Translate

Sunday, June 22, 2014





ISIS/Iraq/Syria--- All One End Game for the Obama/Biden Administration—FEDERALIZATION!!
For some time now, the world has been witnessed to a series of presumed onslaughts of ‘vicious Sunni terrorists’ against an ‘incompetent Iraqi Al-Maliki/Shi’ite majority’.   What is the narrative that this administration really trying to convey?  We hear the official word from the hysterical Anderson Cooper with his CIA/CNN coverage or if one prefers,  choose the sober yet confusing analysis by Mike Morell (Ex-CIA) on the “tell-all confessional” hosted by Charlie Rose. The overall message is that we,  Americans,  are in the midst of an conundrum of such severe dimensions that this administration is need of all the ‘think tanks’ and ‘outsourcing’ the Beltway Bandits can provide.  AS IF,  these professional consultants can really figure out what we should do??  At how much an hour on the taxpayer’s expense?????
Outside of “healthcare” …..war is the biggest scam perpetrated on the American taxpayer!
Nothing is more revealing to someone like me than a series of news bulletins that always mentions “Sunni Terrorists” and “Iranian Forces” that really cover the basic intention of  Obama and Biden to initiate a regime change in Iraq,  throwing Al-Maliki out of power because he was a constant thorn in their side and… this is the key…. Realizing what Biden had said decades ago---Federalize Iraq.
VP Joe Biden has to endure all types of insults from the likes of former Sec Def Robert Gates,  Gen Petraeus, and Gen McChrystal basically calling him an ‘idiot’ or  ‘stupid’ or a “professional war-hog,  pseudo-warrior”.   Add in Sen. John McCain,  who considered Biden “wrong on everything from the war on terrorism in Iraq/Afghanistan to the federalization of Iraq.”   The “federalization” idea being to split Iraq into three areas- consisting primarily of Kurds in the north; Sunnis in Baghdad; and Shi’ites in Basra.
And what about the long forgotten trip that Obama personally made to Saudi Arabia that was probably intended to mollify the Royal family and allow them and ‘moderate UAE states’ [read CIA/mercenaries] to create a Sunni Caliphate stretching from Iraq to Syria.  
Why would this be important?
This caliphate,  which in reality presents no National Security threat to anyone but those who had a vested interest in past history,  allows for the both the Sunnis and Shi’ites to ‘appear to win’ in the Middle East.  Pronouncements from CIA Mike Morell and the like that say that such a caliphate threatens Israel and impinges on our US surplus oil reserves are NONSENSE!  The Israel-threat chatter is once again,  neo-con propaganda.   The USA and CINCPAC are too busy mitigating conflict in the Far East to worry about Israel.   As for our oil supplies,  we don’t need oil from the Middle East because we get it from other places (Nigeria, Mexico, Venezuela and Canada).  Has anyone seen any invasions in those places recently?
Therefore,  our blog takes its hat off to the Obama/Biden administration for creating a subtle back field strategy which allows Bashar Assad to attempt to end his civil war by allowing a non-threatening caliphate in the north of Syria.  At the same time,  the Obama/Biden strategy has allowed for an effective regime change,  forcing Al-Maliki out of office while destroying the antiquated secret Sykes-Picot 1916 Imperialist treaty.  Goodbye to the last vestiges of British and French post-Ottoman land grab in the Middle East!


So what’s left?
In my humble opinion,  the next regime to fall will inevitably be the Saudi Family which is corrupt,  incompetent, and ersatz defender of the Holy Book,  the Koran as interpreted by muslim Fakirs—the Wahhabis.  After Saudi Arabia,  will be Jordan or the so-called Royal family of Jordan.  Truthfully,  most of Jordan is really Palestinian who were displaced during the 1948 war and subsequent Israeli Conflicts.   Remember:  Palestine exists in the artificially created state called Jordan where a Hashemite descendant was purposefully misplaced away from the Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina as part of the conniving British strategy of “Divide and Conquer”.
Now it’s time to dissolve all these artificial borders created by the Western Imperialist states in order to better garner their oil wealth from one central location,  rather than deal with disparate ethnic tribes.  The truth is that the ethnicity is alive and well and will persevere no matter how many US troops and planes we may send over there.

It’s best to follow the advice of Dr.  Rand Paul,  an ophthalmologist:  don’t get involved in the Middle East,  America!   Please follow the medical nostrum: “above all else, do no harm!” 

Our leadership and our citizenry must concentrate on correcting our failed economy and re-building America for the 21st century.  National debt from these stupid wars and other conflicts are crippling this country and no one benefits but a few rich bastards and the slave employees of the “war machine”.
 

46 comments:

  1. We should be supporting no side. We're funding BOTH SIDES.

    Officially, we're supporting the Shia government. Unofficially, the CIA is funding and training the ISIS Sunnis. This is madness. The Republican House controls the purse strings, but still money flows out of our bankrupt U.S. for the benefit only of military contractors.

    DAHBOO77 posted a video that should be shared:

    YouTube
    GUN GRAB ALERT! UN Caught Posting New York "DDR" Jobs for DISARMAMENT!
    DAHBOO77
    Published on Jun 22, 2014
    https://www.undergroundworldnews.com
    THIS IS A RED ALERT! IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SHARE THE VIDEO, PLEASE SHARE THE LINKS! EVERYONE NEEDS TO SEE WHAT'S ABOUT TO HAPPEN! GUN GRAB!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dr. Pieczenik, true, Britain & France carved up the Middle East to their supposed liking...

    And much hardship has come about.

    But to change those lines or open the door to changing those lines entails constant war in the region.

    I can not ignore open source information that ISIS is funded by Saudi Arabia with CIA blessing, with reports of U. S. training of ISIS fighters in Jordan with estimates of 10,000 trained.

    ISIS is a mercenary foreign legion controlled by the West.

    Cut off the weapons & logistics and ISIS dies on the vine in the deserts of Syria & Iraq. Only by massive logistics can a serious army exist out in the open desert -- these are not a bunch of Bedouins.

    So, if you want to shut down the brutality, death, and destruction carried on by these ISIS fighters, it's as simple as cutting off their supply lines in flat open desert with little cover.

    Dr. Pieczenik, this is contrived -- failure would be the best corrective.

    And I'm not rooting against America because the American People never signed off on this morally bankrupt set of aggressive polices with regard to Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and, now, back to Iraq.

    These people are out of control.

    Pathologic: Will not stop until forced to.

    What would come closest in a political way to stopping their pathological war agenda?

    Absolute failure, as decided by the American People as a whole.

    Then repudiation at the polls.

    That may be closer than these pompous & arrogant individuals want to believe.

    Assad in Syria is winning overall, although with tactical set-backs along the way. Syria has sent jet fighters into Iraq air-space to attack military concentrations of ISIS.

    Al Malaki knows he is getting stabbed in the back and has already adjusted to the bitter knowledge that his ally is also his enemy.

    It may happen that Syria, Iraq under a wary Al-Malaki, and Iran, with assistance from Russia and China, can destroy ISIS and thus confirm a sphere of regional influence stretching from Syria (maybe Lebanon) to Iran.

    The lines of Sykes-Picot were imposed, but this is not the time to pour gasoline a burning fire.

    Cut off weapons, logistics, and finance for ISIS and all other fighters in the region.

    In the alternative, see ISIS defeated and the whole rotten operation exposed to the repudiation of the American People.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The idea that Obama is purposeful enough or cunning enough to work covertly with CIA or anyone else to train anyone to attack Iraq and overthrow al-Maliki is....well...fanciful to say the least.

      Obama is the opposite of planning, cunning, purposeful, etc. in any and all situations related to policy, and only works hard at doing only one thing, and that's getting elected to offices which he has no great passion in actually doing anything in once there.

      If any President or CIA wanted to train a Sunni army for an uprising they would have a nice menu of characters to choose from, the WORST choice of which would be ISIS. I don't believe any "reports" to the contrary.

      ISIS has funding from the Saudis, and the Saudis and the Iranians are playing a hard game but the USG is out of the picture. The US is disengaged from these matters. Libya was the first and last of Obama's or CIA's adventures. And if anyone claims that CIA is active in Syria let explain why Assad has whiped the floor with his opponents. If CIA was actively opposed to Assad it would be a very different picture.

      Delete
    2. The people in the Middle East are getting manipulated by foreign powers... that is not a recipe for legitimate boundary changes... just more of the same.

      Boundaries changed by foreign powers (in secret, no less). Where did I see that before?

      This has been a vast, coordinated bi-partisan effort spearheaded by neocons along with R2P types.

      Why is it that neocon policies are so brutal?

      What drives neocons to want to slaughter their supposed enemies?

      A side note: Watch Ukraine, there is now talk that if separatists lay down their arms and surrender they will be put in "filtration camps".

      Really?

      Why watch Ukraine, above and beyond, normal interest in foreign affairs?

      Because Ukraine is the test ground for putting down regional uprisings.

      In other words, Ukraine is a test case for the American Police State. a beta test.

      Ukraine has "filtration camps" while the U. S. Military writes of "re-education camps", I kid you not.

      By the way, the Kiev government is brutalizing a couple of those eastern cities. Actually doing what the U. S. and its allies were accusing Gadafi of doing.

      What supposedly justified a bombing campaign to stop.

      Where does the hypocrisy end?

      Of course, both political parties' leadership endorsed these policies of aggression.

      May the neocons finally be banished to feeding the pigeons and the political con men thrown out of office.

      A policy that can not be presented to the American People in open debate for fear of repudiation is nothing short of tyranny by stealth mode.

      Delete
    3. Operator, Obama is not alone on this strategy. This strategy (in rough outline) was handed to his administration by Bush, as Seymour Hersh outlined in his 2007 article, Redirection, in the New Yorker.

      There are multiple reports of the U. S. training fighters in Jordan, by der Spiegle, in Germany & the Guardian going back to March of 2013 and a recent report that these were ISIS fighters.

      Why are CIA trained fighters losing?

      The Obama administration and their collaborators in the Democratic & Republican Party leaderships wanted plausible deniability (so people like you could make claims of denial), didn't want finger prints on the operation. so limited transfer of advanced weapons, namely stinger type surface to air missiles.

      Although, there already are fingerprints as both the neocon WashPost and neocon/R2P New York Times have reported CIA involvement with facilitating the purchase and logistics of getting weapons into Syria.

      Sorry, as much as you can train fighters in crash courses, superior weapons such as jet fighters, tanks, mechanized infantry, and more secure logistics will prevail.

      Sorry, old Syrian hand, your propaganda don't hunt no more.

      Interesting how a guy who claims to think America is finished, constantly bad mouthing Americans & America, just so happens to support every twat & twittle of Obama policy in Syria.

      And puts out a line that could have been written by the neocons. themselves, when it comes to Syria.

      How convenient.

      Remember Top Gun? You stink.

      Delete
    4. I beg to differ.

      Bush is no strategic thinker of any kind. He was a lapdog and a mouthpiece for the neocons for a while, until he finally realized they were full of shit, and since then he's been totally disengaged. He "handed off" nothing to Obama, who is similarly disengaged.

      Yes there were US supported people being trained for a time in Syria, but only very limited in the half-hearted manner that the Afghan mujahadeen was supported until 1985...or the US supported elements half-heartedly supported in Angola in 1975.....

      CIA has a history of half-hearted, ambivolent support for groups which it trains a little bit and throws to the wolves....even Cuba in 1961 fits that.

      But the ISIS is not that kind of operation. It's a highly effective force with high moral, organization and weapons and money from Saudi Arabia. They are able to march through Sunni areas of Iraq because the Shiites will not fight for those areas, but they are not effective against the areas of Syria which Assad and his Iranian/Russian supporters wish to contest.

      Delete
    5. Everything that's known about ISIS is that they are former Ba'ath officers with tribal ties to the areas they have occupied. They are Saddam's officers which re-invented themselves into al-Qada in Iraq, and then moved into Syria to re-group and carry out this plan, which they've been working on for over two and a half years. These guys need nothing from the US. They gave the US hell in Iraq and the US only marginalized them by forming an alliance with non-al-Qada Sunni fighters who had otherwise been killing Americans. Remember it was the alliance between the Sunni resistance fighters and the US which cleared out al-Qada in Iraq, which is now back and even having trouble because of their dissaffection of the majority of Sunnis.

      Delete
    6. Yes, there are Baathists in ISIS (or at least the part of ISIS in Iraq, could of been in Syria, too), they have little to lose and possibly much to gain, in Iraq.

      Not so much in Syria.

      The Syrian Arab Army is smashing ISIS.

      There aren't any serious, so-called "moderates" left, if there ever were many, ISIS stands almost alone in Syria.

      Translation: If Obama continues to green light the sending of weapons and training of fighters, there is only one group he is sending it to, because there is only one group left... ISIS.

      Even a five year old child can see the incoherence of supporting both sides -- in terms of a transparent, honorable, and successful policy.

      Unless the policy is that of a duplicitous, violent empire, where force and deception are the rule because an empire is always at war on its perimeter.

      Then supporting (read, manipulating) both sides in a conflict becomes an accepted art of state-craft.

      As in 'divide & rule'.

      And empire is always at battle with the remainder outside its control & dominance, and struggling to keep its satellites in line.

      As an empire America is not exceptional.

      As a republic, America's history, blood, soil, struggles are exceptional:

      The American Revolution against the strongest empire of the age.

      The formation of a constitutional republic.

      The American Civil War was the largest of its kind, sprawling across a continent, its result: Slavery eliminated.

      As a Republic, seeking peaceful commercial relations among the community of nations, the United States of America and her People can thrive.

      As an empire, the people will suffer for the sake of the empire, the world will openly or secretly hate the empire.

      It is not the duty of the U. S. A. to be hated around the world.

      In fact, it is not in the national interest for America to be held in such low moral regard.

      Delete
    7. Perhaps, the most dangerous situation: A people holding their own country in low moral regard and the neocons' Syrian policy and, now, Iraq policy is driving the American People to morally reject the elites' perpetual war in defense of empire and the full-spectrum dominance that defense necessitates.

      Americans are emotionally & intellectually ready to hear and understand that the U. S. is, at present, an empire and the only solution to saving the republic is rejecting the empire.

      Rand Paul hit the Sunday morning talk show circuit and both on Meet the Press and CNN pointed out that the Iraq ISIS grew out of the Syria op and criticized the Syrian operation and was adamant about staying out of Iraq.

      Democrats must be shaking in their boots.

      Iraq goes bad and oil prices skyrocket and poof the economy turns worse, connecting domestic misery directly to foreign military entanglements.

      Very, very bad for the neocons.

      Good for everybody else... er... short-term no, but to overthrow the neocons... priceless.

      Delete
  3. Enough of this blather and now I will provide something important....my second in a series of explainations of the "CIA Cognative Model" as it was explained to me.

    CIA COGNATIVE MODEL PART II

    In the 1960s some officers began working more seriously with individuals claiming to have extra-sensory perception. From the beginning of CIA and OPC in the early 1950s officers had entertained working with "clairvoyants" or "psychics" as they had professional hypnotists, etc.. However within OPC and CIA the topic of clairvoyance was given credibility given what was known regarding the matter of Franklin Roosevelt and Jean Dixon. Roosevelt had met several times with Dixon, and those around Roosevelt who knew of the substance of their communications believed that Dixon was genuine and had performed regarding several issues including Roosevelt's death.

    But by the 1960s three things had happened which are of importance. The first was that CIA officers had arrived at their own cognative model which was influenced on abnormal psychology and viewed the personality as a construct of the unconscious mind. In this view the conscious personality is only an operating personality created by the unconscious mind to solve problems encountered in early childhood. Secondly the "behaviorist" model of BF Skinner had been replaced by one relying on "innate properties" as pioneered by Noam Chomsky. The third was the finding the the USSR was using their own teams of clairvoyants to research para-normal abilities, and that their research was progressing and had intelligence value.

    ReplyDelete
  4. By 1970 CIA officers had been dealing directly with psychics. In particular Peter Hurcos was one of several psychics who were consulted by officers. Hurcos was a Dutch citizen who claimed to have gained clairvoyant abilities after an injury to his head.

    Then after 1970 CIA began tasking labs to conduct their own evaluations. At the same time Air Force, Defense Intelligence, NSA and other agencies did likewise. Some of these programs were geared to establishing working units which could perform psi intelligence operatons, such as the Air Force operation which continues today, though unacknowledged.

    For CIA the primary effort was at SRI and involved physicists Hal Putoff and Russell Targ. Targ and Putoff evaluated several working psychics and settled on a team of three. However the most effective of the three was poisoned and killed by someone who dropped a tablet in his coffee in the SRI cafeteria.

    Much has been written about this program and the Defense Intelligence Agency offshoot of it. It remains controversial at best. However among the officers in CIA which had been involved in the Cognative Model earlier their estimation of the program was that although it had mixed operational value it beyond question established the existence of psychic ability as a normal part of the human mind.

    The basic conclusion was that all humans have the capacity to access all information that exists about reality in the universe, however it is problematic to attempt to use these abilities for purposes of war making.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The psychic poisoned at SRI was Pat Price, the best of the three.....

      Delete
  5. Some officers who had worked with Hurcos noticed that many individuals exhibiting psi abilities had similarly suffered brain injuries of one kind or another. Often the subjects had experienced brain trauma in early childhood from disease or CNS convulsions. The officers began to wonder why CNS trauma would be so strongly linked to psi abilities.

    At the same time within SRI and the Defense Intelligence programs the conclusion was reached that psi abilities were innate in all persons, and that psi abilities could be cultivated an d enhanced through training. Subjects with enhanced abilities due to training were referred to as psi operators while the highly talented individuals such as Hurcos, Ingo Swann and Hella Hammet were referred to as "natural psychics." Again, many natural psychics had histories of CNS trauma.

    Linking natural psychics with CNS trauma to mentally retarded savants was next.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Conventional psychology has no cogent explanation for the abilities of savants with extreme levels of mental ability.

    Mentally retarded individuals with profound CNS damage sometimes, under very rare circumstances, can exhibit abilities of numerical calculation or even artistic ability such as proficiency with foreign languages or musical instruments which are unexplainable. Such savants are able to arrive at calculations, play instruments, etc. perfectly and without error and do so with no conscious process. For example, a savant may be given a date hundreds of years ago and immediately the day of the week will be provided by the savant without having performed any conscious calculations or thought. To the savant the answer simply appears in his conscious mind. The same can be said for other talents such as playing the piano, etc. The savant is seemingly accessing the data or performing without any conscious process. Some savants, such as Kim Peak, voraciously "read" books to gain facts, but they "read" at a rate of about three seconds per page, simply scanning the pages but not consciously understanding the content.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The most publicized individual with such abilities until recently was Kim Peak, and owing to his abilities to communicate with others and his enjoyment at performing for crowds, etc...

    Since Kim Peak's recent death Daniel Tammet has provided even greater understanding of these abilities. Whereas Peak was severly mentally retarded, Tammet isn't retarded at all, but suffered CNS injury in early childhood due to convulsive episodes.

    Daniel Tammet is able to explain HOW he experiences the numbers he visually sees which provide him with the answers to the questions he's asked. He explains that he simply sees the numbers appearing and that each number has a strong emotional association.

    The existence of emotional associations to symbols representing data conveyed to the conscious mind from the unconscious is important because this is of course the common manner in which all persons experience dreams.

    In dreams data is represented as symbols, and the symbols usually have an emotion associated with them.

    What Tammet explains is common to all people, however he's experiencing this while conscious rather than in a sleeping state, and he's able to ask and answer questions, the answers of which are provided to his conscious mind.

    ReplyDelete
  8. However before Tammet and Peak, in the 1970s officers had studied and evaluated other lesser known savants and reached the following conclusion incorporated into the Cognitive Model.

    The conclusion reached is that the normal human brain is structured so as to NOT allow, but to INHIBIT, the mind from having access to information which it otherwise would be able to access.

    The human mind is naturally connected to the universe and all data comprising it. The human mind is a non-material structure which is able to perceive all realities outside of physical senses and conscious thought and reason.

    However the physical brain is structured so as to NOT ALLOW these abilities to be accessed.

    However in rare cases the factors within the brain can be damaged in such a way as to destroy this "filtering" function of the physical brain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The question which arises is "why would the brain be limited in such as way?"

      Evidently there is a purpose for this, and whatever it is it prevents individuals from understanding the facts or "truth" of what they are doing in any situation.

      It appears that the purpose of the human brain is to limit the individual's understanding, and to create a condition whereby he must navigate or negotiate his behavior using other means......

      Delete
    2. Obviously however intuition plays an enormous part in the lives of most or all persons, some more than others, and it would be in error to suggest that this common level of access of data is contrary to the structure or function of the brain. In fact a person in a state of well being will be more likely to possess intuitive abilties which guide his behavior.

      Delete
    3. I think it can be said that individuals who are without a sense of intuition and who are devoid of any sense of meaning of their dreams, etc. are the persons with less self awareness, less well being, and are less able to negotiate their behavior or environment.

      The individuals with more "refined" personalities are those with intuitive abilities and are able to gain self knowledge through the filtering process of dreams and other processes....but within the filtering perameters of the normal brain.

      Delete
  9. Thanks for all of that, when the ISIS thing first started. I was interested in the sound bites on the BBC to see what I was supposed to think. One thing loud and clear, this will mean terror at home as folk come back with training and a 'Jihad' mind set. I would say probably not, as the middle class boys lured from the UK are just looking for a cause and probably like the desert camo. It has exposed the wisdom of not getting stuck in, in Syria and made Hague and Kerry look frankly stupid. CIA liked your bit about the brain as a limiting mechanism. Have always been interested in people like Hurcos who at first the police thought was involved in murder because of his skill at finding bodies. Interestingly Roald Dahl had a head injury and his creativity allegedly flowed from that.My problem with Putoff and Targ was because they were taken in by the x-magician Geller, so I wondered what else they missed. I was very interested in the 'remote viewing' work that was conducted in US and Russia, although it did start to go a bit off piste with other planets etc. I am sure we all have abilities at some level and probably our ancestors took them for granted. Maybe the good ones and the savants have a different idea about time so they can dip in and out rather than be held back by schooling or cultural beliefs about reality. In truth maybe it is a bonus the brain has a speed limiter. If exposed to too much info might drive you crazy like Vincent with his swirling energy lines.

    ReplyDelete
  10. A central contention in Dr. Pieczenik's post is that Iraq is an artificial state created out of the old Ottoman Empire by Sykes-Picot agreement.

    But Iraq does encompass the Fertile Crescent, Mesopotamia, the land between two rivers, often called the Cradle of Civilization. The land of the Code of Hammurabi, the Babylonian law code of ancient Mesopotamia.

    In fact, sectarian strife was little known before Saddam, Shiite & Sunni lived in mixed communities.

    This is important.

    The big lie swallowed by almost all sides in this discussion is that Iraq was a sectarian brew waiting to boil over into conflict and violence, held together by a ruthless dictator Saddam.

    I've read numerous commentaries assuming, implying or stating that only the secular dictatorship of Saddam had kept the state stable.

    Actually, Saddam started the process of sectarian tension when he eliminated all political parties except the Baath Party.

    Iraq was remarkably secular for much of the 20th century.

    This is from an article:

    The sectarian myth of Iraq

    We coexisted peacefully for centuries, and need neither brutal dictators nor western intervention, by Sami Ramadani, the Guardian, UK, June 16, 2014.

    "Until the 1970s nearly all Iraq's political organisations were secular, attracting people from all religions and none. The dividing lines were sharply political, mostly based on social class and political orientation. The growth of religious parties followed Saddam's ruthless elimination of all political entities other than the Ba'ath party. Places of worship became centres of political agitation and organisation."

    The sectarian myth of Iraq

    I'll ad, that I, too, had bought into this myth until I read one commentary where this assumption of sectarian hate held together by the brutal Saddam, it made me think to my knowledge of Iraqi history and not remembering this kind of strife.

    More from the article:

    "One of the greatest testaments to the tolerance that exists between the various communities in Iraq is that Baghdad still has up to a million Kurds, who have never experienced communal violence by Arabs. Similarly, about 20% of Basra's population is Sunni. Samarra, a mostly Sunni city, is home to two of the most sacred Shia shrines. Its Sunni clergy have been the custodians of the shrines for centuries."

    "Every tribe in Iraq has Sunnis and Shia in its ranks. Every town and city has a mix of communities. My experience of Iraq, and that of all friends and relatives, is that of an amazing mix of coexisting communities, despite successive divide-and-rule regimes."

    This secularism maybe a key to why Iraq was advanced.

    But the elite are doing to Iraq just like they did to Yugoslavia.

    Taking a country that was stable and fracturing it, breaking it, so the elite can buy, control, or steal.

    See on YouTube, Weight of Chains, a Canadian production about the breakup of Yugoslavia.

    The elite want to break up nation states.

    If the elite can breakup & crumble the nation-state at the cross-roads of civilization, what else can they do?




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thing is... in war by other means, as in war, itself, the opponent has a vote, an opportunity for action.

      The elite are out on a limb.

      Their mistake will not be so easily buried, this time.

      Delete
    2. Yes and many Jews lived there until CHANGES happened. Many of the area's Jews left to participate in the founding of Israel, and then the balance left in the early 1950s - these Jews/Israelis formed the core of Mossad's pool of Arab-speaking Safardic Jews which were inflitrated into Arab countries posing as Arabs.

      Jews and Arabs and Druze lived in Palestine together for centuries but then changes came and everything changed.

      Just because Kurds and Sunni and Shiites lived in the area for centuries in harmony doesn't mean that when changes come and severe sectarian strife arises that it's somehow artificial.

      The Kurds sought representation at the Paris Conference of 1919 seeking independence. Since then Kurdish armed resistance has been horrendous in Turkey as well as Iraq.

      Many things happened in the last ninty years which contributed to the Sunni-Shiite conflict, and I don't agree that Saddam himself fueled the problem. Anyone in his position would have done what he did, as Tito did in Yougoslavia, and look what happened there when he left.

      Any central government in Baghdad controlled by one or the other would have led to a revolt by the opposite side, and that revolt would have been horrendous just as the conflict in Yougoslavia was horrendous. The only alternative was suppression or dismemberment in both cases.

      Delete
  11. Thank you, enlightening as usual. My commentators are as good as my blogs! (if I do say so myself). This war/destruction crap just needs to stop so please continue to educate the next generation. As long as I am around, I will continue to publish and "tell it like it is"....feedback welcome. Education! Maybe not in school but education is key. Thanks again for your contribution.

    ReplyDelete
  12. For that matter the Jews lived in eastern Europe for a long time in relative harmony but then changes came. Around the turn of the century the Russian Tzcar permitted the attack on a largely Jewish town in which a handful of Jews were killed. The publicity of that one event led large numbers of Jews to emmigrate, including Noam Chomsky's father and his family. Until that event there was increasing tensions, but no direct attacks and killings.

    Then Bolhshevism came along and everywhere it spread local Jews were blammed for the communists's mass murders, leading to anti-communists in every country, district, provence and village to tend also toward anti-semitism.

    Then when the Germans rolled through these villages it was these local anti-communists who gathered up the Jews for delivery to the Germans for killing, or in many cases the Germans stood aside and permitted the locals to rampage through the Jewish areas and slaughter them as the Israelis did later in 1982 in Lebanon when Christian groups murdered Palestinian Arab communities.

    Just because people live side by side for a very long time doesn't mean there isn't resentment which can suddenly explode.

    Similar anti-Jewish massacres have occurred in many places in the Arab world where Jews lived for a long time, such as in Libya in the late 1960s.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Operator, sure, there can be tension between groups, that is endemic in human nature.

    But murderous strife generally takes strong conflict.

    Look at the history of Iraq, the sectarian divide only came about recently, spurred by outside intervention. Literally, pounded by military attack.

    When in war, especially when losing a war, this exasperates divisions present in society.

    Regarding Saddam, while his elimination of political parties spurred using religious vehicles to discuss politics tends to promote equating religious views with political views.

    Did Saddam intentionally promote religious sectarianism, not in my opinion, but his ban on opposing political parties, promoted sectarian division based on politics, nevertheless.

    Of course, the formation of the state of Israel was, itself, an outside intervention into a settled peaceful situation, as you state.

    Again, notice, that while operator bitches about Americans and America, he promotes the narrative that supports the U. S. government actions regarding Syria, and, now, Iraq.

    Curious, that an America basher, like MITmichael/CIA operator, promotes the elites' narrative.

    Actually, it seems operator has THE SAME attitude that the elite have about the average person: Disdain.

    The Arabs' attitude towards Jewish communities in their midst was relatively benign until the formation of Israel. Again, an outside intervention -- it was not the native Jews of Palestine, who agitated for the formation of the state of Israel, but Jews who came from Europe with the specific purpose of setting up the nation-state of Israel.

    In Iraq, it did not "suddenly" explode.

    There was an eight year war against Iran (Saddam's ambitions was encouraged by the U. S.) which promoted fracturing of the society as Iraq came close to losing the war, but managed a draw, yet, it was physically exhausting.

    Then there was the first Gulf War and over ten years of sanctions were Secretary of State Madeline Albright justified causing 500,000 deaths of children.

    Gee whiz, do you think that kind of genocide causes pressures on the society? The sanctions are an outside intervention.

    It is the West pounding on Iraq that has caused the sectarian strife -- that was intentional.

    Just as I stated above: "The elite want to break up nation states.

    If the elite can breakup & crumble the nation-state at the cross-roads of civilization, what else can they do?"

    Face it, operative, in your own immutable style, you carry water for the elites, whether intentional or not.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The idea that sectarian strife came about only recently in Iraq is simply wrong.

      The entire reason why Saddam attacked Iran after the revolution there in 1979 was because it threatened the Shiites of Iraq.

      Your notion of "the elites" is erroneous.

      Delete
    2. Operative, you offer nothing, but your say so.

      (And you have offered so many previous erroneous statements of facts that your say so is not persuasive.)

      Saddam attacked Iran because of his own ambition and he was encouraged by the West. Remember, the CIA was involved with Saddam getting power in first place in Iraq.

      Operator, other than the tension with the Jewish community of Bagdad as a result of the formation of the nation-state of Israel in the early 1950's (and some suggest that was induced by Israel as an attempt to get the Iraqi Jews to move to Israel), can you offer any evidence of sectarian strife between Sunni and Shia in Iraq before Saddam got into power?

      If my notion of "the elites" is erroneous, please provide your definition of the "elite".

      Delete
  14. Operator stated, "Any central government in Baghdad controlled by one or the other would have led to a revolt by the opposite side,"

    Apparently not, as Saddam was able to hold Iraq together, but before Saddam there was little to no sectarian strife in Iraq.

    The sectarian strife is directly caused by outside intervention.

    Yugoslavia was a stable state before outside intervention.

    I mentioned this documentary, available on YouTube, The Weight of Chains. I urge readers to take the time to watch the documentary, as it presents facts & evidence that prove, in my opinion, that Yugoslavia was broken up by outside intervention and that the Yugoslavia blueprint was also used against Russia.

    The Weight of Chains

    Regarding Russia, note the "fire sale" of state assets for pennies on the dollar to oligarchs, often a front for international finance. That's exactly what they did in Yugoslavia.

    And there is much evidence the ultimate goal is the breakup of Russia, just like the West did to Yugoslavia.

    You want the blueprint of the Globalist strategy, watch the above documentary and you'll have a much stronger grasp of their modus operandi.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Removing the Ba'ath party and Saddam eliminated the apperatus by which control was maintained, however that control had been exercised dramatically for decades.

      Baghdad fought several major campaigns against Shiite rebels for decades, particularly the 1991 campaign after the Kuwait war in which Baghdad forces killed hundreds of thousands of Shiites and buried them in mass graves.

      In addition the Baghdad government fought several campaigns against the Kurds, including a major one in 1991.

      If you recall Iraq had no fly zones imposed on it in both the north and south because of these campaigns.

      What was different between 1991 and 2001 was that people such as Cheney, et. al. didn't want to remove Saddam in 1991 because they all wished to keep Iraq intact.

      However Cheney and others changed their minds in 2001 because in the interim another agenda became more important to them, and that agenda was doing what was in the security interests of Israel rather than the US.

      Delete
    2. If it were not for the wars hobbling Iraq since 1979 Iraq would have been militarily superior to Israel by 1985. If Iraq would have confronted Israel there would have been many complications, including a nuclear standoff.

      Delete
    3. The West did not break up Yougoslavia. It was the peoples of that place that wanted their own separate nations, as they've wanted for centuries.

      Delete
    4. Operator stated: "Baghdad fought several major campaigns against Shiite rebels for decades, particularly the 1991 campaign after the Kuwait war in which Baghdad forces killed hundreds of thousands of Shiites and buried them in mass graves."

      Operator, you depend on readers not knowing history.

      In 1991, this was just after Saddam's army had been thrown out of Kuwait. President G.H.W. Bush publically encouraged the southern Shia to revolt (then left them to the mercy of Saddam).

      Regarding Kurds, there I have to agree with you to a degree because Baathist ideology always had an animus toward the Kurds because, as you state, they wanted independence, BUT NOT because they were Shia, but because they were a different ethnicity and always wanted a separate country for themselves.

      It was not religious, sectarian strife among people in the same communities, but a nationalist aspiration for independent statehood based on Kurdish nationalism.

      Until recently, there was no such thing as Shia nationalism or Sunni nationalism.

      That was a product of intentional outside intervention by the West.

      What the rulers in Saudi Arabia and other Arabs ignore at their peril is that spurring Sunni nationalism and Shia nationalism is a recipe for the dysfunction and terrible destruction. As far as the elite is concerned, and particularly Israeli elite, dysfunction and destruction are acceptable outcomes.

      Saudi Arabia is playing into the hands of others that do not have Saudi Arabia's best interest at heart.

      ... But could make a ton of money for themselves.

      Delete
    5. MITmichael stated, "The West did not break up Yougoslavia. It was the peoples of that place that wanted their own separate nations, as they've wanted for centuries."

      Readers, please watch The Weight of Chains and come to your own conclusion.

      Delete
  15. For those interested in diplomacy, when "reducing the temperature on the pressure cooker" is avoidance of catastrophic events on the geo-political scale.

    There is a diplomatic norm in international relations: Reciprocity.

    Merriam's entry:

    general

    A situation or relationship in which two people or groups agree to do something similar for each other, to allow each other to have the same rights, etc. : a reciprocal arrangement or relationship.

    diplomatic

    A mutual exchange of privileges; specifically : a recognition by one of two countries or institutions of the validity of licenses or privileges granted by the other.

    examples

    The proposal calls for reciprocity in trade relations.

    Grownups know that little things matter … and that relationships are based on respect and reciprocity. —Margaret Carlson, Time, 4 June 2001

    The golden rule, do unto others, as you would have done unto you.

    Blessed be the peace makers.

    Keep the art of diplomacy separated from the art of war.

    Right now, there is numerous instances where the Obama administration has had ambassadors acting as "factors of war", i.e., the murdered ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens (implicated in illegal weapons transfers into Libya, then out to Turkey, then onto Syria); Robert Ford, ambassador to Syria (on the ground coordinator for domestic & foreign militarized fighters); and possibly ambassador to Turkey, Francis J. Ricciardone, Jr (recent report has Ricciardone as key facilitator/conduit of ISIS).

    This is a fundamental mistake.

    Diplomats are the heralds of communication between nations.

    Communication implies understanding, but when diplomats are active "factors of war" their communication is suspect and there is no understanding.

    As an institution, diplomacy has held-out its peace making role, as well as its role to prevent misunderstandings that lead to unnecessary destruction.

    This current blending, blurring the lines between diplomacy and an active role of force projection is a blot on the annals of honest men.

    But it is a mistake that will be worse than a crime because it will lead to absolute total destruction.

    Such are the powers of men to deceive themselves.

    In other words, you need a body of men dedicated to peace, just as much as you need a body of men dedicated to war.

    Perhaps, more so.

    Where in the Department of State is the body of men dedicated to peace?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps, not to put too fine a point on it, but it needs to be noted ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey R. Pyatt, was caught on tape with ass. sec. of state, Victoria Nuland, the famous "Fuck the EU" discussion, where Pyatt actively discusses who should be placed into power after the coup. Do not doubt that Mr. Pyatt was active in other aspects of the force projection in Ukraine, as well.

      The planet has a fever and for the sake of the patient the temperature needs to be lowered.

      The fever inside men's heads.

      Delete
  16. MITmichael stated, "However Cheney and others changed their minds in 2001 because in the interim another agenda became more important to them, and that agenda was doing what was in the security interests of Israel rather than the US."

    ... But could make a ton of money for themselves?

    Sounds like the classic motive for a traitor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Treason is such a harsh word. More realistic is that it's what the Israelis asked for, and the risks to the US were considered manageable.

      In fact all "national security" issues are so exaggerated in their normal considerations that you could look at any of them and marginalize it arbitrarily if you like.

      That's why statecraft is nonesense.

      Delete
    2. I have to revise that. The Israelis of course never asked for it. The Israelis around Cheney and Rumsfeld persuaded them that it would be the responsible thing to do for the same moral reasons as nuts like Cheney and Rumsfeld think was the American aims in WWII and the cold war. These Israelis had Israel's agenda at heart, but Cheney and Rumsfeld never understood that. All they knew is that they had a lot of bright staffers around them pursuing a noble purpose.

      That's the reality of how it happened.

      Delete
    3. As far as Cheney having a "noble purpose";

      My opinion, Norman Mineta's testimony (on tape before the 911 committee of Chaney's stand down respone to an orderly of a plane approaching the Pentagon, plus a whole lot more) is powerful.

      Given that circumstance, Dick Cheney, in my opinion should be tried for murder & treason and if found guilty, sentenced to execution.

      Noble? Not in my opinion, and by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

      Delete
    4. I wouldn't shoot down an airliner either just because it's suspected of being used as a cruise missile. I don't know what's so suspicious about that. No body wants to take responsiblility for implimenting the plans to actually shoot down a passenger jet full of American voters and some of their companion animals on board....

      Delete
  17. Off topic but what ever happened to the Nigerian school girls? I thought Mr.Goodluck Johnson had that sewn up? LOL....

    Africa will never change.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 9-11 was an inside job. It was perpetrated by Israel and Saudi Arabia to provide the US with a motive to topple the Ba'ath in Iraq.

    The plans flown by experienced pilots who were terminal cancer patients who volunteered for the payouts which their families would receive.

    Several members of Cheney's staff and Rumsfeld's staff knew about the attacks, but Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush did not.

    Buildings Towers 1 and 2 were prewired to collapse the central supports on a handful of floors pre-designated as the areas where the plans were targeted to strike. Building 7 was wired on floor 2 and 3.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Cheney and Rumsfeld's staffs coordinated their efforts, and their bosses responded very well to the staff's enthusiasm for the moral necessity of removing the new Hitler from power just as America had removed the evil Adolf Hitler from power.

    Cheney and Rumsfeld believed that America's role in the Second World War was magnificent, and that to fail to attack Iraq would have been like saying that America should never have landed on Normandy beach.

    To Rumsfeld and Cheney there was a moral necessity to remove Saddam from power just as Samantha Powers believes the US has a moral necessity to intervene in third world massacres.

    With Rumsfeld and Cheney on board and swaying Bush with the kind of moralistic and melodramatic appeals that his evangelical mind understands.....

    Then Rice wanted to go along just to please everybody else. She's a people pleaser like Obama who will go along with anything the others want to do.

    Powell was a little harder, but what was he going to do...resign?

    Afterall George Tenent said the case was solid....there probably were WMDs [although his staff said they were not there].

    Afterall in CIA the experts said there was no evidence of WMDs, and the "intelligence community" Cheney refers to saying there was were his own staff and crew telling him what he wanted to hear and filtered by his Israeli staffers....

    Tenent joined the crew because the risks and costs to CIA and to Americans would be HIGH if his people were wrong and they missed......

    JUST ONE TINY LITTLE LAB SOMEWHERE MAKING SARIN IN A BATHTUB THE WAY IT WAS MADE IN CHILE IN 1975 !!

    But the costs to CIA and Americans if there were no WMD programs would be small, manageable....and only the Iraqis would bear the cost.

    Tenent is not paid to protect Iraqis...

    That's how it all happened.

    Finis

    ReplyDelete
  20. Mit, two planes had already hit the two towers. Commercial passenger jets were already ordered to land, this plane had turned off its responder, was out of radio contact, was making a sharply descending, corkscrew, approach to the Pentagon.

    Also, there were numerous war games, drills, and exercises the morning of 911 -- NORAD was practically in a stand down -- there had to be complicit action at the top of the chain of command to set all that up in advance.

    ReplyDelete