The good news about the Trump Presidency: stupid can be good!

January 11, 2018

The good news about the Trump Presidency: stupid can be good!

[Note: This column was written for the Unz Review]

Just a few days shy of the one year since the inauguration of Donalt Trump as President of the United States I think that it would be reasonable to say that pretty much everybody, besides the Neocons and a few unconditional supporters, is now feeling quite appalled at what the past year brought to the USA and the planet. Those who hated Trump don’t hate him any less, while those who had hopes for Trump, such as myself, now have to accept that these hopes never materialized. I think that if we imagine a Hillary Presidency then the word “evil” would be a good way to describe what such a Presidency would most likely have been like. Likewise, if I had to chose a single word to describe the Trump Presidency, at least so far, I think that this word should be “stupid”. I won’t even bother, as I had initially planned, to list all the stupid things Trump has said and done since his inauguration (those who think otherwise might as well stop reading here). I will say that it gives me no pleasure writing this because I also had hopes that Trump would fulfill at least some of his campaign promises (even though most of my support for him was based on the fact that he was not Hillary who, I still believe, would have brought the USA and Russia to war against each other). Furthermore, each time I recall Trump’s inauguration speech I have this painful sense of a most important and totally missed opportunity: to finally restore the sovereignty of the USA to the the people of the USA and to return to a civilized and rational international policy. Alas, this did not happen and that is a reality we have to accept and deal with.

I also want to clarify that when I say that the Trump Presidency can be best summed up with the word “stupid” I don’t just mean The Donald himself. I mean the entire Administration (I don’t mention Congress, as Congress as been about stupid for as long as I can recall it). If you wonder how I can call an entire administration “stupid” even though it is composed of often brilliant civil servants, lawyers, academic, technical specialists, etc I will simply reply that I don’t judge an administration by the resumes of those working for it, but simply by its output, what it actually does. If what this administration produces is a lot of stupid, then this is a stupid administration.

Stupid can mean a lot of different things. For example, it can mean stupid threats against North Korea. That is a very frightening kind of stupid. But there is also a very good kind of stupid. For example, I think that the decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is a wonderful kind of stupid which I warmly welcome.

Why?

Because it is the kind of stupid which tremendously weakens the AngloZionist Empire!

Think of the damage this truly stupid move did to not only the US international reputation (which indeed was already pretty close to zero even before this latest move) but also to the US capability to get anything done at all the the Middle-East. The military defeat of the USA in Iraq and Afghanistan and the political defeat of the USA in Syria just needed a little something to truly make the USA irrelevant in the Middle-East and now, thanks to Donald Trump, this has now happened! Furthermore, there was a dirty little secret which everybody new about which has now become a public fact:

USA= ISRAEL & ISRAEL=USA

Again this is all very good. Even better is the fact that the only ones disagreeing with this would be Honduras, Guatemala, Palau, Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Togo, Nauru and southern Sudan and, of course, Israel.

The US foreign policy has become so outlandishly stupid that even the most subservient US puppet regimes (say, the UK, Norway, ROK or Japan) or are now forced to condemn it, at least publicly. A lot of credit here goes to Nikki Haley who, following this catastrophic vote, decided to make things even worse by blackmailign the UN and all its member states. Finally, President Trump himself sealed it all by giving Nikki Haley’s speech a very public endorsement.

So stupid as this may have been, and stupid it really was, in this instance the results of this stupid were nothing short of a blessing for the Middle-East: even Hamas is now finally talking again with Hezbollah and Iran!

Just as we can sincerely thank President Obama for pushing Russia and China into each other’s arms, we can now all thank Nikki Haley and Trump for uniting the resistance to the state of Israel and the entire AngloZionist Empire. I can just about imagine the jubilation in Tehran when the Iranians heard the good news!

But good stupid does not stop here. The fact that the US elites are all involved in a giant shootout against each other by means of investigations, scandals, accusations, talks of impeachment, etc. is also a blessing because while they are busy fighting each other they are much less capable of focusing on their real opponents and enemies. For months now President Trump has mostly ruled the USA by means of “tweets” which, of course, and by definition, amounts to exactly nothing and there is nothing which could be seriously called a “US foreign policy” (with the exception of the neverending stream of accusations, threats and grandstanding, which don’t qualify). There are real risks and opportunities resulting from this situation

  1. Risks: when nobody is really in charge, each agency does pretty much what it wants. We saw that during the 2ndhalf of the Obama Presidency when State did one thing, the Pentagon another and the CIA yet another. This resulted in outright goofy situation with US allies attacking each other in Syria and Iraq because they all reported to different agencies. The risk here is obvious: for example, when US diplomats made an agreement with Russia in Syria, the Pentagon torpedoed the very next day by attacking Syrian forces. The recent attacks on the Russian Aerospace Forces base in Khmeimim (and the latest drone attack on that same base) would exactly fit that pattern. The Russians have been complaining for months now that the USA are “non-agreement capable” and this can clearly be a problem and a risk.
  2. Opportunities: when nobody is in charge then the AngloZionist Empire cannot really bring its full force against one specific target. This of a car or bus in which all the passengers are fighting each other for the control of the steering wheel. This is bad for them, but good for everybody else as the only place this car or bus is headed for is the ditch. Furthermore, since currently the US is, at various degrees, threatening no less than 9 countries (Afghanistan, Syria, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Turkey, Pakistan, China) these threats sound rather hollow. Not only that, but should the USA get seriously involved in any type of conflict with any one of these countries, this would open great opportunities for the others to take action. Considering how the US elites are busy fighting each other there and threatening everybody else there is very little change that the USA could focus enough to seriously threaten any of its opponents. But this goes much further than the countries I mentioned here. There is a French expression which goes “when the cat’s away, the mice will play” and this is what we might see next: more countries following the example of the Philippines, which used to be a subservient US colony and which now is ruled my a man who has no problems publicly insulting the US President, at least when Obama was President (Duterte seems to like Trump more than Obama). There have already been signs that the South Koreans are taking their first timid steps towards telling “no” to Uncle Sam.

I am not trying to paint a rosy picture of the situation which is bad, no doubt about that. Having ignorant fools in charge of nuclear weapons is not good, by definition. But I do want to suggest two things: first, that no matter stupid Trump is, Hillary would have been infinitely worse and, second, that there are also some good aspects to the current vacuum of power in Washington, DC.

If we can agree that anything that weakens the AngloZionist Empire is a good thing (including for the American people!), as is anything which brings its eventual demise closer, then there is a lot to be grateful for the past year. The Empire really began to crumble under George W. Bush (thanks Neocons!), and that process most definitely continued under Obama. However, Donald Trump is the one who truly given this process a tremendous acceleration which has, I think, brought it to a qualitatively new level. The risks ahead are still tremendous, but so far the Empire is losing and the Resistance to it is still winning. And that is a very good thing.

The Saker

Advertisements

Did Obama Arm Islamic State Killers?

Did Obama Arm Islamic State Killers?

EDITOR’S CHOICE | 23.12.2017

Did Obama Arm Islamic State Killers?

Daniel LAZARE

Did Barack Obama arm ISIS? The question strikes many people as absurd, if not offensive. How can anyone suggest something so awful about a nice guy like the former president? But a stunning report by an investigative group known as Conflict Armament Research (CAR) leaves us little choice but to conclude that he did.

Journalist James Foley shortly before he was executed by an Islamic State operative in August 2014

CAR, based in London and funded by Switzerland and the European Union, spent three years tracing the origin of some 40,000 pieces of captured ISIS arms and ammunition. Its findings, made public last week, are that much of it originated in former Warsaw Pact nations in Eastern Europe, where it was purchased by United States and Saudi Arabia and then diverted, in violation of various rules and treaties, to Islamist rebels seeking to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The rebels, in turn, somehow caused or allowed the equipment to be passed on to Islamic State, which is also known by the acronyms ISIS or ISIL, or just the abbreviation IS.

This is damning stuff since it makes it clear that rather than fighting ISIS, the U.S. government was feeding it.

But CAR turns vague when it comes to the all-important question of precisely how the second leg of the transfer worked. Did the rebels turn the weapons over voluntarily, involuntarily, or did they somehow drop them when ISIS was in close proximity and forget to pick them up? All CAR will say is that “background information … indicates that IS [Islamic State] forces acquired the materiel through varied means, including battlefield capture and the amalgamation of disparate Syrian opposition groups.” It adds that it “cannot rule out direct supply to IS forces from the territories of Jordan and Turkey, especially given the presence of various opposition groups, with shifting allegiances, in cross-border supply locations.” But that’s it.

If so, this suggests an astonishing level of incompetence on the part of Washington. The Syrian rebel forces are an amazingly fractious lot as they merge, split, attack one another and then team up all over again. So how could the White House have imagined that it could keep weapons tossed into this mix from falling into the wrong hands? Considering how each new gun adds to the chaos, how could it possibly keep track? The answer is that it couldn’t, which is why ISIS wound up reaping the benefits.

But here’s the rub. The report implies a level of incompetence that is not just staggering, but too staggering. How could such a massive transfer occur without field operatives not having a clue as to what was going on? Was every last one of them deaf, dumb, and blind?

Not likely. What seems much more plausible is that once the CIA established “plausible deniability” for itself, all it cared about was that the arms made their way to the most effective fighting force, which in Syria happened to be Islamic State.

This is what had happened in Afghanistan three decades earlier when the lion’s share of anti-Soviet aid, some $600 million in all, went to a brutal warlord named Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Hekmatyar was a raging bigot, a sectarian, and an anti-western xenophobe, qualities that presumably did not endear him to his CIA handlers. But as Steve Coll notes in Ghost Wars, his bestselling 2004 account of the CIA’s love affair with Islamic holy war, he “was the most efficient at killing Soviets” and that was the only thing that mattered. As one CIA officer put it, “analytically, the best fighters – the best-organized fighters – were the fundamentalists” that Hekmatyar led. Consequently, he ended up with the most money.

After all, if you’re funding a neo-medieval uprising, it makes sense to steer the money to the darkest reactionaries of them all. Something similar occurred in March 2015 when Syrian rebels launched an assault on government positions in the northern province of Idlib. The rebel coalition was under the control of Jabhat al-Nusra, as the local branch of Al Qaeda was known at the time, and what Al-Nusra needed most of all were high-tech TOW missiles with which to counter government tanks and trucks.

Arming Al Qaeda

So the Obama administration arranged for Nusra to get them. To be sure, it didn’t provide them directly. To ensure deniability, rather, it allowed Raytheon to sell some 15,000 TOWs to Saudi Arabia in late 2013 and then looked the other way when the Saudis transferred large numbers of them to pro-Nusra forces in Idlib. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Climbing into bed with Al-Qaeda.”] Al-Nusra had the toughest fighters in the area, and the offensive was sure to send the Assad regime reeling. So even though its people were compatriots with those who destroyed the World Trade Center, Obama’s White House couldn’t say no.

“Nusra have always demonstrated superior planning and battle management,” Yezid Sayigh, a senior associate at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, said a few weeks later. If the rebel coalition was successful as a whole, it “was entirely due to their willingness to work with Nusra, who have been the backbone in all of this.”

Scruples, assuming they existed in the first place, fell by the wayside. A senior White House official told The Washington Post that the Obama administration was “not blind to the fact that it is to some extent inevitable” that U.S. weapons would wind up in terrorist hands, but what could you do? It was all part of the game of realpolitik. A senior Washington official crowed that “the trend lines for Assad are bad and getting worse” while The New York Times happily noted that “[t]he Syrian Army has suffered a string of defeats from re-energized insurgents.” So, for the master planners in Washington, it was worth it.

Then there is ISIS, which is even more beyond the pale as most Americans are concerned thanks to its extravagant displays of barbarism and cruelty – its killing of Yazidis and enslavement of Yazidi women and girls, its mass beheadings, its fiery execution of Jordanian fighter pilot Moaz al-Kasasbeh, and so on.

Yet U.S. government attitudes were more ambivalent than most Americans realized. Indeed, the U.S. government was strictly neutral as long as ISIS confined itself to attacking Assad. As a senior defense official told the Wall Street Journal in early 2015: “Certainly, ISIS has been able to expand in Syria, but that’s not our main objective. I wouldn’t call Syria a safe haven for ISIL, but it is a place where it’s easier for them to organize, plan, and seek shelter than it is in Iraq.”

In other words, Syria was a safe haven because, the Journal explained, the U.S. was reluctant to interfere in any way that might “tip the balance of power toward Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who is fighting Islamic State and other rebels.” So the idea was to allow ISIS to have its fun as long as it didn’t bother anyone else. For the same reason, the U.S. refrained from bombing the group when, shortly after the Idlib offensive, its fighters closed in on the central Syrian city of Palmyra, 80 miles or so to the east.  This was despite the fact that the fighters would have made perfect targets while “traversing miles of open desert roads.”

As The New York Times explained: “Any airstrikes against Islamic State militants in and around Palmyra would probably benefit the force of President Bashar al-Assad. So far, United States-led airstrikes in Syria have largely focussed on areas far outside government control, to avoid the perception of aiding a leader whose ouster President Obama has called for.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “How US-Backed War on Syria Helped ISIS.”]

Looting Palmyra

A Russian orchestra performing at Palmyra’s Roman theater on May 5, 2016, after Syrian troops, backed by Russian air power, reclaimed the ancient city from the Islamic State. (Image from RT’s live-streaming of the event.)

The United States thus allowed ISIS to capture one of the most archeologically important cities in the world, killing dozens of government soldiers and decapitating 83-year-old Khalid al-Asaad, the city’s retired chief of antiquities. (After looting and destroying many of the ancient treasures, ISIS militants were later driven from Palmyra by a Russian-backed offensive by troops loyal to President Assad.)

Obama’s bottom line was: ISIS is very, very bad when it attacks the U.S.-backed regime in Iraq, but less so when it wreaks havoc just over the border in Syria. In September 2016, John Kerry clarified what the administration was up to in a tape-recorded conversation at the U.N. that was later made public. Referring to Russia’s decision to intervene in Syria against ISIS, also known by the Arabic acronym Daesh, the then-Secretary of State told a small knot of pro-rebel sympathizers:

“The reason Russia came in is because ISIL was getting stronger.  Daesh was threatening the possibility of going to Damascus and so forth, and that’s why Russia came in, because they didn’t want a Daesh government and they supported Assad. And we know this was growing. We were watching. We saw that Daesh was growing in strength, and we thought Assad was threatened. We thought, however, we could probably manage, that Assad might then negotiate. Instead of negotiating, he got … Putin in to support him. So it’s truly complicated.”  (Quote starts at 26:10.)

“We were watching.” Kerry said. So, by giving ISIS free rein, the administration hoped to use it as a lever with which to dislodge Assad. As in Afghanistan, the United States thought it could use jihad to advance its own imperial interests. Yet the little people – Syrian soldiers, three thousand office workers in lower Manhattan, Yazidis, the Islamic State’s beheading of Western hostages, etc. – made things “truly complicated.”

Putting this all together, a few things seem clear. One is that the Obama administration was happy to see its Saudi allies use U.S.-made weapons to arm Al Qaeda. Another is that it was not displeased to see ISIS battle Assad’s government as well. If so, how unhappy could it have been if its allies then passed along weapons to the Islamic State so it could battle Assad all the more? The administration was desperate to knock out Assad, and it needed someone to do the job before Vladimir Putin stepped in and bombed ISIS instead.

It was a modern version of Henry II’s lament, “Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?” The imperative was to get rid of Assad; Obama and his team had no interest in the messy details.

None of which proves that Obama armed ISIS. But unless one believes that the CIA is so monumentally inept that it could screw up a two-car funeral, it’s the only explanation that makes sense. Obama is still a congenial fellow. But he’s a classic liberal who had no desire to interfere with the imperatives of empire and whose idea of realism was therefore to leave foreign policy in the hands of neocons or liberal interventionists like Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.

If America were any kind of healthy democracy, Congress would not rest until it got to the bottom of what should be the scandal of the decade: Did the U.S. government wittingly or unwittingly arm the brutal killers of ISIS and Al Qaeda? However, since that storyline doesn’t fit with the prevailing mainstream narrative of Washington standing up for international human rights and opposing global terrorism, the troublesome question will likely neither be asked nor answered.

VIDEO: The Privatization of Nuclear War, Towards a World War III Scenario: Michel Chossudovsky

GRTV Report Produced by James Corbett, Featuring Michel Chossuodvsky

Global Research, November 09, 2017

First published in June 2015.

With tensions growing in Europe, Asia and the Middle East, a new generation of nuclear weapons technology is making nuclear warfare a very real prospect. And with very little fanfare, the US is embarking on the privatization of nuclear war under a first-strike doctrine.

“On August 6, 2003, on Hiroshima Day, commemorating when the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima (August 6 1945), a secret meeting was held behind closed doors at Strategic Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. Senior executives from the nuclear industry and the military industrial complex were in attendance. This mingling of defense contractors, scientists and policy-makers was not intended to commemorate Hiroshima. The meeting was intended to set the stage for the development of a new generation of “smaller”, “safer” and “more usable” nuclear weapons, to be used in the “in-theater nuclear wars” of the 21st Century. 

“Nuclear war has become a multibillion dollar undertaking, which fills the pockets of US defense contractors. What is at stake is the outright “privatization of nuclear war”. 

 

original

US-NATO weapons of mass destruction are portrayed as instruments of peace. Mini-nukes are said to be “harmless to the surrounding civilian population”. Pre-emptive nuclear war is portrayed as a “humanitarian undertaking”. 

US nuclear doctrine is intimately related to “America’s War on Terrorism” and the alleged threat of Al Qaeda, which in a bitter irony is con- sidered as an upcoming nuclear power.

Click image to order Michel Chossudovsky’s book

Under the Obama administration, Islamic terrorists are said to be preparing to attack US cities. Proliferation is tacitly equated with “nuclear terrorism”. Obama’s nuclear doctrine puts particular emphasis on “nuclear terrorism” and on the alleged plans by Al Qaeda to develop and use nuclear weapons. 

“While one can conceptualize the loss of life and destruction resulting from present-day wars including Iraq and Afghanistan, it is impossible to fully comprehend the devastation which might result from a Third World War, using “new technologies” and advanced weapons, until it occurs and becomes a reality. The international community has endorsed nuclear war in the name of world peace. “Making the world safer” is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.”  

(Excerpts from Michel Chossudovsky, Towards a World War III Scenario, The Dangers of Nuclear War, Global Research Montreal, 2011.

Order directly from Global Research (also available in pdf and kindle)
 .
original

Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War

Michel Chossudovsky

 

 

 

 

The original source of this article is Global Research

هل يوقف تيلرسون البلدوزرات التي تهدم العصر الاميريكي؟؟ صح النوم أميريكا

بقلم نارام سرجون

 السياسة ليست الا مسرحا للحياة وفيها نرى الناجحين والفاشلين والمغامرين .. هناك سياسيون يتحولون الى أبطال وفرسان يقهرون الحياة .. وهناك من يتعرضون لحوادث سير في طرقات السياسة حيث تصدمهم عربات لسياسيين آخرين يقودون سياراتهم بسرعة جنونية ..

  كما يحدث في السعودية حيث يقود شاب متهور هو ابن الملك سيارته الجديدة باندفاع وهو لايزال في طور التمرين ويصدم ولي العهد محمد بن نايف الذي أصيب بعجز كامل وهو يرقد في سريره ولاامل له في السير في طرقات السياسة بعد صدمة ولاية العهد .. الا على كرسي متحرك ..

أما السياسيون المحظوظون فهم مثل أولئك الذين يربحون ورقة يانصيب من غير توقع .. وهذا مايجعله مؤمنا بالحظ والمقامرات والرهانات .. وخير مثال على هذا النموذج هو الملك عبدالله الثاني ملك الأردن الذس كان يلعب الورق والروليت ويسابق الريح على دراجاته النارية .. وفجأة صار ملكا من حيث لايتوقع ..

وهناك سياسيون يتحولون الى رواد للمقاهي السياسية للمحالين على المعاش يشربون الشاي ويدخنون الشيشة .. يسعلون وهم يدخنون ويتحدثون عن أمجادهم القديمة .. وفي نهاية اليوم يذهب واحدهم الى الصيدلية السياسية ليشتري حبوب الضغط السياسي ومضادات الامساك السياسي وأحيانا حفاضات لمنع سلس البول السياسي كيلا ينفلت لسانه ويتحدث بما لايجب أن يتحدث فيه .. فلا فرق بين اللسان والمثانة في أواخر التقاعد السياسي .. وكلاهما يحتوي نفس المواد ..

وخير مثال على هذا النموذج المتقاعد هو الأمير الحسن بن طلال الأردني الذي لايبرح مقاهي المتقاعدين السياسيين حيث لم يترك له أخوه الملك حسين الا ذكريات ولي عهد مخدوع انتظر خمسين عاما .. ووجد نفسه في كرسي المقهى بدل كرسي العرش ..

وهناك سياسيون يشبهون أصحاب العيال والأسر الكبيرة التي تعاني من الفقر والعوز فلايجد رب الأسرة الفاشل حلا لمشكلاته الا العمل في حراسة أحد النوادي الليلية أو بيت الأثرياء ويتحول الى ناطور أو الى “بودي غارد” ويتحول تدريجيا الى بلطجي وأحيانا يتصرف مثل كلب من كلاب الثري .. ومع هذا يظل مفلسا فيقرر أن يؤجر أولاده أو يشغلهم باعة متجولين أو يبيعهم .. وهذا يمثله رئيس السودان عمر البشير .. الذي باع نصف بيته .. ونصف أولاده .. وقام بتأجير الباقي ..

ولكن اين هم الساسة الاوروبيون والاميريكيون في شارع السياسة؟؟ السياسيون الأوروبيون تجدهم في شارع السياسة مثل السماسرة وأصحاب المكاتب العقارية .. يبيعونك الأوهام والقصور ويورطونك في صفقات سياسية خاسرة ومغامرات تشتري فيها ابراجا على الورق .. وعندما تخسر الصفقة ينسحبون بأرباحهم ويتركونك محسورا ويقولون لك انها التجارة .. فيها ربح وخسارة .. ولذلك عندما تتعامل مع أي سياسي أوروبي فعليك ان تتذكر أنك أمام سمسار ليس الا ..

أما الساسة الأمريكيون في شارع السياسة فانهم ذلك النوع من “المحامين النصابين” وليس المحامين المحترمين .. المحامون النصابون الذين يعرفون سلفا أن قضيتك خاسرة ومع ذلك يؤكدون لك انهم سيكسبونها لك ويجرجرون خصمك الى المحاكم .. ويقومون برشوة القضاة ورجال الشرطة وتغيير افادات الشهود .. ومع ذلك فالقضية لاتكسب دائما لكنهم وعندما يصدر قرار القاضي النافذ والقطعي بان قضيتهم خاسرة .. يقولون لك سنستأنف الحكم ونطعن فيه .. ويعيدون لك الأمل في أن تكسب القضية الخاسرة .. ولكن ينهون اللقاء بعبارة: اعطنا دفعة على الحساب كي نستأنف الحكم .. وطبعا الزبون المسكين المغفل يصدق الأمل الخادع ويسير من محكمة الى محكمة .. كما سار ياسر عرفات وأنور السادات وسعد الحريري .. وماحدث هو ان ياسر عرفات توفي ولم تتقدم القضية وربما طوي الملف بسبب وفاة صاحب القضية ..

أما أنور السادات فانه أخذ الأرض التي ملك أمه وابيه .. ولكن سيادته على أرضه لم تتجاوز المكان الذي وصل اليه حذاء الجندي المصري على الضفة الشرقية للقناة (المنطقة أ) .. ومافعله المحامي الامريكي أنه لم يغير في الواقع شيئا .. فما حرره المصريون بالدبابات بالعبور هو مايملكونه ملكية كاملة غير منقوصة .. والباقي (المنطقة ب والمنطقة ج) فهي وقف من اوقاف الأمم المتحدة .. أي ملكية مصرية محدودة بدور المدير التنفيذي ربما !!! ..

حسني مبارك متورط في حادث اغتيال سلفه أنور السادات

أما محكمة الحريري فانها تحولت الى مسلسل مكسيكي طويل من طراز السوب اوبرا .. والى مايشبه سلسلة تيرمنيتر لشوارنزنكر .. أو جيمس بوند .. ولكن نكهتها الشرقية تجعلنا نحس أنها احدى مجموعات باب الحارة للمخرج بسام الملا .. حيث يموت أبو عصام ثم لايموت أبو عصام .. وحتى هذه اللحظة لانعرف ماهي نهاية باب الحارة .. الذي ستحل محله سلسلة محكمة الحريري .. محكمة حريري 1 .. ومحكمة حريري 2 ……. ومحكمة حريري 15 .. الخ ..

أحد المحامين الامريكيين النصابين اسمه تيلرسون الذي يعمل في مكتب محاماة معروف أنه من اكبر النصابين الذي تسلم من المحامي النصاب جون كيري الملف السوري الخاسر .. ولكن المحامي النصاب تيلرسون يعلم أن القضية انتهت وخاسرة 100% .. ومع ذلك فانه يقول لموكليه في المعارضة والسعودية:

(سأطعن في الحكم .. وسآخرج الزير من البير .. والأسد من قصر الشعب ..اعتمدوا علينا فالمحامي السابق ومعلمه اوباما حمار وفاشل .. اتركوها علي وسأنهي حكم الأسد .. ولكن هاتوا دفعة على الحساب .. ) ..

في شارع السياسة رجال مهندسون هم مهندسو العصور .. مخلصون أحرار .. يعملون بصمت ويبنون .. يعرفون كل من يمر في الشارع .. ويعرفون الأبنية المتهالكة والتي تحتاج الى ترميم .. ويعرفون من يملك العمارات ومن يستأجرها ومن يستولي عليها بالقوة وبقوة الفساد الدولية .. ويعرفون أين هي الأبنية المخالفة للقانون والمحتلة .. وهم يواصلون هدم الأبنية القديمة .. ويقودون عمالا فقراء ليغيروا خارطة الطرقات التي ملأتها الفوضى الخلاقة ..

شوارع السياسة لايغيرها محامون نصابون .. ولايغيره الرابحون في أوراق اليانصيب .. ولاالسماسرة ولا رواد المقاهي المتقاعدون ولا النواطير والرجال الذين يؤجرون انفسهم واولادهم .. شوارع السياسة يغيرها من يريد ربط البحار وفصل البحار وفصل العصور وربط العصور .. ومن يعرف كل مايدور في شوارع السياسة ولايغرق في أوهامها ومسارحها ..

شارع السياسة الذي بني في القرن العشرين يتهدم وكل الابنية فيه تجرفها بلدوزرات البريكس وجرافات الجيش الروسي والسوري والايراني التي تكنس كل الأنقاض .. وتجرف فيها كل مكاتب السماسرة والمقاهي وتمسح الأبنية المتهالكة والمخالفات .. وهناك أبنية جديدة يوضع الاساس لها .. وعمارات تنهض ..

شارع القرن العشرين الذي كان أميريكيا انتهى عمره .. وانهار .. وبدأ عصر جديد وملامح شارع جديد .. وعصر جديد سيظهر خلال سنوات قليلة .. شارع أميريكا السياسي سينتهي .. ولذلك يمكن أن نقول لمن يقول بأن عصر الأسد انتهى .. بأن حكم أميريكا انتهى ..

استمعوا الى الرئيس الأسد الذي بدأ مع حلفائه هدم شوارع السياسة القديمة عندما فهم السياسة واللاعبين على مسرحها .. ان من يقول هذا الكلام الذي قاله الأسد منذ زمن طويل قبل غزو العراق لايمكن الا أن يكون لديه مشروع بناء شرق أوسط جديد .. يبنيه على حطام الشرق الأوسط الامريكي .. انه أحد المهندسين .. الذين هدموا مابنته أميريكا لبناء جدران السياسة وخطوط الطاقة وانابيبها من الشرق الى البحر المتوسط .. وخوف أميريكا ليس مما هدمه الأسد وحلفاؤه بل مما سيبنيه مع مهندسي القرن العشرين في روسيا والصين وايران .. ان هذا العصر بدأ ولن يتوقف ..

ياسيد تيلرسون يمكن لأميريكا أن تخرج الزير من البير .. ولكن الأصعب من ذلك هو أن تخرج الأسد من قصر الشعب .. والأصعب هو أن تعود أميريكا كما كانت في الشرق .. لأن الأسد وحلفاءه يحضرون لرميها في البير ..

صح النوم ياسيد تيلرسون .. صح النوم أميريكا ..

Trump’s Fascism versus Obama’s Fascism

by Eric Zuesse

August 20, 2017

Trump’s Fascism versus Obama’s Fascism

Barack Obama was the only U.S. President who at the United Nations defended nazism — racist fascism — and Holocaust-denial. It received almost no reporting by the press at the time (or subsequently). But his successor President Donald Trump could end up being removed from office because he said that racist fascists are just the same as are people who demonstrate publicly against them. Trump’s politically stupid (not to say callous) remark became viral, and apparently the press (which had ignored Obama’s defense of nazism at the U.N.) just won’t let go of Trump’s statement unless and until he becomes replaced by his even-more-far-right Vice President, Mike Pence.

Why is there this intense press-coverage of Trump’s support of racist fascism, when there wasn’t of Obama’s (which was actually far more meaningful)? The answer comes closer if we ponder first a different question: How could the Republican Party, which is right-wing at its core, condemn a Democratic Party President who goes out of his way at the U.N. to protect today’s nazis? That wouldn’t be politically practical for Republican politicians to complain about (a Democrat’s being too far to the right); so, they didn’t do it. Similarly, no Democrat will criticize a Republican for being too leftist. There may be a few exceptions, but that’s the general rule: Successful politicians don’t offend their base.

But that still doesn’t fully answer why the press ignored it when Obama defended nazism at the U.N. The rest of the answer comes when we recognize that America’s press gets its cues from the two political Parties. If the ‘opposition’ (and not just the President’s own Party) is hiding something egregious that a President is doing or has done (such as happened there with Obama, and with many other conservative policies that Obama executed), then the press will hide it, too. Republicans weren’t calling attention to Obama’s defense of nazism, because they’d then be offending some of their own supporters. (Democrats weren’t calling attention to it, because a Democrat was doing this, which didn’t fit the ‘progressive’ storyline.) And, if the ‘opposition’ isn’t pointing it out, then neither will the press. The matter will then just be ignored — which is what happened. This was thus bipartisan non-reporting, of what Obama did. There was a lot of that while Obama was President.

In other words: America’s press are tools of, and are led by, the same people who actually, deep down, control both of America’s political Parties — the billionaires. They control both politics, and also the press. Numerous social-science studies have shown that the wealthier a person is, the likelier that person is to be politically conservative — at least to the extent that political conservatism doesn’t threaten his or her particular business and financial interests. As America’s billionaires have come to control America’s politics, this country has been moving farther and farther to the right, except on the relatively few issues (such as immigration, gay rights, etc.) where their own economic interests are served better by a progressive position (or, at least, by a position that seems to most people to be progressive).

Trump’s problem here is that he’s too obviously playing to his Party’s base. Obama didn’t need to do that, because he had massive support from billionaires, and he was a much better liar than Trump, good enough to keep many progressive voters with him even after he had already shafted them in his actual policies. For example, when Obama dropped ‘the public option’ as soon as he became elected, he was excused for it because most Americans thought he was simply being practical and avoiding an ‘unnecessary’ conflict with the opposite Party in Congress. This view ignored that he gave up on it even as being a bargaining-chip to get concessions from congressional Republicans to drive new legislation to be more progressive. Obama had no interest in progressivism. Actually, Obama didn’t want to offend his mega-donors. He thus handed the task of drafting the Obamacare law to the conservative Democrat, and public-option opponent, Max Baucus, instead of to the progressive Democrat and public-option supporter, Ted Kennedy, who desperately wanted (and expected) to have the opportunity to draft it.

Both Trump and Obama (in their actions, if not also in their words) are proponents of what Benito Mussolini called “Corporationism” — big-corporate control of the government, which Mussolini more-commonly referred to as “fascism.” President Trump has been widely condemned both here in the U.S. and around the world (which his predecessor President Barack Obama never was), for his recent blatant statement equating the worst of fascists, which are racist fascists, as being comparable to the people who in Charlottesville Virginia had marched and demonstrated against racist fascists and who were violently attacked and one of them killed by racist fascists, against whom they had been protesting. Trump was equating anti-fascists with fascists, and he even equated racist fascists — ideological nazis — with the people who were protesting specifically against nazism. Apparently, the press won’t let go of it. They treat this event as if top-level U.S. nazism were unprecedented in today’s post-WW-II America — as if this nation were still anti-nazi (as it had been in FDR’s White House), and as if this incident with Trump says something only about Trump, and not also, and far more meaningfully, about today’s American government, including Trump’s own immediate predecessor-in-office, and also about America’s current press-institution, and about what it has become.

As this reporter had headlined on 24 November 2014, “U.S. Among Only 3 Countries at U.N. Officially Backing Nazism & Holocaust-Denial; Israel Parts Company from Them; Germany Abstains”. Obama and his friend and U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power were unapologetic about having done that at the U.N., and Obama’s U.N. representative continued in that vein. As I headlined a few months later, on 21 June 2015, “America’s U.N. Ambassador Continues Standing Up for Nazis”. Both of those two news-articles were submitted to all of the U.S. and also to much of the European mainstream — and additionally to some of the ‘alt-news’ — international-news media, but each of the two articles was published only in around a half-dozen of only alternative-news sites. The ‘news’media (especially the mainstream ones) weren’t nearly as concerned about Obama’s blatantly racist-fascist, and specifically anti-Russian, actions, as they are concerned today, about the current U.S. President’s bending-over-backwards to retain his support from America’s racist-fascist or nazi voters, whom he apparently considers an essential part of his base. (Why else would he even say such a thing?)

Whereas Obama was imposing an actual nazi international campaign (via a violent anti-democratic coup, followed by an ethnic-cleansing campaign to cement it) in which his U.N. Ambassador played her necessary role, Trump was politically supporting an important portion of his voting-base, but not doing anything in actual policy-fact — at the U.N. or anywhere else — such as Obama had done. But the press focuses on Trump as if he were initiating the acceptability of nazism in the U.S. body-politic. Trump wasn’t.

Obama had done something truly remarkable: he was the first U.S. President, since the pre-Civil-War U.S. had ended and U.S. President Abraham Lincoln courageously led this nation clearly and explicitly away from its deeply racist past, to support publicly, and to carry out in policy a clearly racist policy-initiative, a blatant ethnic-cleansing military campaign. It aimed to remove from Ukraine’s voter-rolls the residents of the areas of Ukraine where from 75% to 90% of the voters had voted for the democratically elected Ukrainian President whom Obama in February 2014 had just overthrown by hiring racist-facist gunmen to drive out of power that man whom those people had so heavily voted for, in what now turned out to have been Ukraine’s final democratic nationwide election. Unless Obama eliminated those voters — ethnic Russians — the far-right politicians whom he had placed into power after the U.S. coup wouldn’t last through the first Ukrainian national election after the coup. Ethnic-cleansing was the only way to make Obama’s coup-regime stick; so, that’s what he wanted his Ukrainian stooges to do, and they tried their utmost to do it (and they’re still trying).

With all of the decades that have passed after World War II, not only Americans but also publics elsewhere, including publics in nations that America considers to be ‘allies’, such as Israel, seem to have lost any consciousness they might have had in the wake of Hitler’s defeat, about what racist fascism — what the ideology (and not just the German political party, where it had an initial capital letter) nazism — actually was, and what it meant. It wasn’t just anti-Semitic fascism that had been defeated in that war, but anti-Korean fascism, and anti-Chinese fascism, and anti-Russian fascism, and more forms of racist capitalistic dictatorship, the nazi ideology, which were defeated in WW II. During John F. Kennedy’s Presidency, the U.S. federal government very reluctantly started to deal with this country’s deepseated residual institutional racism against America’s Blacks; but, still, the ethnocentrism in America — even among Blacks and Jews — remained so pronounced, so that President Obama on 28 May 2014 could, without shame or any political embarrassment, tell the graduating class of future U.S. military leaders at West Point:

The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come.

But the world is changing with accelerating speed. This presents opportunity, but also new dangers. We know all too well, after 9/11, just how technology and globalization has put power once reserved for states in the hands of individuals, raising the capacity of terrorists to do harm. Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums. And even as developing nations embrace democracy and market economies, 24-hour news and social media makes it impossible to ignore the continuation of sectarian conflicts and failing states and popular uprisings that might have received only passing notice a generation ago.

It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world. The question we face, the question each of you will face, is not whether America will lead, but how we will lead — not just to secure our peace and prosperity, but also extend peace and prosperity around the globe.

Now, this question isn’t new. At least since George Washington served as Commander-in-Chief, there have been those who warned against, foreign entanglements that do not touch directly on our security or economic wellbeing. Today, according to self-described realists, conflicts in Syria or Ukraine or the Central African Republic are not ours to solve. And not surprisingly, after costly wars and continuing challenges here at home, that view is shared by many Americans.

A different view from interventionists from the left and right says that we ignore these conflicts at our own peril; that America’s willingness to apply force around the world is the ultimate safeguard against chaos.

He said that all nations other than the U.S. are “dispensable.” He said that the BRICS countries and “rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums,” and that “It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world. The question we face, the question each of you will face, is not whether America will lead, but how we will lead — not just to secure our peace and prosperity, but also extend peace and prosperity around the globe.” He said that “conflicts in Syria or Ukraine or the Central African Republic are … ours to solve.” He derided “self-described realists” who didn’t share his international idealism, of his own nation’s seeking out, instead of warning “against, foreign entanglements that do not touch directly on our security or economic wellbeing.” He said that “America’s willingness to apply force around the world is the ultimate safeguard against chaos,” and that George Washington was wrong.

He was saying that Hitler and Hirohito were right; that they had merely led the ‘wrong’ countries.

This man, who had just led the bloody coup and instigated the ethnic-cleansing campaign that forced two regions of the former Ukraine to secede from Ukraine and to seek instead Russia’s protection (and he then instituted sanctions against Russia for providing that protection to them), was there and then lecturing America’s future military leaders, to instruct them that they would have the right to invade “dispensable” countries, and to “apply force around the world,” in order to deal with the BRICS countries and “rising middle classes [that] compete with us, and governments [that] seek a greater say in global forums.” (He wanted none of that freedom for them.) He said that ignoring George Washington is “the ultimate safeguard against chaos,” and is somehow in accord with America’s values, even if not of George Washington’s values.

The ultimate insult was that this was coming from a man who considered himslef to be a Black — as if he were in the tradition of Martin Luther King, who had urged America to quit its invasion of Vietnam. Instead, Obama invaded and wrecked Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and Yemen.

Well, that wasn’t actually quite the ultimate insult: the ultimate insult was that Blacks continued to believe in him, and never turned against that nazi. They evidently keep what some of them call (as if it were a racial trait) ‘White man’s values’.

Values are not a racial trait, but stupidity and small-mindedness are the human norm everywhere, and no nation is ‘indispensable’ — far less, is any ‘the one indispensable nation’: not ancient Rome, not Germany, not Japan, not the U.S. — none, at all.

Trump’s foreign policies seem to be mainly aiming to out-do his predecessor’s. But, in no way is Trump yet the nazi that Obama proved himself to be. Trump could turn out to be that bad, if the people who are urging him to intensify America’s war against Russia and/or against Iran have their way. The “neoconservatives” (the foreign-policy ideology that’s sponsored by America’s billionaires of both the Republican and the Democratic Parties) seem still to be basically in control. Trump nonetheless could turn out to be the idealist that Obama, Hitler, and Hirohito, were, but there’s at least the possibility that he will instead turn out to be one of “the self-described realists” whom Obama had derided. Trump hasn’t yet exposed his true self, to the extent that Obama did during his eight years. But the ‘news’media are already calling Trump a “White racist.” It seems that the people who cheered-on Obama’s nazism (except when they said that Obama was being  ‘too cautious’ about it) don’t like Trump, at all.

But, are America’s billionaires really that eager to replace Trump by Pence? One might wonder how far this campaign will go.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

New Sanctions Against Russia – A Failure of U.S. Strategy

 

Global Research, August 07, 2017
Moon of Alabama 6 August 2017

Recently the U.S. congress legislated sanctions against the Russian Federation over alleged, but completely unproven, interference in the U.S. presidential elections. The vote was nearly unanimous.

President Trump signed these sanctions into law. This was a huge and stupid mistake. He should have vetoed them, even as a veto would likely be overturned. With his signing of the law Trump gave up the ability to stay on somewhat neutral grounds towards Russia. This for no gain to him at all.

Sanctions by Congress are quasi eternal. The 1974 Jackson-Vanik amendment restricted trade with the then “Communist block”. It was supposed to press for Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union to Israel. But even after the Soviet Union broke down in the early 1990s, after the “communist block” had disappeared and long after any limits on emigrations had been lifted, the law and its economic sanctions stayed in place. It was only lifted in 2012 and only to be immediately replaced by the ludicrous Magnitsky act which immediately established a new set of sanctions against the Russian Federation and its interests.

The new additional sanctions, like the Jackson-Vanik amendment and the Magnitsky act, were shaped by domestic U.S. policy issues. There is nothing Russia could have done to avoid them and there is nothing it can do to have them lifted.

The new U.S. sanctions are not only directed against Russia but against any company and nation that cooperates with Russia over energy. This a little disguised attempt to press European countries into buying expensive U.S. liquefied natural gas instead of cheap Russian gas delivered by pipelines. The immediate target is the Nord Stream 2 pipeline between Russia and Germany which passes through the Baltic Sea to avoid potential conflict points in east Europe. The sanctions are a threat to an independent German energy policy. (Additional partners in the pipeline are Austria, France and the Netherlands.) Consequently 35% of Germans name the U.S. as a “major threat to the country”. Russia is seen as such by only 33%. This view is consistent with the global perception.

Medvedev with Vladimir Putin (Source:

Kremlin.ru / Wikimedia Commons)

These sanctions will shape U.S.-Russian relation for the next 30 plus years. On August 2 the Russian Prime Minister Medvedev pointed to the weakness of President Trump as the main reason for these sanctions:

The US President’s signing of the package of new sanctions against Russia will have a few consequences. First, it ends hopes for improving our relations with the new US administration. Second, it is a declaration of a full-fledged economic war on Russia. Third, the Trump administration has shown its total weakness by handing over executive power to Congress in the most humiliating way. This changes the power balance in US political circles.What does it mean for them? The US establishment fully outwitted Trump; the President is not happy about the new sanctions, yet he could not but sign the bill. The issue of new sanctions came about, primarily, as another way to knock Trump down a peg. New steps are to come, and they will ultimately aim to remove him from power. A non-systemic player has to be removed. Meanwhile, the interests of the US business community are all but ignored, with politics chosen over a pragmatic approach. Anti-Russian hysteria has become a key part of both US foreign policy (which has occurred many times) and domestic policy (which is a novelty).

Remember that Medvedev as Russian leader was, for a long time, the “hope” of the U.S. establishment. He was perceived as more amenable than the Russian President Putin. Medvedev may well become president again. But no U.S. media except the New York Post took notice of his statement. That in itself is astonishing and frightening. Can no one in the U.S. see where this will lead to? Medvedev predicts:

The sanctions regime has been codified and will remain in effect for decades unless a miracle happens. […] [R]elations between Russia and the United States are going to be extremely tense regardless of Congress’ makeup and regardless of who is president. Lengthy arguments in international bodies and courts are ahead, as well as rising international tensions and refusal to settle major international issues.

Economically and politically Russia can and will cope with these sanctions, says Medvedev. But can the U.S.?

The supreme global role of the U.S. depends on preventing a Euro-Asian alliance between, mainly, Russia and China. In his latest “grand chessboard” piece Toward a Global Realignment the U.S. strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski – ruthless, amoral and capable – asserts:

[I]t behooves the United States to fashion a policy in which at least one of the two potentially threatening states becomes a partner in the quest for regional and then wider global stability, and thus in containing the least predictable but potentially the most likely rival to overreach. Currently, the more likely to overreach is Russia, but in the longer run it could be China.

The U.S. foreign policy establishment has declared war on Russia. The confrontational position towards China, which was en vogue under Obama, has noticeably changed. The Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama “pivot to Asia” was cancelled. The anti-Chinese Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement has been called off. Military provocations of China in the South Chinese Sea have been reduced and replaced by continuous provocations against Russia in eastern Europe. These steps follow the strategy Brzezinski laid out.

Russia has historically proven to be resourceful in its policies. It is extremely resistant to pressure. With the U.S. in a less hostile position against China, the behemoth will relentlessly press its own advantage. Russia will soon be one of China’s main sources of fossil energy and other commodities. There is no major reason for China and Russia to disagree with each other. Under these circumstances the hoped for Russian-Chinese split will not happen. Core European countries will resist pressures that endanger their economies.

The Brzezinski strategy is clouded by a personal hate against Russia. (He is descendant of minor noble Galician-Polish family.) It is flawed as it enables China to establish its primacy. Even under Brzezinski’s framework a Russian-European-U.S. alliance against Chinese pursuit of hegemony would have been the more logical way to go.

Hillary Clinton’s strategy to blame Russia for her lack of likability and her failure in the election now results in a major failure of U.S. grand strategy. An organized White House policy could have prevented that but there is no such thing (yet) under Trump.

I fail to see how the current strategy, now enshrined by congressional sanctions, could ever end up in an overall advantage for the United States.

Hasan Nasrallah: Trump Must Be Thanked For His Stupidity: In Case You Missed It

We should thank Trump for revealing the true face of the racist, cruel, criminal and murderous U.S. government.

Posted July 27, 2017

%d bloggers like this: