Senate Bill Would Criminalize BDS, Impose Prison Terms; ACLU Publishes Letter in Opposition

Sens. Kristen Gillibrand and Charles Schumer of New York are among the co-sponsors of a bill calling for criminal penalties for US citizens supporting a boycott of Israel

“We write today in opposition to S. 720, also known as the Israel Anti-Boycott Act. We understand that proponents of the bill are seeking additional co-sponsors. We urge you to refrain from co-sponsoring the legislation because it would punish individuals for no reason other than their political beliefs.”

So reads the opening paragraph of a letter published on Monday by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

The Israel Anti-Boycott Act would make it a felony for Americans to support the boycott of Israel. According to the ACLU, violators would be subject to massive fines and imprisonment of up to 20 years. The bill was introduced into the Senate back in March by Sen. Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat. Since then, it has picked up a whopping 45 co-sponsors, including seven just in the past week, suggesting it has a strong chance of  passing the Senate.

A bit more from the ACLU letter:

The bill seeks to expand the Export Administration Act of 1979 and the Export Import Bank Act of 1945 which, among other things, prohibit U.S. persons from complying with a foreign government’s request to boycott a country friendly to the U.S. The bill would amend those laws to bar U.S. persons from supporting boycotts against Israel, including its settlements in the Palestinian Occupied Territories, conducted by international governmental organizations, such as the United Nations and the European Union. It would also broaden the law to include penalties for simply requesting information about such boycotts. Violations would be subject to a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison. We take no position for or against the effort to boycott Israel or any foreign country, for that matter. However, we do assert that the government cannot, consistent with the First Amendment, punish U.S. persons based solely on their expressed political beliefs.”

Co-sponsors of S.720 (you can find the full text of the bill here ) include both senators from New York, Charles Schumer and Kristen Gillibrand, as well as Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Robert Menendez,  and Lindsay Graham.

According to a report by Glenn Greenwald and Ryan Grim and published at The Intercept, the bill has been strongly pushed by AIPAC, which would probably account for why so many senators have signed onto it.

“Indeed, AIPAC, in its 2017 lobbying agenda, identified passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the year,” they write.

The also report that a similar bill had been introduced in the House at the same time as S.720, noting that the House version “has already amassed 234 co-sponsors: 63 Democrats and 174 Republicans.”

At the risk of stating the obvious, bills like this give us pause to wonder what the future may hold and whether or not we may be evolving into a Jewish-run totalitarian state. Greenwald and Grim comment that “the criminalization of political speech and activism against Israel has become one of the gravest threats to free speech in the West.”

A bit more from the ACLU:

This bill would impose civil and criminal punishment on individuals solely because of their political beliefs about Israel and its policies. There are millions of businesses and individuals who do no business with Israel, or with companies doing business there, for a number of reasons. Some, like those who would face serious financial penalties and jail time under the bill, actively avoid purchasing goods or services from companies that do business in Israel and the Palestinian Occupied Territories because of a political viewpoint opposed to Israeli policy. Others may refrain from Israeli-related business based on political beliefs, but choose not to publicly announce their reasoning. Still others do no business with companies in Israel for purely pragmatic reasons. Under the bill, however, only a person whose lack of business ties to Israel is politically motivated would be subject to fines and imprisonment–even though there are many others who engage in the very same behavior. In short, the bill would punish businesses and individuals based solely on their point of view. Such a penalty is in direct violation of the First Amendment.

According to Wikipedia, Sen. Ben Cardin is Jewish. His grandparents were Russian Jewish immigrants and the family name originally was “Kardonsky” before it was changed to Cardin.

Can anyone explain to me why it shouldn’t be regarded as a conflict of interest for Jewish Congress members to vote on bills pertaining to Israel? Or why there isn’t a law on the books requiring them to recuse themselves whenever such measures come up for a vote?

Can we imagine the thunderous outcry that would erupt if we had elected representatives of Slavic or Russian extract introducing bills giving away huge sums of money–in the billions of dollars each year–to Russia, or mandating criminal penalties on anyone calling for a boycott of Russia?

ترامب: “أريد حصة من الغاز السوري”

المصدر : المحامي بسام صباغ – 03/07/2017

“عندما تستقر الأوضاع ويبدأ العمل بإستخراج الغاز السوري، ستصبح سوريا واحدة من أفضل دول المنطقة اقتصادياً”

بدأ الصراع الحديث على الغاز والبترول في شرقي البحر الأبيض المتوسط، خفياً بين الدول منذ عام 1966، عندما اكتشفت سفن أبحاثٍ بريطانية حقولاً للغاز في جبل إراتوسثينس، ثم جاءت الولايات المتحدة وروسيا بين أعوام 1977 و 2003، لتؤكد أنّ الغاز في شرقي المتوسط يمتدُ من شواطئ اللاذقية إلى غربي مصر، في جبل إراتوسثينس الممتد تحت مياه المتوسط، اعتباراً من جرف اللاذقية إلى شمالي دمياط بـ 180 كلم.

ثم شاركت إسرائيل عام 1997 البحث، بعدها نشرت شرقي المتوسط “مجسّات إلكترونية” وكانت الحجة دائماً “إيران”: “اكتشاف أي هجوم صاروخي إيراني ضد إسرائيل!! عام 2008″، لتعلن في 17 آب 2010 بعد مسح جيولوجي عبر السفينة الأميركية نوتيلس وبمساعدة تركية أنّ واحدة من أكبر حقول احتياطي الغاز في العالم تقع شرقي المتوسط وهو حقل “لفيتان” العملاق للغاز باحتياطي قدره 23 ترليون قدم مكعب، ورغم أنّ إسرائيل سطت على مياه لبنان ومصر، لكن يبقى نصيب سوريا ولبنان ومصر أكبر من نصيبها، أما تركيا فخرجت خالية اليدين، فشواطئها ومياهها خالية من قطرة بترول أو غاز واحدة، فكيف الطريق إلى هذا الكنز؟ وكان “الربيع العربي”!

تسابقت 9 شركات عملاقة لاستخراج الغاز والبترول من شرقي المتوسط، منها:

Total الفرنسية

ExxonMobil الأميركيّة

British Petroleum البريطانيّة

Shell الهولنديّة

Nobel Energy الأميركيّة يمتلك فيها جون كيري أسهماً بقيمة 1 مليون دولار

Delek الاسرائيلية

ENI الإيطاليّة

Gazprom الروسية

في 3 تشرين الأول 2012 وقعت الشركة الأسترالية وود سايد عقداً بقيمة 696 مليون دولار مع تل أبيب لاستثمار 30% من الغاز السائل في حقل ليفياثان، وطورت درعاً صاروخياً أسمته “مقلاع داوود الصاروخي”، لصد أي هجوم من حزب الله تحديداً، لأنها تقوم في الحقيقة بسرقة غاز لبنان وغزّة، كذلك فعلت قبرص بالتنسيق مع تل أبيب، بينما بدأت مصر بخطوات ملموسة، أما لبنان فمازال يتفرج، وسوريا في وضع لا يسمح لها بأيّ نشاط من هذا النوع، خاصة وأن شرقي المتوسط يعج بالسفن الحربية.

يتركـز الاحتياطي السّـوري مـن الغــاز والبتــرول في الباديــة الســورية والسـاحل بواقـع 83%، بينمــا يوجــد في الجزيــرة الســورية فقــط 12%، خلافـاً لمـا هــو معــروف ومتــداول بيـن العامـة وغير العامــة.

حسب دراساتنا الحديثة تبـدأ آبــار الجزيــرة السورية بالنضــوب اعتباراً مـن عــام 2022، بينمـا بـاقي الحقــول في الباديــة والساحل إن بــدأ اسـتغلالها عام 2018 ستبقى حتى عام 2051 على الأقل.

ترتيب سوريا لعام 2008 في احتياطي الغاز كان في المرتبة 43 عالمياً، بواقع 240,700,000,000 متر مكعب، حسب List of countries by natural gas proven reserves، بينما كانت بالمرتبة 31 باحتياطي البترول.

أما في عام 2017 الاحتياطي السوري من الغاز في منطقة تدمر وقارة وساحل طرطوس وبانياس، هو الأكبر بين الدول الست، وهذا يجعل سوريا، إن تمّ استخراج هذا الغاز “ثالث بلد مصدّر للغاز في العالم”، وسوف تحتل مركز قطر بعد روسيا وإيران ويقدر مركز فيريل للدراسات احتياطي الغاز السوري بـ 28,500,000,000,000 متر مكعب.

إنّ ثلاثة حقول غاز متوسطة الحجم شمال تدمر، تكفي لتزويد سوريا كاملة بالطاقة الكهربائية 24 ساعة يومياً لمدة 19 سنة.

حجم الغاز المكتشف في إسرائيل يوازي 11% منه في سوريا، وفي لبنان 8%، وفي مصر 31%.

حقائق خطيرة:

إصرار موسكو على الدفاع عن سوريا ليس فقط لتأمين منفذ لها على المتوسط، بل الأهم هو الغاز والبترول، وإنشاء قاعدة بحرية دائمة في طرطوس سببه بحر الغاز هناك ونؤكد هنا :

أنّ روسيا مستعدة لخوض حرب عالمية من أجل ذلك، فالمعارضة السورية لا تؤتمن حتى لو تعهدت لموسكو، وتعمل وفق أوامر أمريكية، وسوف تُسلّم الامتيازات للشركات الغربية، نفس الأمر ينطبق إلى حدّ ما على إيران، فوصول المعارضة السورية إلى الحكم يعني القضاء على 30% من اقتصادها، لهذا فإنّ أيّ تصور سابق أو لاحق لتخلي موسكو وطهران ومن ورائهما بكين، عن دمشق هو خيال سطحي ومجرد أماني.

بما أنّ الجزيرة السورية ومناطق سيطرة الانفصاليين سوف تنضب من البترول خلال السنوات القليلة القادمة، فإنّ دعم واشنطن لهم مرهون بهذه الثروة، ولهذا تدعم الولايات المتحدة الانفصاليين للوصول إلى دير الزور وجنوبي الرقة، عسى أن يستطيعوا ضمها إلى فيدرالية “طموحة جداً” وهذا مستحيل.

لهذا فقيام فيدرالية في محافظة الحسكة هو انتحار اقتصادي خاصة بعد عام 2022 وعندما تكون سوريا من أوائل الدول المصدرة للغاز، بينما يكون غاز الجزيرة السورية شارف على النضوب.

تركيا التي خرجت من مولد الغاز بدون أيّ متر مكعب أصرت على دخول جيشها سوريا وتريد الاحتفاظ بمناطق نفوذ شمال غربي حلب، حيث توجد ثلاثة حقول غاز صغيرة، وتطمح للوصول إلى الرقة حيث الحقول المتوسطة الحجم.

داعش التي تمّ توكيلها خليجياً وغربياً باحتلال تدمر والسيطرة على البادية السورية، حيث حقول النفط والغاز العملاقة كانت المخطط أن تدخل قوات أردنية وسعودية لتحريرها، الجيش السوري وحلفاؤه أفشلوا المخطط وحرروا تدمر.

الإرهابيون الذين حاولوا البقاء في منطقة القصير وجاؤوا من لبنان ثم سعوا إلى الامتداد شرقاً وجنوباً حتى قارة وبحر من الغاز الطبيعي، تم دحرهم والقضاء عليهم.

الإرهابيون في الجولان وريف درعا يحرسون دون أن يعلموا  ثلاثة آبار غاز تسعى إسرائيل للسيطرة عليها كاملة، تقع مناصفة بين أرض تحتلها وأرض تابعة لمحافظتي القنيطرة ودرعا، خط غاز قطر مات وانتهى،ولا أمل للدوحة بعد اليوم بمرور هذا الخط عبر الاراضي، أي هدوء أو انتهاء للحرب على سوريا، يعني أنّ موازين القوى انقلبت فجأة لصالح دمشق عسكرياً واقتصادياً، لهذا سيتم تأجيج الوضع واختلاق معارك هنا وهناك، وبما أنّ الوكلاء فشلوا في فرض شروط واشنطن، بما في ذلك تركيا والسعودية وإرهابيهم، لهذا جاء الدخول الأميركي المباشر، ولسان حال ترامب يقول: “أريد حصة من الغاز السوري”

Related

The West’s War on Free Speech

June 6, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci – NEO) – With a name like the “National Democratic Institute” (NDI) one might expect the US State Department-funded, corporate-financier chaired front to be the premier proponent of freedom and democracy worldwide. And although it poses as such, it does precisely the opposite. It uses principles like free speech, democracy, press freedom, and human rights as a facade behind which it carries out a politically motivated agenda on behalf of the special interests that fund and direct its activities.

In a recent Tweet, NDI linked to a New York Times article titled, “In Europe’s Election Season, Tech Vies to Fight Fake News.” It claimed in the Tweet that the article featured:

A look at some of the projects aiming to use automated algorithms to identify and combat fake news. 

The article itself though, reveals nothing short of a global effort by US tech-giants Google and Facebook, in collaboration with the Western media, to censor any and all media that fails to align with Western-dominated narratives.

The article itself claims:

The French electorate heads to the polls in the second round of presidential elections on May 7, followed by votes in Britain and Germany in the coming months. Computer scientists, tech giants and start-ups are using sophisticated algorithms and reams of online data to quickly — and automatically — spot fake news faster than traditional fact-checking groups can. 

The goal, experts say, is to expand these digital tools across Europe, so the region can counter the fake news that caused so much confusion and anger during the United States presidential election in November, when outright false reports routinely spread like wildfire on Facebook and Twitter.

The article then explains that once “fake news” is spotted, it is expunged from the Internet. It reports that:

After criticism of its role in spreading false reports during the United States elections, Facebook introduced a fact-checking tool ahead of the Dutch elections in March and the first round of the French presidential election on April 23. It also removed 30,000 accounts in France that had shared fake news, a small fraction of the approximately 33 million Facebook users in the country.

Were foreign government-linked tech companies purging tens of thousands of accounts ahead of elections in say, Thailand or Russia, it is very likely organizations like NDI and media platforms like the New York Times would cry foul, depicting it as censorship.

In determining what is and isn’t “fake news,” the New York Times offers some clues (emphasis added):

Using a database of verified articles and their artificial intelligence expertise, rival groups — a combination of college teams, independent programmers and groups from existing tech companies — already have been able to accurately predict the veracity of certain claims almost 90 percent of the time, Mr. Pomerleau said. He hopes that figure will rise to the mid-90s before his challenge ends in June.

In other words, “fake news” is determined by comparing it directly to narratives presented by establishment media platforms like the New York Times, the BBC, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and others who have notorious track records of serial deception, false reporting, and even war propagandizing.

Nowhere does the New York Times explain how these “verified articles” have been determined to be factually accurate, and instead, it appears that all these algorithms are doing is ensuring all media falls in line with Western narratives.

If media in question coincides with Western-dominated media platforms, it is given a pass – if not, it is slated for expunging as described elsewhere in the New York Times’ piece.

Thus, the National Democratic Institute, who claims on its website to “support and strengthen democratic institutions worldwide through citizen participation, openness and accountability in government,” finds itself promoting what is essentially a worldwide agenda of malicious censorship, manipulating the perception of the globe’s citizenry, not supporting or strengthening it’s participation in any sort of honest political process.

To answer the question as to what the NDI is referring to when it claims other nations are “censoring” free speech and press freedoms, it involves defending local fronts funded by the NDI and its parent organization, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) who merely repeat Western propaganda in local languages and with local spins. When foreign nations attempt to deal with these instances of “fake news,” US fronts like NDI and NED depict it as censorship.

While the West poses as the premier champion of free speech, citizen participation, openness, and accountability, the New York Times article reveals an unfolding plan to utterly crush any narrative that deviates from Western media talking points, thus controlling citizen perception, not encouraging “participation,” and ensuring that the West alone determines what is “opened” and held “accountable.”

No worse scenario can be referenced in human history or even among human fiction than plans to determine for the world through automatic algorithms and artificial intelligence almost in real time what is heard and read and what isn’t. It is even beyond the scope and scale of George Orwell’s cautionary dystopian “1984” novel.

In a truly free society, an educated citizenry is capable of deciding for itself what is “fake news” and what isn’t. Because of the rise of alternatives to the West’s monopoly over global information, many people are doing just that – determining that Western narratives are in fact deceptions. At no other point in modern history has the Western media faced as many alternatives, and as much skepticism on this scale, as well as an ebbing of trust domestically and abroad. It is no surprise then, to find the West resorting to outright censorship, even if it cushions mention of it with terms like “fake news.”

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook”.

Paris, Brussels, Nice, Berlin, Manchester… The Role of “Massive Casualty Producing Events”. The Roadmap to a Police State?

Global Research, May 28, 2017
Global Research 3 February 2004

Author’s Note

This article entitled the Criminalization of the State first published by Global Research in February 2004 examines the relationship between terrorist attacks (resulting in the tragic loss of life) and the transition in Western countries towards a totalitarian police State.  The article –which focusses on the role of a “massive casualty producing event”– is of particular relevance to an understanding of the terror attacks in Paris (January and November 2015), Brussels (March 2016), Nice (July 2016), Berlin (December 2016), Manchester (May 2017). According to Stephen Lendman:

UK police state laws already are some of Europe’s most draconian before Monday’s Manchester blast, including the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act, eviscerating longstanding legal protections.

Perhaps tougher legislation is coming. Following an emergency meeting, Prime Minister Theresa May acted as expected – elevating Britain’s threat level from severe to critical.

Claiming another attack “may be imminent” is part of her fear-mongering strategy, an effort to convince Brits they’ll be safer by sacrificing fundamental freedoms.

“Massive Casualty Producing Events”

Former CENTCOM Commander, General Tommy Franks predicted in a 2003 interview with cynical accuracy a scenario, which would result in the repeal of civil liberties and the installation of a de facto totalitarian state:

“a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world … that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event.”1

A “massive casualty producing event” as described by General Franks will invariably result in a campaign of fear and intimidation, “creating a useful wave of indignation” (Operation Northwoods).  In turn, politicians in high office will use the tragic loss of life as a justification for the implementation of sweeping police state measures including the enactment of martial law.  

Flash Forward to Paris, November 13, 2015 and Brussels March 22, 2016.

The above scenario accurately describes  the tragic “massive casualty producing event” in Paris, depicted by France’s media as “Le 11 septembre à la française” (9/11 French Style).  

Announced in a midnight speech (local time) by the French president, the November 13 terrorist attacks were immediately followed by the enactment of a State of Emergency, the closing of France’s borders and the suspension of civil liberties as a means — according to president François Hollande– to safeguarding democratic values.  

In this context, the tragic loss of life was used by the Hollande government (with the support of the media) to harness the public into accepting the implementation of police state measures in the interest of French Republic, namely protecting France’s national security against an illusive self-proclaimed “Islamic State” based in Northern Syria. 

Is this the end of the French Republic?

Similarly in Brussels, the tragic loss of life is being used to justify drastic police state measures. Critical analysis is repealed. Within hours of the attacks, the European media went into overdrive.

Berlin, December 2016

In Berlin, according to a scanty political investigation, the Christmas terror attack was allegedly perpetrated on behalf of the Islamic State (ISIS), which happens to be a creation of US intelligence, covertly supported by several Western countries and their Middle East allies. 

It is worth noting that the release of the Hillary Clinton email archive as well as leaked Pentagon documents confirm that the US and its allies are supportive of ISIS, which according to European press reports, were the alleged architects of the Brussels as well as Berlin terror attacks.

Moreover, a  7-page Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document dated August of 2012, points to US complicity in supporting the creation of an Islamic State.(Excerpt below)

The governments of the countries whose citizens are the victims of terror attacks are supporting ISIS-Daesh.

“You are either with us or with the terrorists”, said George W. Bush in an address to the US Congress in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Western leaders are so to speak “with themselves as well as with the terrorists”.

Most people in Western countries are unaware that their own governments  are supporting and funding the terrorists.

When France provides (covert) military aid to both the Libya Islamic fighting Group (LIFG) and ISIS-Daesh in Syria, does this not suggest that the French government might at some future date be “held accountable” for the terror attacks in Paris and Nice (allegedly carried out by the ISIS), which have resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians?

Germany sells large amounts of weapons to Turkey and Saudi Arabia which in turn provide military aid to Al Qaeda and the Islamic State. Does this not signify –to put it mildly– that Angela Merkel’s government should take “some responsibility” for the Berlin terror attack allegedly conducted by ISIS-Daesh?

Combating ISIS on the one hand, Supporting ISIS on the other hand? A criminal undertaking.

Western Governments are State Sponsors of Terrorism

Despite the evidence, it is very difficult for people to accept the fact that their own government is supporting terrorism.

Most people will dispel this as an impossibility. But it is the forbidden truth.

The established consensus is that the role of a government is to protect its people. That myth has to be sustained.

The media’s role is to ensure that the truth does not trickle down to the broader public.

If that were to occur, the legitimacy of Obama, Hollande, Merkel, et al would collapse like a house of cards.

Michel Chossudovsky, December 26, 2016, updated May 25, 2017

*     *     *

The Criminalization of the State

by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, February 3, 2004

America’s leaders in Washington and Wall Street firmly believe in the righteousness of war and authoritarian forms of government as a means to “safeguarding democratic values”.

According to Homeland Security “the near-term attacks will either rival or exceed the 9/11 attacks”.

An actual “terrorist attack” on American soil would lead to the suspension of civilian government and the establishment of martial law. In the words of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge: “If we go to Red … it basically shuts down the country,”

“You ask, ‘Is it serious?’ Yes, you bet your life. People don’t do that unless it’s a serious situation.” (Donald Rumsfeld)

The “Criminalization of the State”, is when war criminals legitimately occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide “who are the criminals”, when in fact they are the criminals.

A terrorist attack on American soil of the size and nature of September 11, would lead —according to former CENTCOM Commander, General Tommy Franks– to the downfall of democracy in America. In an interview last December, which was barely mentioned in the US media, General Franks outlined with cynical accuracy a scenario, which would result in the suspension of the Constitution and the installation of military rule in America:

a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event.1

Franks was alluding to a so-called “Pearl Harbor type event” which would be used to galvanise US public opinion in support of a military government and police state. The “terrorist massive casualty-producing event” is presented by General Franks as a crucial political turning point. The resulting crisis and social turmoil is intended to facilitate a major shift in US political, social and institutional structures.

It is important to understand that General Franks was not giving a personal opinion on this issue. His statement very much reflects the dominant viewpoint both in the Pentagon and the Homeland Security department as to how events might unfold in the case of a national emergency.

The statement comes from a man who has been actively involved in military and intelligence planning at the highest levels. In other words, the “militarisation of our country” is an ongoing operational assumption. It is part of the broader “Washington consensus”. It identifies the Bush administration’s “roadmap” of war and Homeland defense.

The “war on terrorism” which constitutes the cornerstone of Bush’s national security doctrine, provides the required justification for repealing the Rule of Law, ultimately with a view to “preserving civil liberties”. In the words of David Rockefeller:

We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order. 2

A similar statement, which no doubt reflects a consensus within the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), was made by former National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, The Grand Chessboard:

As America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.”]

Similarly, the NeoCons’ Project for the New American Century (PNAC), published in September 2000, barely a few months before George W. Bush’s accession to the White House, called for:

some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor. 3

What is terrifying in these assertions is that they emanate from the architects of US foreign policy. In other words, America’s leaders in Washington and Wall Street firmly believe in the righteousness of war and authoritarian forms of government as a means to “safeguarding democratic values”.

The repeal of democracy is portrayed as a means to providing “domestic security” and upholding civil liberties. Truth is falsehood and falsehood is truth. Realities are turned upside down. Acts of war are heralded as “humanitarian interventions” geared towards upholding democracy. Military occupation and the killing of civilians are presented as “peace-keeping operations.”

This dominant viewpoint is also shared by the mainstream media, which constitutes the cornerstone of the propaganda and disinformation campaign. Any attempt by antiwar critics to reveal the lies underlying these statements is defined as a “criminal act”.

In other words, the “Criminalization of the State”, is when war criminals, supported by Wall Street, the “big five” defense contractors and the Texas oil giants, legitimately occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide “who are the criminals”, when in fact they are the criminals.

From Orange to Red Code Alert

The “terrorist massive casualty producing event” has become an integral part of the Bush administration’s propaganda campaign. The Administration has put the country on “high risk” Orange Code terror alert five times since September 11, 2001. Without exception, Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda has been identified as “a threat to the Homeland”. The official announcement invariably points to “significant intelligence reports” or “credible sources” of a terrorist attack “from the international terrorist group al-Qaeda”.

Since 9/11, Americans have accepted these terrorist warnings at face value. Al Qaeda is viewed as an enemy of America. The terror alerts have become part of a routine: people have become accustomed in their daily lives to the Orange Code terror alerts. Moreover, they have also accepted the distinct possibility of a changeover from Orange to Red Code Alert (as stated time and again by Homeland Security) in the foreseeable future, which would result from an actual terrorist occurrence.

Needless to say, the disinformation campaign, which is fed on a daily basis into the news chain, supports this process of shaping US public opinion. The hidden agenda ultimately consists in creating an environment of fear and intimidation, which mobilizes public support for an actual national emergency situation, leading to the declaration of martial law.

The Terror Alerts were based on Fabricated Intelligence

The evidence suggests that the Orange Code “high risk” alerts on February 7, 2003, and December, 21, 2003 were based on fabricated intelligence.

Orange Code Alert had been ordered on 7 February 2003, one day after Colin Powell’s flopped presentation on Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction to the UN Security Council. Powell’s intelligence dossier had been politely dismissed. The rebuttal came from UN Inspector Hans Blix, who showed that the intelligence used as a pretext to wage war on Iraq had been blatantly fabricated.

Colin Powell addressed the UN Security Council on the 6th. On the 7th, the Bush administration declared an ‘Orange Code’ Terror Alert. This “save face operation” contributed to appeasing an impending scandal, while also upholding the Pentagon’s planned invasion of Iraq.

Media attention was immediately shifted from Colin Powell’s blunders at the UN Security Council to an (alleged) impending terrorist attack on America. Anti-aircraft missiles were immediately deployed around Washington. The media became inundated with stories on Iraqi support to an impending Al Qaeda attack on America.

The objective was to present Iraq as the aggressor. According to the New York Post, (11 February 2003):

The nation is now on Orange Alert because intelligence intercepts and simple logic both suggest that our Islamic enemies know the best way to strike at us is through terrorism on U.S. soil.

Another story allegedly emanating from the CIA on so-called ‘radioactive dirty bombs had been planted in the news chain.4 Secretary Powell warned that “it would be easy for terrorists to cook up radioactive ‘dirty’ bombs to explode inside the U.S. … ‘How likely it is, I can’t say… But I think it is wise for us to at least let the American people know of this possibility.’” 5 Meanwhile, network TV had warned that “American hotels, shopping malls or apartment buildings could be al Qaeda’s targets as soon as next week…”

The hidden agenda in the weeks leading up to the invasion of Iraq was to link Baghdad to Al Qaeda, muster unbending support for President Bush and weaken the anti-war protest movement. Following the announcement, tens of thousands of Americans rushed to purchase duct tape, plastic sheets and gas-masks.

It later transpired that the terrorist alert was fabricated by the CIA, in all likelihood in consultation with the upper echelons of the State Department. 6

The FBI, for the first time had pointed its finger at the CIA.

This piece of that puzzle turns out to be fabricated and therefore the reason for a lot of the alarm, particularly in Washington this week, has been dissipated after they found out that this information was not true,” said Vince Cannistraro, former CIA counter-terrorism chief and ABCNEWS consultant.

(…)

According to officials, the FBI and the CIA are pointing fingers at each other. An FBI spokesperson told ABCNEWS today he was “not familiar with the scenario,” but did not think it was accurate. 7

While tacitly acknowledging that the alert was a fake, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge decided to maintain the ‘Orange Code’ alert:

Despite the fabricated report, there are no plans to change the threat level. Officials said other intelligence has been validated and that the high level of precautions is fully warranted. 8

A few days later, in another failed propaganda initiative, a mysterious Osama bin Laden audio tape was presented by Sec. Colin Powell to the US Congress as ‘evidence’ that the Islamic terrorists “are making common cause with a brutal dictator”. 9 Curiously, the audio tape was in Colin Powell’s possession prior to its broadcast by the Al Jazeera TV Network.10

Tom Ridge’s Christmas Terror Alert

On December 21st, 2003 four days before Christmas, the Homeland Security Department, again raised the national threat level from “elevated” to “high risk” of terrorist attack. 11

In his pre-Christmas Press Conference, Homeland Security department Secretary Tom Ridge confirmed in much the same way as on February 7, 2003, that: “the U.S. intelligence community has received a substantial increase in the volume of threat-related intelligence reports”. According to Tom Ridge, these “credible [intelligence] sources” raise “the possibility of attacks against the homeland, around the holiday season…”12

While the circumstances and timing were different, Secretary Tom Ridge’s December 21 statement had all the appearances of a “copy and paste” (Déjà Vu) version of his February 7 announcement, which according to the FBI was a hoax, based on fabricated intelligence..

What is disturbing in the December 21 statement is the fact that an “actual” or “attempted” Al Qaeda terrorist attack seems already to be in the official pipeline. Al Qaeda is once again identified as “the Outside Enemy”, without of course mentioning that Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA and an “intelligence asset” controlled by the US.13

Needless to say the atmosphere of fear and confusion created across America, contributed to breaking the spirit of Christmas. According to the media reports, the high-level terror alert is to “hang over the holidays and usher in the New Year”.

Terrorists still threaten our country and we remain engaged in a dangerous – to be sure – difficult war and it will not be over soon,” warned Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. “They can attack at any time and at any place.”

With America on high terror alert for the Christmas holiday season, intelligence officials fear al-Qaeda is eager to stage a spectacular attack – possibly hijacking a foreign airliner or cargo jet and crashing it into a high-profile target inside the United States. 14

The official Christmas announcement by the Homeland Security Department dispelled any lingering doubts regarding the threat level:

the risk [during the Christmas period] is perhaps greater now than at any point since September 11, 2001;

It also warned Americans, in no uncertain terms, but without supporting evidence, that there are:

indications that [the] near-term attacks … will either rival or exceed the [9/11] attacks.

And it’s pretty clear that the nation’s capital and New York city would be on any list…

Following Secretary Ridge’s announcement, anti-aircraft missile batteries were set up in Washington:

And the Pentagon said today, more combat air patrols will now be flying over select cities and facilities, with some airbases placed on higher alert.” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “You ask, ‘Is it serious?’ Yes, you bet your life. People don’t do that unless it’s a serious situation. 15

According to an official statement: “intelligence indicates that Al Qaeda-trained pilots may be working for overseas airlines and ready to carry out suicide attacks.” 16

More specifically, Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists were, according to Homland Security, planning to hijack an Air France plane and “crash it on US soil in a suicide terror strike similar to those carried out on September 11, 2001.”

Air France Christmas flights out of Paris were grounded. F-16 fighters were patrolling the skies.

Yet it turned out that the stand down orders on Air France’s Christmas flights from Paris to Los Angeles, which were used to justify the Code Orange Alert during the Christmas holiday, were based on fabricated information.

According to the official version of events, Washington had identified six members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban on the Air France passenger list:

U.S. counter-terrorism officials said their investigation was focusing on the “informed belief” that about six men on Air France Flight 68, which arrives in Los Angeles daily at 4:05 p.m., may have been planning to hijack the jet and crash it near Los Angeles, or along the way.

That belief, according to one senior U.S. counter-terrorism official, was based on reliable and corroborated information from several sources. Some of the men had the same names as identified members of Al Qaida and the Taliban, a senior U.S. official said. One of the men is a trained pilot with a commercial license, according to a senior U.S. official.

U.S. law-enforcement officials said the flights were canceled in response to the same intelligence that prompted… Homeland Security… to ratchet up the nation’s terror-alert level to orange…

With that information, U.S. authorities contacted French intelligence … They prevailed upon Air France to cancel [their flights], because the original intelligence information warned of more than one flight being commandeered. 17

Other media confirmed that “the reports gathered by American agencies were ‘very, very precise'” Meanwhile Fox News pointed to the possibility that Al Qaeda was “trying to plant disinformation, among other things to cost us money, to throw people into panic and perhaps to probe our defenses to see how we respond?”18

“Mistaken Identity”

Needless to say these fabricated media reports served to create a tense atmosphere during the Christmas holiday. Los Angeles International airport was on “maximum deployment” with counter-terrorism and FBI officials working around the clock.

Yet following the French investigation, it turned out that the terror alert was a hoax. The information was not “very very precise” as claimed by US intelligence.

The six Al Qaeda men turned out to be a five year old boy, an elderly Chinese lady who used to run a restaurant in Paris, a Welsh insurance salesman and three French nationals.19

On January 2nd, the French government confirmed that the intelligence communicated by Washington was erroneous: There “was not a trace of Al Qaeda among the passengers.”

Yet, these “inconsistencies” regarding US intelligence had already been uncovered on the 23d of December by France’s antiterrorist services, which had politely refuted the so-called “credible sources” emanating out of the US intelligence apparatus.

France’s counter-terrorism experts were extremely “sceptical” of their US counterparts:

We [French police investigators] showed [on 23 December] that their arguments simply did not make sense, but despite this the flights were cancelled… The main suspect [a Tunisian hijacker] turned out to be a child… We really had the feeling of unfriendly treatment [by US officials] (ils nous appliquent un traitement d’infamie). The information was not transmitted through normal channels. It wasn’t the FBI or the CIA which contacted us, everything went through diplomatic channels… 20

The decision to cancel the six Air France flights was taken after 2 days of intense negotiations between French and American officials. They were cancelled on the orders of the French Prime minister following consultations with Sec. Colin Powell. This decision was taken following the completion of the French investigation. Despite the fact that the information had been refuted, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge insisted on maintaining the stand-down order. If Air France had not complied, it would have been prevented from using US air space, namely banned from flying to the US.

It was only on January 2nd, once the holiday season was over that the US authorities admitted that they were in error, claiming that it was a unavoidable case of “mistaken identity.” While tacitly acknowledging their error, Homeland Security insisted that “the cancellations were based on solid information.”

Emergency Planning

Needless to say, had the flights not been cancelled, the Administration’s justification for Orange Code Alert would no longer hold. In other words, Homeland Security needed to sustain the lie over the entire Christmas holiday. It also required an active Orange Alert to launch emergency planning procedures at the highest levels of the Bush Administration.

The day following Secretary Ridge’s Christmas announcement (December 21st), President Bush was briefed by his “top anti-terror advisors” in closed door sessions at the White House. Later in the day, the Homeland Security Council (HSC) met, also at the White House. The executive body of the HSC, the so-called Principals Committee (HSC/PC), headed by Secretary Tom Ridge. includes Donald Rumsfeld, CIA Director George Tenet, Attorney General John Ashcroft , FBI Director Robert Mueller and Michael D. Brown, Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, who overseas the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 21

In the wake of the HSC meeting held on 22 December, Secretary Ridge confirmed that:

we reviewed the specific plans and the specific action we have taken and will continue to take 22

According to the official statement, which must be taken seriously, an “actual terrorist attack” in the near future on American soil would lead to a Red Code Alert. The latter in turn, would create conditions for the (temporary) suspension of the normal functions of civilian government, as foreseen by General Tommy Franks. This scenario was envisaged by Secretary Tom Ridge in a CBS News Interview on December 22, 2003:

“If we simply go to red … it basically shuts down the country,” meaning that civilian government bodies would be closed down and taken over by an Emergency Administration. 23

Preparing for Martial Law

In preparation for a Red code Alert, the Homeland Security department had conducted in May 2003 a major “anti-terrorist exercise” entitled TOPOFF 2. The latter is described as “the largest and most comprehensive terrorism response and homeland security exercise ever conducted in the United States.”

In a Strangelovian logic, this “national response capability” translated into a military style exercise by federal, State and local level governments, including Canadian participants, establishes various “scenarios” under a Red Code Alert. In essence, it was conducted on the same assumption as military exercises in anticipation of anactual theater war, in this case, to be waged by foreign terrorists, examining various WMD attack scenarios and the institutional response of State and local governments:

It assessed how responders, leaders, and other authorities would react to the simulated release of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in two U. S. cities, Seattle, WA and Chicago, IL. The exercise scenario depicted a fictitious, foreign terrorist organization that detonated a simulated radiological dispersal device (RDD or dirty bomb) in Seattle and released the pneumonic plague in several Chicago metropolitan area locations. There was also significant pre-exercise intelligence play, a cyber-attack, and credible terrorism threats against other locations. 24

The terror exercise including the WMD scenarios is based on a big lie.

Let us be very clear on what is happening in America. We are no longer strictly dealing with a fear and disinformation campaign. Actual “terrorist massive casualty producing events” constitute the basic premise and driving force behind the Homeland Emergency response system, including its Ready.Gov instructions to citizens, its “anti-terrorist” legal framework under the Second Patriot Act, etc.

What we are dealing with is not only a criminal act, but a carefully engineered act of treason emanating from the highest levels of the US State apparatus. In short, what we are dealing with is “the Roadmap to a Police State” in America, to be implemented in the wake of an national emergency, either under a military form of government or under a police state, which maintains all the appearances of a functioning two party “Democracy”.

Notes

  1. Tommy Franks Interview, Cigar Aficionado, December 2003
  2. David Rockefeller, Statement to the United Nations Business Council, 1994
  3. See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html
  4. ABC News, 13 February 2003.
  5. ABC News, 9 February. 2003.
  6. ABC News, 13 February 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CRG302A.html .
  7.  Ibid
  8. Ibid
  9. US official quoted in The Toronto Star, 12 February. 2003.
  10.  Ibid
  11. See Department of Homeland Security at http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/index.jsp
  12. For complete statement of Secretary Tom Ridge, 21 December 2003, http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/
  13. See Selected References at http://globalresearch.ca/articles/11SEPT309A.html
  14. Boston Globe, 24 December 2003
  15. ABC News, 23 December 2003
  16. quoted by ABC News, 23 December 2003.
  17. Seattle Post Intelligence, 25 December 2003.
  18. Fox News, 28 December 2003.
  19. Le Monde, Paris and RTBF TV, Bruxelles, 2 January 2004
  20. quoted in Le Monde, 3 January 2003.
  21. White House Briefing, 22 December 2003.
  22. AFP, 23 December 2003.
  23. The scenario is presented in detail at the Homeland department’s Ready.Gov website at http://www.ready.gov/
  24. 24. For full text see, Department of Homeland Security, Summary Conclusions From National Exercise, Office of the Press Secretary, December 19, 2003,http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=2693

 

Egregious Lies and Crimes Are The Foundation of Western Foreign Policy

By Mark Taliano

May 13, 2017 “Information Clearing House” –  Syrians are just like you and me.

They seek to live happy, secure lives, in which they can thrive and prosper.

NATO terrorists are destroying Syria, and they have been destroying Syria for about six years.  Infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, water supplies, electric plants, roads and bridges have been and continue to be targeted and destroyed.

Video by Pierre Le Corf

Syrian resident and documentary film maker Tom Duggan bears witness to the terrorists’ willful destruction of schools and school infrastructure throughout Syria as well as the theft of factory equipment and the willful destruction of factories in Aleppo.

NATO terrorists deny Syrians safety, and the means to earn a living. They seek the complete destruction of Syria, its history, and its secular identity.

The real, evidence-based account of Syria’s plight is obliterated by the West’s criminal mainstream media complex, which serves as an appendage of the warmongering elites.

Humanitarian Pierre Le Corf demonstrates that the sources for the Western news stories are not only embedded with the terrorists, but that, in some instances, as is the case with the infamous White Helmets, the sources are the terrorists.

Evidence from the liberation of Aleppo reveals that the White Helmets are FSA, that they are al Qaeda/al Nusra, and that they are Daesh/ISIS.

/p>
Video by Pierre Le Corf

Prof. Tim Anderson compiles the evidence from the above video in the photo montage below.

Western governments have lost their legitimacy.  They do not represent the informed will of the people whom they claim to represent.  They conduct their criminal foreign policy based on a foundation of lies.

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Mark Taliano, Global Research, 2017

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

 

Killing Your Own People

Global Research, May 02, 2017

The American government often claims that its incursions into countries in the Middle East and elsewhere are carried out in order to protect the lives of Americans. Apparently people believe it; I have not heard anyone attempt to confute it.

But consider this scenario: A person in a public place in Erie, Pa. starts shooting at people randomly. A police officer kills him before anyone else is injured. That officer can be said to have protected the lives of the other people in the area, but he cannot be said to have protected the lives of people in San Francisco. Likewise, a soldier in Iraq who kills an enemy combatant can be said to have protected the lives of his comrades but cannot be said to have protected the lives of Americans living thousands of miles away. It’s simply not possible.

But the claim that the soldier is protecting the lives of Americans in general can be made. People in general are not real however. Making sense of that claim is difficult. But suppose that this claim makes sense and consider some of the groups of Americans whose lives would be protected by those incursions.

Consider the undernourished children who go to bed hungry every night. Consider the elderly who can’t afford both food and medicine. Consider the homeless, those who lack access to medical care, the unemployed whose benefits have expired. These are America’s neglected. They die prematurely. So if their lives are being protected by the soldier in Iraq, he’s protecting those the government is neglecting. The government, by not providing their basic needs, is slowly killing them, and they are the American government’s own people. The claim that America’s incursions in other countries protects Americans amounts to claiming that the lives of those being killed by neglect are being protected by the killing of enemy combatants in far off nations. That claim is patently absurd.

But killing people by neglect is not the same as killing people with saran gas. Well perhaps, but the difference is not great.

USA Today recently reported that London’s toxic air pollution is killing thousands every year. Is Great Britain gassing its own people to death? Isn’t polluted air a poisonous gas? Isn’t it just like saran? And isn’t Great Britain, by neglecting to provide its people with clean air, deliberately killing them? Isn’t governmental neglect a deliberate act?

Numerous ways of killing people exist. Are some more acceptable than others? Imagine asking a person killed by a bullet rather than gas if he is grateful to his killer for having done that. Do you suppose that he would thank his killer for having been humane? Would he say, “Thanks for killing me with a gun rather than with gas?” Get serious people! To the dead, no way of killing is more abhorrent than another.

I doubt that any society has ever existed that didn’t kill its own people in some way or other. None will ever exist as long as people are viewed as means to some non human end. War has never been fought to protect anyone’s life. When considered as fodder–factory, farm, or cannon–people’s lives will continue to be “harvester” for God, country, profit, or even pleasure. Such is the nature of mankind as we have known it.

John Kozy is a retired professor of philosophy and logic who writes on social, political, and economic issues. After serving in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, he spent 20 years as a university professor and another 20 years working as a writer. He has published a textbook in formal logic commercially, in academic journals and a small number of commercial magazines, and has written a number of guest editorials for newspapers. His on-line pieces can be found on http://www.jkozy.com/ and he can be emailed from that site’s homepage.

The Real WMD in Syria – West’s Weapon of Mass Disorientation

The Real WMD in Syria – West’s Weapon of Mass Disorientation

FINIAN CUNNINGHAM | 30.04.2017 | OPINION

The Real WMD in Syria – West’s Weapon of Mass Disorientation

A senior Rand analyst, inadvertently, gave the game away in a recent article inculpating Syrian President Bashar al Assad over the alleged toxic massacre of civilians on April 4. The Rand Corporation, a longtime conduit for CIA propaganda, wrote: «The use of chemical weapons today provokes international condemnation… Those who order their deployment risk being charged with war crimes».

The Western objective, as tacitly admitted above, is therefore to brand the Syrian leader and his government as depraved war criminals, deserving pariah status and excommunication by the «international community».

The alleged use of chemical weapons, a particularly odious weapon of mass destruction (WMD), serves as an effective prop to channel Western public outrage against Assad. Allegedly killing civilians with bullets and bombs just doesn’t have the same psychological power to incite public disgust. Poisoning little children with lethal chemicals is a more effective label with which to demonize the alleged perpetrator.

But the more pertinent WMD issue here is Weapon of Mass Disorientation. And in particular how Western governments, their servile corporate-controlled media, like theRand Corp, New York Times, CNN, BBC, Guardian and France 24, and so on, and local proxy mercenaries inside Syria are covertly deploying deadly chemicals in a series of propaganda stunts. Not only deploying deadly chemicals against civilians in a most cynical and callous way, but getting away with their crimes of murder through an audacious distortion of reality. All made possible because of the West’s media weapon of mass disorientation.

By massive manipulation of facts and images, the Western public are disorientated to condone the wider criminal agenda that their governments are pushing – that of regime change. Part of that disorientation involves the Western public suspending critical thinking over what are otherwise highly dubious circumstances and claims; it also involves an abject manipulation of perception and emotions, whereby some victims of violence are the focus for Western public trauma, while many other victims in Syria and elsewhere are unseen or overlooked with callous indifference. Those anomalies surely speak of a phenomenal disorientation of Western public intelligence, emotion and morals.

Immediately following the incident in the militant-held Syrian town of Khan Sheikhoun, in northern Idlib Province, on April 4, Western governments and the corporate news media began accusing the Syrian leader of responsibility for a «chemical weapon attack». The US ambassador the UN Nikki Haley made a dramatic presentation at the Security Council on April 5, holding aloft enlarged photos purportedly of children dying from toxic exposure. Two days later, on April 7, US President Donald Trump ordered a full-scale barrage of cruise missile strikes on a Syrian airbase out of «revenge» for the murder of «beautiful babies».

Trump’s decision to attack Syria was reportedly prompted by his disgust at watching videos of the alleged victims, and by the emotional angst that his daughter and special advisor Ivanka Trump felt on also watching the same footage. The video and images were, by the way, released to the Western news media solely by militant-aligned sources, the so-called White Helmets, operating at the location of the alleged chemical weapon attack.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer later said that any one «who gases a baby» can expect more US military retribution. Spicer also made the crass claim that Syrian President Assad was «worse than Hitler» because of his alleged uniquely barbaric use of chemical weapons on civilians.

Meanwhile, US and British warplanes operating in Syria, Iraq and Yemen are slaughtering at the very same time hundreds of civilians. In Yemen, thousands of children are dying from starvation due to a US-backed blockade on that country by Saudi Arabia in its war for regime change there. Why aren’t Donald Trump, his daughter Ivanka, and his spokesman Sean Spicer traumatized by these deaths? Why is the Western public also not outraged, traumatized?

In Syria, on Easter Saturday, April 15, busloads of civilians were murdered by terrorist suicide bombers, whom the Western governments and media refer to as «rebels». Over 120 civilians were massacred including 68 children. Where was the Western outrage at the images of charred children’s bodies hanging out of mangled buses? Indeed, the Western media coverage of that carnage was minimal and was downplayed with insidious words that the victims were «pro-regime supporters».

But the victims of the bus attacks were more numerous than those allegedly killed during the chemical weapons incident two weeks before at Khan Sheikhoun.

President Trump has condemned Syria’s Assad as an «animal» due to the alleged use of chemical weapons. Britain’s Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has also called Assad a «monster». Clearly, the image-projection here is aimed at demonizing and dehumanizing the Syrian leader. Once that image-making is «successful» – and the saturation pejorative Western media coverage is crucial to that success – then a moral, legalistic mandate is created which allows Washington and its allies to escalate their aggression against Syria. Either through diplomatic sanctions at the United Nations or by military means with direct military force, as seen with Trump’s cruise missile barrage on April 7, or with increased support to proxy militant groups inside Syria.

All the while that Western governments and media have been demonizing Syria over alleged chemical weapons, the political-media campaign has also been directed at smearing Russia for alleged complicity because of its alliance with Syria.

Britain’s Johnson said earlier this month that Russian leader Vladimir Putin had «toxified» Russia’s international reputation by its alliance with Syria. The British diplomat’s choice of words betrayed an overly contrived attempt to push the propaganda theme.

In what should be seen as a transparently crude effort, the Western governments tried to splice Russia’s support for Syria by hyping up the «horror» of chemical weapons. The Western political momentum has since dissipated somewhat, but there was an obvious bid by the West in the days following the incident at Khan Sheikhoun to force an ultimatum on Moscow to abandon the Assad government, and to in effect cede to Western demands for regime change in Damascus.

Russia seems to have succeeded in rebuffing this tawdry tactic by holding firm to principles of international law and objective facts.

Last week, the UN-affiliated Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) issued a statement claiming that there was «incontrovertible evidence» that the lethal chemical weapon sarin was used in Khan Sheikhoun on April 4.

The OPCW did not say who used the alleged sarin. But the inference pushed by Western media was that it was the Syrian government.

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov deprecated the OPCW as «discrediting» itself. The supposedly neutral, scientific organization was basing its conclusions on samples supplied by illegally armed groups, in a dubious chain of «evidence» that is neither impartial nor verifiable.

The «sarin conclusion» announced by the OPCW is in accordance with the assertions made by the US, Britain, France and Turkey. They are not disinterested parties. They are protagonists for regime change and sponsors of a covert war against the Syrian government since March 2011. Yet, audaciously, their partisan claims are afforded credibility by Western media.

Russia’s call last week for an impartial, on-site investigation into what actually happened at Sheikhoun was rejected by the Western governments. Russia’s demand for an independent probe was also supported by Iran and the Syrian government.

As Sergey Lavrov noted: «The spreading of false information on the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government is being used to move away from implementing UN resolutions on finding a peaceful settlement and instead to switch to the long-cherished objective of regime change».

There is abundant evidence that sarin was not the toxic agent used at Khan Sheikhoun on April 4. American MIT professor Theodore Postol, a highly accredited weapons expert, as well as neuroscientist Dr Denis O’Brien, are just two of many sources who have concluded from the observing the symptoms and circumstances that sarin could not have possibly been used.

There is abundant evidence too that the Western-backed regime-change militants in Syria have been involved in fabricating supposed «chemical weapons» incidents, creating media-ready videos which the Western news outlets have avidly disseminated and which Western governments have cited as «evidence» against Assad. That was the conclusion of the Swedish Doctors for Human Rights, among other reputable sources.

Considering that the only «evidence» for the latest chemical weapon incident on April 4 comes in the form of unverifiable videos supplied by terrorist-affiliated groups, it is highly plausible that the narrative put out by these groups, the Western governments and media is false. That narrative is that Syrian warplanes dropped chemical weapons on Khan Sheikhoun, killing over 80 civilians.

By contrast, it is plausible that the entire incident is an orchestrated fabrication. That is, that there was no chemical «weapon of mass destruction» used at Khan Sheikhoun. If a weapon of that sort were used, as alleged, then one would expect the death toll to be in the hundreds, if not thousands, as happened at Halabja in 1988 when up to 5,000 Kurdish civilians were massacred by the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

Instead, what likely happened in Syria was simply the murder by intoxication of civilians by militants using lethal chemicals, such as cyanide or chlorine. Why were the supposed aid responders of the White Helmets not also poisoned if highly toxic sarin had been used? Why do the «responders» seem too preoccupied with making videos instead of actually treating victims with due medical care? Why have no sarin antidotes or decontaminants been requested or sent to Khan Sheikhoun in the days and weeks following the alleged attack?

Thus the militants and their media-savvy agents in the White Helmets (who are funded by Western military intelligence) could very well have staged the poisoning of unwitting civilians. The despicable, cynical act of homicide may not have even happened on the alleged date of April 4, or even in the alleged location of Khan Sheikhoun.

Bear in mind that it has been reported in the past that US and other Western military forces have «trained» the so-called Syrian «rebels» (terrorists) on the handling of lethal chemicals. Those Western media reports mendaciously spun the notion that the «rebels» were being trained in the event of Assad’s «chemical weapons arsenal being unleashed».

The Syrian government has repeatedly and categorically denied that its forces used chemical weapons at Khan Sheikhoun earlier this month or in any other incident. It says that all its chemical weapons were destroyed back in 2014 under a Russian-brokered deal, a result that was confirmed at the time by the OPCW.

Tenuously, the US Secretary of Defense James Mattis claimed last week that the Syrian government cheated the OPCW and secretly kept a portion of chemical weapons in reserve.

The Western narrative of chemical weapons (sarin) used by the Syrian government is riven with anomalies if interrogated with critical thinking. Indeed, when looked at with due skepticism, it is apparent that the Western narrative is not merely a misinformed, erroneous perspective. The whole affair is a deliberate, carefully constructed and delivered Western psychological operation, a false-flag propaganda stunt, to demonize and dehumanize the Syrian government in order to propel the Western agenda of regime change. The American CIA and British MI6 have been trying to implement regime change in Syria since 1949 in on-off clandestine projects. The chemical weapon of mass destruction allegation is but the latest ploy in a long-running project.

Western governments, their military intelligence agencies and the propaganda service of the corporate media have been working on this particular psychological operation for several years in Syria, going back to the first major «chemical weapon» incident in East Ghouta, near Damascus, in August 2013. That stunt failed to effectively demonize the Assad government then. But the Western operation has continued and evolved over time until its latest episode at Khan Sheikhoun on April 4. The «chemical weapon» nomenclature is spurious from the nature of the injuries inflicted. It is more likely an incident of mass poisoning by militants carried out on hapless victims, which is conveniently broadcast around the world by Western governments and media as a «chemical weapon of mass destruction» used by the «Assad regime».

What is overlooked, however, is the WMD weapon of mass disorientation being used against Western public. The disorientation of critical thinking, emotions and moral standards is deployed in order to more easily manipulate public consent for the Western governments’ criminal enterprise of regime change in Syria.

There is an abominable charade taking place before our very eyes. A charade in which supposedly «moral», «law-abiding», «democratic» Western governments are colluding with the most vile terror groups using the most vile means of deception and murder. Why this simple glaring truth is not recognized more widely by the Western public is because their own governments have deployed weapons of mass disorientation through dutiful mass media purporting to act as «news services».

%d bloggers like this: