.

When former Israel lobby intern Alex Chalmers in February 2016 claimed “a large proportion” of the student Labour club “and the student left in Oxford more generally” had a “problem” with Jews, almost the entire conservative and liberal press parroted his claims without even the most cursory checks.

And yet it was a lie deliberately calculated to cause maximum damage to the party.

Chalmers and his co-conspirator – who were part of the far-right corporate Progress faction – ultimately defected to the Liberal Democrats.

But as far as I can tell, I was the only reporter to cover these highly relevant facts. The press didn’t care about the truth – the point was that the damage to Corbyn was done.

Don’t be fooled by the latest stories about the problematic “Rothschilds” mural.

Yes it was a mistake for Corbyn to defend the mural in a comment on Facebook six years ago – even if his comment was not anti-Semitic.

But this is not news, it is a pretext for another coup attempt.

The Jewish Leadership Council and the Board of Deputies of British Jews, who organized the right-wing demonstration against Corbyn outside Parliament in London on Monday, don’t care about anti-Semitism – they care about defending Israel at all costs.

If as the Board of Deputies claims, the demonstration was really against anti-Semitism, then why did its attendees use anti-Semitic abuse against left-wing Jews who held a counter-protest in support of Corbyn?

Ben Southern-Thomas, a young Jewish Voice for Labour member, told me he “came away crying” after anti-Semitic abuse from two attendees of the Board of Deputies demonstration. He said they told him he was “not a real Jew” and was just “pretending to be a Jew.”

Being Jewish is “a really important part of my identity,” Southern-Thomas said. He also said his cousin was told to “Go back to the ghetto.”

This kind of abuse targeting non-Zionist Jews is all too common. Another frequent epithet used by Israel supporters is to call Jews who support Palestinian rights “kapos” – a word describing Jews who collaborated with the Nazis – or saying that Hitler should have killed them.

Far from being a demonstration by the “Jewish community” as front pages claimed, it was packed with Conservatives, and their right-wing colleagues from the Labour backbenches.

A cursory glance at the relevant Twitter hashtag shows the demonstration was led by Tory party activists and attended by right-wing bigots.

Among the leading Conservative Party participants were local government minister Sajid Javid, one of his predecessors Eric Pickles, and Zac Goldsmith, who in 2016 led a campaign for London mayor which was so openly racist that even some Tories found it hard to stomach.

Other hard-right grandees showing their disingenuous concern over anti-Semitism included Ian Paisley Jr., of Northern Ireland’s notoriously anti-Catholic Democratic Unionist Party, and Norman Tebbit, one of Margaret Thatcher’s most loyal ministers with a long history of xenophobia and racial stereotyping.

At the same time as Labour launched its campaign to win May’s local elections (which it has been predicted to win) all the headlines were instead about “Labour anti-Semitism.”

The Board of Deputies’ claims of concern over anti-Semitism ring hollow when their leader Jonathan Arkush personally congratulated Donald Trump on his election as US president.

Trump’s campaign and administration frequently coddled anti-Semites and even neo-Nazis – as long as they were pro-Israel.

Leading figures in the Trump White House have included a sworn member of a Hungarian group which was allied to Hitler and a man who reportedly didn’t want his children going to school with “whiny brat” Jews.

The only defense offered for these people has been that they couldn’t possibly be anti-Semitic because they support Israel.

Far from it: Israel has long been in an increasingly open alliance with some of the worst white supremacist anti-Semites.

But for far too many on the left, the only response to this lying campaign to smear Labour and Corbyn has been appeasement. And this inaction goes to the very top.

Time and again, Corbyn has refused to speak out in support of comrades – primarily Jewish non-Zionists – who have been booted from the party by the right-wing bureaucracy on bogus pretexts.

And he has even rolled back his previous support for BDS.

The purge has targeted Corbyn supporters and Palestine activists as “anti-Semites.”

Frenzied witch hunt

Instead of openly confronting what one prominent leftist has described as a “frenzied witch hunt,” the leadership’s response has been ostrich-like.

Activists are told to hold their peace, do nothing and it will all blow over. Or they are privately told to work quietly behind the scenes to clear their names of the grave accusation of anti-Semitism – even in cases where it is completely fabricated.

Instead of calling the fraudulent “Labour anti-Semitism” story what it really is, Corbyn has for three years attempted to appease Israel lobby groups as if the Board of Deputies, the Jewish Labour Movement and the Jewish Leadership Council were genuine anti-racists.

They are not.

Their primary function is to lobby for Israel, an institutionally racist, apartheid state.

Joan Ryan, a member of Parliament who heads the lobby group Labour Friends of Israel, was even caught red-handed last year fabricating charges of anti-Semitism against a party member who questioned Israel’s policy of colonizing occupied Palestinian land.

Glyn Secker, secretary of Jewish Voice for Labour, a group critical of the witch hunt, writes that he was reinstated only after “a chorus of angry voices, letters to the disputes committee, motions passed through party branches, support from senior members of the party [and] a statement signed by 100 plus.”

He was given no explanation and “no apology for the defamatory allegation” of anti-Semitism against him that led him to be suspended by the party bureaucracy earlier this month.

Others were at least given a pretext.

They cannot be appeased

Israeli anti-Zionist Moshe Machover was summarily expelled on fraudulent grounds, and only grudgingly reinstated after an intense international campaign.

Time and time again, prominent figures on the left have made concessions, and thrown former comrades under the bus.

People like former London mayor Ken Livingstone, and Jewish anti-Zionists Jackie Walker and Tony Greenstein, have been incessantly demonized.

Black anti-racist activist Marc Wadsworth was smeared by right-wing Labour lawmaker Ruth Smeeth, a former Israel lobbyist who issued a press release attributing to him a fake quote portraying him as an anti-Semite.

Too many on the left seem to think: if we throw them a bone by sacrificing a few token “extremists,” the anti-Semitism story will die down and we can move on to the real business of electing a Labour government.

But years later, Labour is still being beaten with the same stick.

Any close observer of Israel and its lobby groups knows this: they cannot be appeased.

For instance, after years of hesitation, European Union officials limited themselves to the timid step of merely requiring labeling of goods from Israeli settlements – rather than banning them outright. But for Israeli officials, EU leaders were still no different from Nazis.

The message time and again is that Israel and its lobby groups cannot be satisfied except through total capitulation. They want Corbyn to go.

Nonetheless, there are some encouraging signs.

Fighting back

Jewish Voice for Labour – a group less than a year old – is cutting through to mainstream media.

Graham Bash, a member of the group, told BBC television that in his experience, the Labour Party has always been a “safe haven” from anti-Semitism. He said that just once in his 50 years as a party member had he witnessed any incident of anti-Semitism.

Labour has a new general secretary Jennie Formby. She is a left-winger, a supporter of Palestinian human rights and a veteran trade unionist. Because of these three things she has, of course, been falsely attacked as an anti-Semite.

But unlike the Labour leadership, her union, Unite, strongly refuted the Israel lobby attack on her as “a lie motivated by hostility to anyone who supports the struggle of the Palestinian people for justice.”

Unite condemned “smears [which] have no place in Labour’s democracy or political culture.”

The resurrection of the smear against Formby appeared timed deliberately to foil her election as general secretary. But because Unite stood up to it, it failed.

Unite’s leader Len McCluskey last year correctly dismissed the campaign as “mood music that was created by people who were trying to undermine Jeremy Corbyn.”

Chris Williamson, a left-wing Labour MP re-elected last year, has also condemned “lies and dirty tricks” around the “anti-Semitism smears.”

“Many people in the Jewish community are appalled by what they see as the weaponization of anti-Semitism for political ends,” he told The Guardian last year.

Since then, Israel lobby groups have been gunning for him.

On Monday, Board of Deputies leader Jonathan Arkush demanded Corbyn discipline Williamson and McCluskey, and expel Jackie Walker and Ken Livingstone, as preconditions to meet with Corbyn – who in another effort at appeasement invited them into the leader’s office.

As I wrote two years ago – the “anti-Semitism” witch hunt – whose real target is Corbyn and anyone else who supports Palestinian rights – will not end until it is either victorious or defeated.

It’s time for the whole left to finally step up to this task.

Editor’s note: This article initially stated that “Go back to the ghetto” was directed at Ben Southern-Thomas. In fact it was directed as his cousin. This has been corrected in the text.

Asa Winstanley is an investigative journalist and associate editor with The Electronic Intifada.

 

 

US National Security Advisor John Bolton Backs Terrorists

Global Research, March 31, 2018

Talk surrounding US President Donald Trump’s move to appoint John Bolton as his new National Security Advisor has focused on Bolton’s role in promoting the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq and the profound contrast his appointment signifies in light of President Trump’s 2016 campaign promises to “drain the swamp.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W197RF0sp8k

However, Bolton’s appointment carries with it greater implications both to those apparently criticizing him as well as those attempting to promote him. Bolton has – for years – lobbied for a terrorist organization guilty of kidnapping and killing both US service members as well as US civilian contractors, along with an untold number of Iranian civilians and politicians in a campaign of terror that has stretched over several decades and continues today.Worst of all, the terrorist organization Bolton lobbied for was literally listed on the US State Department’sForeign Terrorist Organizations list during his lobbying activities – in direct violation of US counter-terrorism laws. That organization – Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) and its political front, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) – has since been delisted as of 2012. However, the organization was delisted not because it has fully given up armed terrorism, but because the US has planned since at least as early as 2009 – according to Washington’s own policy papers – to use MEK as armed proxies against the nation of Iran.MEK are Terrorists, Even According to Their US Sponsors

Despite claims by a growing army of MEK advocates spanning various social media platforms, MEK is without doubt a dangerous terrorist organization. Even those seeking to sponsor MEK as a militant proxy against Iran have admitted as much.In the 2009 Brookings Institution policy paper, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran,” US policymakers openly admitted MEK’s candidacy as a US proxy (emphasis added):

Perhaps the most prominent (and certainly the most controversial) opposition group that has attracted attention as a potential U.S. proxy is the NCRI (National Council of Resistance of Iran), the political movement established by the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq). Critics believe the group to be undemocratic and unpopular, and indeed anti-American.

In contrast, the group’s champions contend that the movement’s long-standing opposition to the Iranian regime and record of successful attacks on and intelligence-gathering operations against the regime make it worthy of U.S. support. They also argue that the group is no longer anti-American and question the merit of earlier accusations. Raymond Tanter, one of the group’s supporters in the United States, contends that the MEK and the NCRI are allies for regime change in Tehran and also act as a useful proxy for gathering intelligence. The MEK’s greatest intelligence coup was the provision of intelligence in 2002 that led to the discovery of a secret site in Iran for enriching uranium. 

Brookings policymakers also openly acknowledged that MEK was without doubt a terrorist organization (emphasis added):

Despite its defenders’ claims, the MEK remains on the U.S. government list of foreign terrorist organizations. In the 1970s, the group killed three U.S. officers and three civilian contractors in Iran. During the 1979-1980 hostage crisis, the group praised the decision to take America hostages and Elaine Sciolino reported that while group leaders publicly condemned the 9/11 attacks, within the group celebrations were widespread.

Undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks—often excused by the MEK’s advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government. For example, in 1981, the group bombed the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, which was then the clerical leadership’s main political organization, killing an estimated 70 senior officials. More recently, the group has claimed credit for over a dozen mortar attacks, assassinations, and other assaults on Iranian civilian and military targets between 1998 and 2001. At the very least, to work more closely with the group (at least in an overt manner), Washington would need to remove it from the list of foreign terrorist organizations.”

It should be noted that Brookings’ mention of MEK was made under a chapter titled, “INSPIRING AN INSURGENCY Supporting Iranian Minority and Opposition Groups,” indicating that groups being considered for US sponsorship would undoubtedly be armed and carry out a campaign of violence – if not terrorism, then the full-scale military operations similar US-sponsored militant groups have been carrying out in Syria.

Brookings recommendation that MEK be removed“from the list of foreign terrorist organizations”would eventually be fully realized by 2012 – spearheaded by lobbyists led by prominent US politicians and policymakers including US National Security Advisor John Bolton.

MEK’s Decades of Terrorism and its Future Terrorism

MEK has carried out decades of brutal terrorist attacks, assassinations, and espionage against the Iranian government and its people, as well as targeting Americans including the attempted kidnapping of US Ambassador Douglas MacArthur II, the attempted assassination of USAF Brigadier General Harold Price, the successful assassination of Lieutenant Colonel Louis Lee Hawkins, the double assassinations of Colonel Paul Shaffer and Lieutenant Colonel Jack Turner, and the successful ambush and killing of American Rockwell International employees William Cottrell, Donald Smith, and Robert Krongard.

Admissions to the deaths of the Rockwell International employees can be found within a 2011 report written by former US State Department and Department of Defense official Lincoln Bloomfield Jr. on behalf of another lobbying firm – Akin Gump – in an attempt to dismiss concerns over MEK’s violent past and how it connects to its current campaign of armed terror.

The report would state:

The State Department’s Country Reports on Terrorism 2009 document says that the MEK killed the deputy chief of the US Military Mission in Tehran in 1973, two members of the US Military Assistance Advisory Group in 1975, and two employees of Rockwell International in 1976, and that it claimed responsibility for killing an American Texaco executive in 1979. 

MEK’s violent past of armed terrorism, coupled with admissions by the US that it seeks to use MEK as an armed proxy against Iran calls into question the US State Department’s decision

Regarding that decision,  the US State Department’s 2012 statement titled, “Delisting of the Mujahedin-e Khalq” would claim:

With today’s actions, the Department does not overlook or forget the MEK’s past acts of terrorism, including its involvement in the killing of U.S. citizens in Iran in the 1970s and an attack on U.S. soil in 1992. The Department also has serious concerns about the MEK as an organization, particularly with regard to allegations of abuse committed against its own members.

The Secretary’s decision today took into account the MEK’s public renunciation of violence, the absence of confirmed acts of terrorism by the MEK for more than a decade, and their cooperation in the peaceful closure of Camp Ashraf, their historic paramilitary base.

The US State Department admits that the organization carried out terrorism in the past and continues today with abuses toward its own members. And as US policymakers within the pages of Brookings papers admit, the entire campaign aimed at delisting MEK in the first place was to legitimize the organization’s use as a militant proxy against Iran – a role that will most certainly violate MEK’s supposed“renunciation of violence” and contravene the grounds upon which MEK was delisted as a terrorist organization by the US State Department in the first place.

John Bolton’s Advocacy of Terrorists

Considering the undeniable terrorist nature of MEK past, present, and Washington’s own admitted plans for its terrorist future, the troubling nature of John Bolton’s advocacy for the group comes into full focus. This is particularly so within the context of Bolton’s new role as National Security Advisor.

Bolton’s role in lobbying for MEK and NCIR has been promoted most prominently by his own supporters among the US media. Right-leaning CNS – for example – in an article titled, “Senior US, Saudi Figures Call for Tehran Regime to be Overthrown,” would admit:

Bolton, who has attended the annual NCRI event for a decade, cited Iran’s military intervention in Syria, in maneuvering in Iraq, and its support for Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists and for Houthi militia in Yemen.

The same article would note however, that:

Supporters view the NCRI and affiliated People’s Mujahedeen Organization of Iran (MEK) as a viable opposition to the clerical rulers in Tehran, and praise it for exposing the regime’s covert nuclear programs. 

Detractors view with suspicion its history of support for the regime of Saddam Hussein, and what critics have described as cult-like behavior. 

The MEK was designated a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. until 2012, when the Obama administration delisted it, citing a renunciation of violence and “the absence of confirmed acts of terrorism by the MEK for more than a decade.”

Foreign Policy would also expose Bolton’s lobbying efforts. In FP’s 2011 article titled, “MEK rally planned for Friday at State Department,” it would include mention of a full-paged ad taken out in the Washington Post. The ad included a letter to then US President Barack Obama which stated:

We are writing to you with urgency to underline the need for an immediate decision to remove Iran’s opposition group the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) from the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO). 

The 2011 adwas signed by John Bolton along with other prominent US politicians including Howard Dean, Rudy Guiliani, and Tom Ridge.

Since MEK has only been removed from the US State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organizations list since 2012, CNS, Foreign Policy, and the lobbying efforts of Bolton himself serves as evidence that Bolton provided support and lobbying services to what was a listed terrorist organization in blatant violation of18 U.S. Code § 2339A – providing material support to terrorists.

Bolton’s speeches openly supporting MEK prior to 2012 are easily found online. One published in 2010 features Bolton speaking in Paris openly advocating not only the US removing MEK from its Foreign Terrorist Organizations list, but also lobbying for US support to be provided to MEK and others in what he called the “Iranian opposition.” Since the 2012 delisting, Bolton has continued attending MEK events and advocating both support for MEK and openly calling for the US-led overthrow of the Iranian government.

While some have attempted to defend Bolton and others lobbying for MEK claiming that MEK could not have been removed from the State Department’s list even if it was no longer a threat to the US without the aid of lobbying – it should be remembered that the job of adding or removing terrorist organizations from the State Department’s list is the responsibility of the Bureau of Counterterrorism in the State Department – not political lobbyists.

The State Department itself notes on its website that:

The Bureau of Counterterrorism in the State Department (CT) continually monitors the activities of terrorist groups active around the world to identify potential targets for designation. When reviewing potential targets, CT looks not only at the actual terrorist attacks that a group has carried out, but also at whether the group has engaged in planning and preparations for possible future acts of terrorism or retains the capability and intent to carry out such acts.

Clearly – however – the presence of immense lobbying campaigns like those led by Bolton on behalf of MEK indicates that the State Department’s list is dictated by political motivations, money, and lobbying, not independent analysis provided by US security and intelligence professionals either in the US State Department or elsewhere within the US government.

Furthermore, it is clear by the US State Department’s own criteria that MEK is still very much a foreign terrorist organization. According to its own criteria, any organization that is even planning or preparing for possible future acts of terrorism, must be included on the list. US policymakers and even John Bolton himself have openly stated that MEK will be used as an armed proxy against Iran.

A Terrorist Collaborator Advising on US National Security

A National Security Advisor openly guilty of violating US anti-terrorism laws having provided material support to a US State Department-listed foreign terrorist organization for years illustrates just how profoundly compromised US institutions are and reflects an agenda that not only exclusively serves special interests – but does so at the cost of the American people’s actual security.

The position of National Security Advisor – officially known as “the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs” – is describedby the US White House’s official website as part of the National Security Councilas follows:

The National Security Council (NSC) is the President’s principal forum for considering national security and foreign policy matters with his senior national security advisors and cabinet officials. Since its inception under President Truman, the Council’s function has been to advise and assist the President on national security and foreign policies. The Council also serves as the President’s principal arm for coordinating these policies among various government agencies.

A National Security Council that includes lobbyists representing terrorist organizations with American blood on their hands constitutes not only a dire threat to actual US national security, but global security as well.

MEK terrorists backed by a nation possessing nuclear weapons and a history of provoking wars through fabricated evidence and staged incidents ensures that America’s foreign policy will continue to pursue destructive wars abroad at the cost of US treasure and blood and the resources and lives of nations the US sets its industrialized military aggression upon.

John Bolton – however – is not the architect of the policy he has advocated for well over a decade. He is simply fulfilling what US policymakers themselves have meted out in the pages of US policy papers for just as long. These policymakers – in turn – are funded by American arms manufacturers, energy conglomerates, financial institutions, and other immense corporate-financier special interests.

The Brookings Institution whose 2009 paper, “Which Path to Persia?” spelled out verbatim the steps Bolton has since undertaken with his lobbying efforts, has a long list of such corporate-financier interests underwriting and directing its work.

Understanding that efforts to remove MEK from the US State Department’s  Foreign Terrorist Organizations list and prepare them for their role as armed proxies against Iran transcended the administrations of George Bush, Barack Obama, and now Donald Trump exposes the continuity of agenda – regardless of who occupies the White House or US Congress – advanced by these unelected corporate-financier interests.

While exposing John Bolton’s complicity in the material support of egregious terrorists and his efforts to use them as armed proxies against Iran in a war he has attempted to promote and instigate for years is important, it is equally important to expose, confront, isolate, and extinguish the influence of the corporate-financier interests that have underwritten and directed Bolton’s efforts and the efforts of countless others working to drag the United States, its allies, and the rest of the planet into another destructive conflict.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook” where this article was first published.

Tony Cartalucci is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

%d bloggers like this: