US Set to Expand South China Sea Conflict

 

ED Noor: Obama has been ratcheting things up in the South Pacific for some time. This has been one of the military arenas I have not paid great attention to. However, these issues have been smoldering for years and once again, China is under fire. This is, please remember, also part of the aggression against Russia. Think PNAC ~ Project for the New American Century aka the installation of the JWO/NWO. 

Source: NEO

Triumphalism followed the election of US President Donald Trump, particularly among those opposed to US foreign policy under US President Barack Obama. In particular, hope was rekindled that America would withdraw from the many, provocative conflicts it was cultivating, ranging from the Middle East to East Asia.

However, triumphalism and hope are now dashed, as the new US administration moves clearly and in earnest to not only continue on with these confrontations, but expand them.

For students of history, particularly those following events in Asia Pacific, the prospect of the US moving its confrontation with China forward for control over the region is hardly a surprise.

A Quick History Lesson of US Imperialism in Asia 

The United States had occupied the Philippines, declaring it a US territory from 1898-1946. It had also been involved in the military occupation and several armed clashes in China with Chinese forces, including during the Second Opium War and the Boxer Rebellion. Such conflicts saw Chinese fighters attempt to remove by force foreign influence, including supposedly Christian missionaries used to impose US and European sociopolitical control over China.

During this period of overt American colonisation throughout Asia Pacific, the annexation of Taiwan was also considered, as an American analogue of Britain’s annexation of Hong Kong.

In Thomas Cox’ 1973 book, “Harbingers of Change: American Merchants and the Formosa [Taiwan] Annexation Scheme,” published by the University of California Press, Cox wrote:

Since it appeared unlikely that Taiwan would long remain a part of the Chinese empire and there was ample justification for action by the United States, [US Commissioner in China, Peter] Parker argued that the United States should move quickly. “I believe Formosa and the world will be better for the former coming under a civilized power,” he wrote.

It should be noted that Parker’s advocacy of the US annexation of Taiwan was backed not by political ideology, though it was certainly presented as such publicly, but by US business interests at the time, particularly those of the Nye Brothers, merchants involved heavily in US-Chinese trade, including the movement of opium across the region.

Regional dynamics would change just before, during, and immediately after World War 2, with a resurgence of localised power and independence movements ousting Western colonial powers. This included the ousting of British and French holdings across the region such as in Myanmar, Malaysia, Indonesia and across Indochina which included Laos, Cambodia and of course Vietnam.

The ousting by force of French administrators from Vietnam brought the United States back into the region more directly and on an unprecedented scale.

And while the United States would claim its reasons for intervening in Southeast Asia were predicated on preventing a “domino effect” of spreading communism, leaked documents known as the “Pentagon Papers” made it abundantly clear that America was simply continuing its hegemonic pursuits vis-a-vis China in an effort to encircle, contain and eventually subdue a rising Beijing.

The US State Department’s own Office of the Historian, in a section titled, “189. Draft Memorandum From Secretary of Defense McNamara to President Johnson,” dated 1965, states explicitly:

The February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they are in support of a long-run United States policy to contain Communist China.

The papers openly advocate US global hegemony, stating:

The role we have inherited 

and have chosen for ourselves for the future 

is to extend our influence and power 

to thwart ideologies 

that are hostile to these aims 

and to move the world, 

as best we can, 

in the direction we prefer.

Our ends cannot be achieved 

and our leadership role cannot be played 

if some powerful and virulent nation 

~ whether Germany, Japan, Russia or China ~ 

is allowed to organize their part of the world 

according to a philosophy 

contrary to ours. 

And again, just like during deliberations over the possible annexation of Taiwan during the 19th century, US ambitions in Asia Pacific may be rhetorically presented as pursuit of a particular ideology, but are in reality underpinned by economic interests which seek to move into and subsequently dominate markets globally, displacing anything and everything preexisting, through coercive diplomacy, or through indirect or direct military force.

Enlarge to view and read properly.

21st Century American Hegemony 

Fast-forward to the 21st century. During the administration of former US President Barack Obama, the US “pivoted” toward Asia in an attempt to reassert itself in a region quickly escaping out from under what remained of over a century of US-European hegemony.

The pivot failed, with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) being categorically resisted and rejected across Asia, and feigned US rapprochement with several of China’s neighbours turned into confrontations across Southeast Asia as Washington attempted to replace governments friendly with Beijing with those that would toe an anti-Beijing line.

In an attempt to conceal what is a decades-long agenda, and the continuation of Obama’s “pivot,” US President Donald Trump’s counsellor Steven Bannon, as revealed by a Guardian article titled, “Steve Bannon: ‘We’re going to war in the South China Sea … no doubt’,” would claim that China, along with “Islam,” presented a menace to the “Judeo-Christian” West.

This ideological rhetoric is aimed at distracting the public, convincing them that US policy toward China is now determined by Trump’s ideological, xenophobic tendencies, rather than merely the latest logical iteration of Obama’s “pivot,” and the Vietnam-era’s full-scale military containment strategy.

Also noteworthy in Bannon’s incomplete thought is his omission of so-called Christian missionaries in China and the role they played in the attempted invasion, occupation and subjugation of China during the 19th century by US-European interests.

The Guardian would report:

Bannon’s sentiments and his position in Trump’s inner circle add to fears of a military confrontation with China, after secretary of state Rex Tillerson said that the US would deny China access to the seven artificial islands. Experts warned any blockade would lead to war. 

Bannon is clearly wary of China’s growing clout in Asia and beyond, framing the relationship as entirely adversarial, predicting a global culture clash in the coming years. 

“You have an expansionist Islam and you have an expansionist China. Right? They are motivated. They’re arrogant. They’re on the march. And they think the Judeo-Christian west is on the retreat,” Bannon said during a February 2016 radio show.

And while the Guardian attempts to pose as sounding the alarm over the Trump administration’s seemingly xenophobic and confrontational stance, its own omission of America’s longstanding attempts to encircle, contain and subjugate China regardless of who occupies the White House or what rhetoric accompanies each iteration of US policy toward China, serves as complicity.

For policymakers across Asia, understanding history and the special interests that have and still do drive American foreign policy is key to seeing through inflammatory rhetoric, and essential in analysing and preparing solutions for continued attempts by Washington to reassert itself in a region an ocean away from its own shores, in a modern-day continuation of Western colonialism the nations of Asia Pacific have fought hard to escape and rise above over the past generation.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook

SURROGATE WARFARE: KILLING AMERICANS FOR FUN AND PROFIT

I had a friend turn on me today. A friend who shocked me with his tunnel vision for I had thought him to be more savvy. He wished me a Happy Independence Day and I thanked him, but like the party pooper I can be, I added, "I certainly hope that more Americans consider their precious freedoms, realize their value, and start working to keep them before it truly is too late."

I was a "commie b*tch" within a split second and nothing could convince him I mean well. Not even "America is full of great people and was founded on great principles but is losing those principles at an ever increasing speed" worked. In fact, it made him angrier.

He asked me if my fellow was American and when I said yes, a vet, he was, "well I bet he has a fit when you dare speak to him like that. " I told him that he supported and agreed with almost everything I had to say on these issues because, as a man who served, he had been there, experienced it, seen more of the world, and knew full well what was going on and did not agree with it.

Long silence. All I could deduce was that beneath it all he was upset and on this emotional day could not deal with the truth so I let it go and came in here to finish up a few posts I have in the works about Soldiers, in particular the American Soldiers, so badly treated in this day and age.

By Gordon Duff

July 4, 2010
Veterans Today

Today is July 4th, Independence Day to Americans, the 234th. This is one of a series of patriotic holidays that, though we don’t admit it, are slowly slipping away, Veterans Day also called Remembrance Day or Armistice Day and Memorial Day among them.

We have others but they have long since faded into long weekends for government employees. The story is the same, parades to remember the dead, the disabled and the veterans, now almost all seen as damaged goods, a burden on society, same story war after war.

Wars have never been what we say they are. As time goes on we learn that more and more. Even the cleanest war of all, World War II is falling apart, our propaganda slowly being exposed and, despite continued endless drumming about the holocaust, now little more than durable cover for mass murder in Gaza.

The lines between friend and enemy have blurred. Today, many historians believe Germany should have won World War I, backed by the US. History has made that one easy, no Hitler, no holocaust, no communism, no Cold War, no Korea, no Vietnam. Helping “the Allies” win the war cost a billion people decades of brutal slavery leading to, not just one more war, but every war we have fought since and have yet to fight.

Without Britain and France trying to rule the world, using America as the surrogate for their bastard policies, none of today’s problems would exist. Whether we are talking Lord Balfour and the Rothschilds or the division of India or Africa or the Balkans, we really screwed up that time.

Three of the only governments the American people can trust, not the American government, as even our own people don’t trust our government, are Russia, China and Vietnam. How many of the rest were bought by “banksters?” Certainly the US, Britain, Germany, France, Italy and Israel, in fact it seems they may be the “banksters.”

Considering China is the new home of the Jews, who already as noted own Great Britain and France, I am not so sure of this. America continues to muddy its relationship with the Bear, as with every other nation it comes into contact with.

Can a government be a government when every tax is meant to help the banksters, every weapon meant to enrich their “war profiteer” clients, every treaty, every war, every threat, every new law has to pass the “bankster” seal of approval.

What if every political race was only one group of thieves trying to crawl closer to the money tree, scrabbling over the others with their attack ads, all paid for, both sides, by banksters, the same banksters. The accusations are a joke. Which candidate sexually molests younger children or steals more than the other?

Who carries a bigger bible or who loves Satan more? The real game is war.

There is a delightful efficiency to war. War is paid for by borrowed money that is paid for by taxes on the people whose children fight the war. One corporation over all has profited from America’s ten years of war, Exxon. Yet Exxon doesn’t pay a single cent of income tax in the United States on billions and billions of income, money made from oil secured by thousands of American war dead and fleets of ships protecting their interests, theirs, not ours.

Consider that the bankers produce the killing equipment and sell it, collecting many benefits along the way, their chess and power moves yield access to more financial opportunity, and then the people pay for it all ~ yoked like slaves because once the cycle of descent is begun, it only spirals and grows as it strangles the people.

Look at any of our world conflicts. The CIA claims they haven’t heard from Osama bin Laden for nearly a decade and that Al Qaeda could fit in a school bus. With the Taliban only fighting the US because they hate Karzai, they seem flexible about letting the US stay in Afghanistan, they don’t seem to mind us that much, could there be something behind the war we aren’t seeing? Could be be in another Iraq, a war we got suckered into, twice, frankly.

Oh, you didn’t know?

This obviously once handsome Marine has had his life altered forever due to this surrogacy. And he is considered to be one of the lucky ones. All the oil on the planet is not worth one inch of the skin he lost.

It seems that there were some nasty financial dealings between Kuwait, the slave state, and Iraq, that might well have given Iraq very good reason to invade back in 1990. That story was buried behind the newspaper lies about babies being taken out of incubators and poor decent Kuwait citizens being executed in the streets. Saddam had been Americas best friend for a long time.

A very very long time. They were all Masons together!

Who set the whole thing up, suckered Kuwait into kicking Saddam one time too many, suckered Saddam into invading, suckered America into going to war where we, frankly, shouldn’t have cared less? The special country that did that was Israel. If Saddam was around, running Kuwait, do you know what kind of danger America would be in?

We would have a powerful ally sitting next to Iran instead of a weak and divided country that Iran manipulates at will, giving them virtual control of nearly a fifth the world’s oil supply. We got suckered. That’s what surrogate warfare is all about, we carried the baby and someone else got to eat it.

Saddam simply couldn’t believe the United States was so stupid. He kept extremists at bay, kept terrorists out of Iraq, produced oil for the United States and kept it flowing as expected, bought everything we had to sell and paid his bills on time. Can we believe all the terrible things he did? Yes, some of them. Inside his own country, the sheiks with the real power were getting sick of him.

Here is an example of military doublespeak at its best. By tossing in freedom (from what? Saddam was our ally) people do not even think about who or what is being freed, from whom they are being freed, if anyone is being freed, or if most are being enslaved. A few trigger words, hot wired into the American brain automatically bring on a war like response. Freedom, a wonderful word, seems to be corrupted to the nth degree when used in such doublespeak as above.

Saddam was sounding more and more like, well, Dick Cheney, a liability even in a dictatorship. In the end, however, whatever bad Saddam had done, paled in comparison with the damage America did, bringing in mobster-bankster rule, starting a civil war, loading Iraq with terrorists, and leaving the country in ruins with well over one million dead and millions more in poverty.

And millions more with genetic damage unable to birth normal children, a situation what is now permanent. Just as they had in Vietnam where there are third generation children who are still damaged beyond belief at birth.

We destroyed an ally, yes a dictatorship much like the one we are building in America today, destroyed its people, and why? It was money. Follow the money.

With troops arriving in Afghanistan every day and our military and that of Pakistan, fighting a largely unreported war, one nobody knows about or cares about, it is time we refocused on some hard questions.

Who we are really fighting and, especially, why?

Once we began the farce of the “embedded journalist” we have little left but professional storytellers, propagandists and puppets to honor real men fighting a war. No insult could be greater.

Whether these “paycheck chasers” are willing to sell their souls for “access” or simply close their eyes out of fear of murder at the hands of the drug gangs that make up the government of Afghanistan and too many of the foreign forces that support them or are simply unskilled, clueless and blind, it isn’t clear.

A few voices out there begin to get it, but no one puts it all together, the fact that Afghanistan is little more than an sideshow of the 62 year old conflict between India and Pakistan, a long running conflict, hot war and terrorism, that has gone global.

With Pakistan the surrogate of China

and India the surrogate of Israel

and America mindless and confused,

being pimped by drug lords here,

oil companies there,

and, of course, our masters in Tel Aviv,

how could anyone keep up?

There would be no reason to draw the United States into Afghanistan, certainly 9/11 had nothing to do with it, there were no terrorists in Afghanistan at that time, unless something else was going on. What was going on that needed the US to be pushed into an area so remote that resupplying troops is almost impossible? an area where running terrorist operations from is equally insane?

The Taliban had ended narcotics production. Without the drugs, the governments of the Caspian oil and gas nations wouldn’t become the narco-states now destroying Russia.

With Afghanistan, you also get Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and the golden goose of all time, Kazakhstan, ancestral homeland of the Khazars. When these nations are added to Georgia, Azerbejan and Armenia, it begins to make sense.

You now control, not only 40% of the natural gas in the world but much of the planet's untapped oil reserves along with many of the worlds oil pipelines, new and proposed, all making up the future of the hydrocarbon driven world economy if left on its current destructive path.

Were one to check the military expenditures of these nations, where their security forces are trained, their technology originates and their weapons, always unaffordable, building an addiction to foreign control, come from, it will be no surprise.

If you ever wonder why America is being demanded daily,

every newspaper, every television network,

nearly 90% of our congress, and dozens of “think tanks”

all demanding war against a country

that has never threated the United States

and was proven by the CIA only last year

to have no nuclear weapons program,

to invade Iran, simply look at the map.

With the alliance between Israel and India and the primary war partners being the United States and Pakistan with Afghanistan more a passive victim, 88% of the population part of an insurrection against the Karzai Brothers of Kabul and their drug cartels and army of petty thugs, the situation is schizophrenic at best. Considering the official enemy, the Taliban, operates entirely on American financing, we can take it beyond normal schizophrenia.

America is fighting a war with Pakistan providing massive support against the Taliban, fielding even more troops and suffering more casualties than the US. At the same time, however, the US has allowed India and Israel to openly operate in Afghanistan, intelligence and terrorism support activities against, initially Pakistan but arming and training terrorists who have, on more than a few occasions, attacked the US as well.

Imagine what it would take for America to allow something like this, what “unbreakable bond” would be required to allow Americans to be killed, just like with the USS Liberty, by our own allies?

This is some of the danger of surrogate warfare.

There are no allies, only masters

who don’t pay the bill

but reap the benefits of the chaos they cause.

Thus, China fights India through Pakistan while Israel fights Pakistan through the United States, the Nation of Karzai and India. The proven method, the same one that destroyed Iraq and underwrote the deconstruction of representative government in the United States, replaced by a thinly veiled police state ruled by a foreign controlled oligarchy, is also destroying Russia and ready to pounce on Iran.

The art of staging, application of game theory by what author Jeff Gates and, coincidentally, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates call “the people in between,” the creators of myth, the manipulators of the bizarre religious fables regarding Jewish supremacy and its role in global apocalypse, leave any trace of national will, patriotism, or even self interest secondary to surrogacy and enslavement.

Thus, the great Christian colossus, America,

and its global military hegemony

becomes a helpless dupe,

stuck in war after war

making even the hypocrisy of Vietnam

seem like a holy crusade in comparison,

each war more vile, more venal,

more cruel than the last.

Tens of thousands of troops, spending years away from home, drugged on anti-psychotics, almost afraid to return to the United States to suffer at the hands of our military, courts, the VA, troops who fear ending up in a prison cell as did so many Vietnam vets.

With no jobs, no assurance of anything for many, even families have disintegrated during the senseless ten year conflict, agreeing to spend a lifetime in the military is the only chance for survival for most.

What was meant to be a professional army is now a force of highly trained economic hostages.

If the Nation of Karzai is a narco-dictatorship, and it is, ruling the city of Kabul with an iron checkbook, a medieval duchy in the midst of a permanent national uprising, can Americans even be called mercenaries anymore?

Are we any better than the street corner thugs seen in so many of America’s cities, peddling the agricultural produce, the poisons brought in by our Mexican and Afghani-NATO cartels?

What has ten years of surrogate war brought us? Americans don’t want to hear about the war anymore, though the economic collapse it has brought provides an endless stream of desperate unemployed to fill the armed forces, that or starve.

Every day, fathers, some in their 40′s, try to leave their tearful families, offering themselves to fight permanent war just to guarantee minimal health care for their kids and a poverty level life, an alternative to starvation. Each day, mothers prepare for deployment, leaving children with friends, relatives and even strangers.

Our huge success recently? We killed 500 mid level Taliban leaders who, if we simply discarded the Karzai cartel, would have been fighting alongside us instead of against us.

Eventually, it will all end, simple entropy will wear down everyone involved. The government that could have been put in place 20 years ago or ten years ago, were the United States not led around by the nose, will take over. We can call it anything we want but Karzai will be gone.

What will the big win be?

At best, we can have what we could have negotiated the day the Soviets pulled out in 1989. However, America was leaderless then, secretly preparing for the run-up to Gulf War I, you know, the war before Gulf War II. We were too busy preparing for Saddam’s surprise invasion of Kuwait.

Long ago, AIPAC proved it could hoodwink backwoods Christians into siding against American interests.

Every member of congress that couldn’t be bought outright could now be threatened with removal.

America as we knew it fell.

9/11 brought us Homeland Security, FISA and an end to everything our constitution meant to us, setting the stage for America to morph from free nation to international war pirate, a giant Somalia with nuclear missiles and aircraft carriers.

This is the nation we see today, preparing for a surrogate war against Iran or is it Venezuela or Turkey or Pakistan?

Why should we care,

it isn’t our country anymore anyway,

we just go where we are told.

DREYFUS, THE PROTOCOLS AND GOLDSTONE

"America's one of the finest countries anyone ever stole." ~ Bobcat Goldthwaite

"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress." ~ Mark Twain 1835-1910

"By the age of six the average child will have completed the basic American education. From television, the child will have learned how to pick a lock, commit a fairly elaborate bank holdup, prevent wetness all day long, get the laundry twice as white, and kill people with a variety of sophisticated armaments." ~ Author Unknown

My $.02 worth of Slippits and Snappits and a few extra bits n pieces are in this green.

First, a little research courtesy of Israel National News:

Dershowitz Slams Goldstone: "He's An Evil Man"

Following his scathing critique of the Goldstone Report, for which Israel is preparing a response, Harvard Law School’s Professor Alan Dershowitz calls Goldstone an “evil man.”

Speaking with Army Radio on Sunday morning, Dershowitz said that Goldstone ~ whose report to the United Nations on Israel’s anti-terrorism Operation Cast Lead accused Israel of war crimes ~ “is a traitor using his Jewishness to malign Israel… He is an evil man, one who allowed himself to be used against the Jewish people, an absolute traitor.”

Dershowitz wrote that it is “much worse than most of its detractors (and supporters) believe. It is far more accusatory of Israel, far less balanced in its criticism of Hamas, far less honest in its evaluation of the evidence, far less responsible in drawing its conclusion, far more biased against Israeli than Palestinian witnesses, and far more willing to draw adverse inferences of intentionality from Israeli conduct and statements than from comparable Palestinian conduct and statements.”

Goldstone’s report, Dershowitz wrote, “is worse than any report previously prepared by any other United Nations agency or human rights group. As Maj.-Gen. Avichai Mandelblit, the advocate general of the Israeli Defense Forces, aptly put it: ‘I have read every report, from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Arab League. We ourselves set up investigations into 140 complaints. It is when you read these other reports and complaints that you realize how truly vicious the Goldstone report is. He made it look like we set out to go after the economic infrastructure and civilians, that it was intentional: It’s a vicious lie.’”

Dershowitz said that he and Goldstone were friends and colleagues for a long time, “but now I see him as a traitor… It’s as if they would have taken a Jew to edit the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. He uses his Jewish last name to kosher his slander of the Jewish People.”

By Gilad Atzmon

February 13, 2010

GILAD ATZOMON ~ WRITINGS

Information Clearing House

For those who still cannot make their minds up about Jewish nationalism and the Zionist violent abuse of Western academic culture (tolerance, academic freedom, pluralism etc) Rabbi Shmully Hecht of Yale’s University Jewish society, gives an exemplary opportunity to see it all.

Rabbi Hecht confronted Judge Goldstone last week while Goldstone was delivering an address at Yale University. Rabbi Hecht and his supporters held up a sign at the back of the conference room equating the Goldstone report with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the Dreyfus affair.

For a while, the Dreyfus affair and the Protocols were pretty effective Zionist propaganda tools, they were used mainly to silence criticism of Jewish power, Jewish lobbying and Israel. However, it is about time to face the truth.

Drawing a parallel between the Dreyfus affair, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the Goldstone report can also produce an interesting insight, but not for the reasons Rabbi Hecht or Dershowitz suggest. It allows us to look at Zionism in an historical perspective. We can review where Zionism started from and what it matured into.

The Dreyfus affair was a political scandal that divided France in the 1890s and the early 1900s. It involved the conviction for treason in 1894 of Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a young French artillery officer of Jewish descent. The Dreyfus affair had a huge impact on Herzl, the father of Zionism, who was assigned by a Viennese paper to cover the trial. Soon afterward, Herzl wrote Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State, 1896) and founded the World Zionist Organization.

During the last century Zionists regarded the Dreyfus Affair as an exemplary case of anti Semitism motivated by racial discrimination. In fact the Zionists were wrong. For a century they have been misleading themselves and others. French society at the time was divided about Dreyfus. The Left and the intelligentsia rushed to support the young officer, which led eventually to a 2^nd trial. Dreyfus was exonerated and reinstated as a Major in the French Army in 1906.

However, the case of Goldstone is totally different. The images of the IDF’s white phosphorus shells bursting over UN refugee shelters are engraved in our collective memory. As if this is not enough, initial Israeli denial of the usage of white phosphorous is also stored in our minds. The perception that Israel committed a massacre in broad daylight is not going to be wiped out either.

Unlike divided France that couldn’t make up its mind about Dreyfus, we are not divided about Israel being a criminal state and the biggest threat to world peace. The repulsion towards Israel and its brutality is actually a growing unifying force amongst humanists, peace lovers and the world at large.

Israel will not be exonerated and considering the fact that it defines itself as the Jewish state, its crimes reflect disastrously on Jews as a collective, something that not even a dozen Jewish anti Zionist activists around the world can change. From an historical perspective it is rather clear that Israel has been very successful in exhausting the last drops of sympathy garnered for the idea of Jewish nationalism. As it happens, not a single humanist stands up against Goldstone or his balanced report.

But the truth must be said. As much as humanists are united behind the Goldstone report, our democratically elected leaders are failing to confront Israel and its Jewish lobbies. They rush to appease AIPAC, they pocket money given by Zionist lords and Israeli Lobbies. Interestingly enough, the political morbid conditions in which we live was actually described by an unusual fictional text that was published in 1903 namely, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

THE PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION IN MODERN ENGLISH

When the Jews told Henry Ford this publication was a forgery, he said: "I don't believe they are a forgery, but whatever they are, they fit what is going on as the Jew attempts to gain world power."

Since a "forgery" is a copy of an "original" there is something not being told by those crafty ones. You cannot have a forgery if there is not an original.

The goals are entirely in sync with the words of the Talmud and its aims as well as its attitudes towards non Jews. No wonder they do not like it for, like many other publications the Jews detest and condemn as anti semitic, it rings strongly of the truths they do not want publicized. Such other books include The Hidden Tyranny, an Interview with Harold Wallace Rosenthal by Walter White Jr. , The International Jew by Henry Ford, and Jack Bernstein's The Life of an American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel. Both Rosenthal and Bernstein were assassinated by Mossad within weeks of the material going public.

The Protocols is widely considered a forgery. It is a manual for a prospective new member of the "Elders", describing how they will run the world through control of the media and finance, replacing the traditional social order with one based on mass manipulation.

Though the book is considered a hoax by most experts and regarded as a vile anti-Semitic text, it is impossible to ignore its prophetic qualities and its capacity to describe both the century unfolding and the political reality in which we live. I am referring here to: AIPAC, The Credit Crunch, Lehman Brothers, Neocon wars, interventionist ideology, a British Foreign Secretary Listed as Israeli Propaganda (Hasbara) author trying to amend Britain’s ethical stand, a Zionist by admission put on an inquiry panel to investigate why Britain launched a Zionist war and so on.

As it happens staunch Zionists such as David Aaronovitch, Nick Cohen and Alan Dershowitz use a very banal spin to divert the attention from the devastating prophetic reality depicted by the Protocols. A reality in which they themselves promote interventionist wars in our midst.

Again and again they stress the fact that the Protocols was a forgery. They insist that we look at its anti Semitic origin while evading its content and meaning.

How often has antisemitic only meant it was something the Jews disliked and had nothing to do with racism? Too many times.

However whether or not the Protocols is a fictional text or a forgery doesn’t change the fact that it explores our disastrous contemporary reality. A reality in which we are killing en mass the enemies of Israel in the ‘name of democracy’, a reality in which Dershowitz himself puts enormous effort into cleansing academia of any critical voices of Israel, Zionism and Jewish power in America and the West.

This is exactly where Goldstone is coming into the picture. In the last century we have been witnessing an evolving murderous Jewish nationalist movement. A movement that was born in part due to a calculated misinterpretation of the Dreyfus affair. For a century, the Zionist movement has managed to silence its critics using different tactics that are all explored in that fictional text from 1903.

Zionism was very successful; it managed to mature into a state, at the expense of the Palestinian people. Only through violent expansionist methods including massacres and racially orientated ethnic cleansing have the Zionists and Israel managed to fulfill what they define as the Jewish national aspiration. But as Goldstone reveals, this aspiration matured into a criminal state that is terrorizing its indigenous population and threatening its neighbours.

If we ever want to amend the reality we live in, we must curtail the Zionist operators in our midst, in the government, in politics, in the media, in academia, in finance and in the legal system. I am not talking here about Jews but about Zionists, people who are affiliated with a specific foreign tribal interest that counters universalism, ethics and humanism. Unless we do that we may soon have to face another Goldstone report investigating a much greater Zionist crime against humanity.

If we want to help Israelis and Jewish nationalists recover from their nationalist racist fanatical dream, we must persuade them that the Goldstone report is their new Bible, a recent catalog of their departure from humanity.

Gilad Atzmon was born in Israel in 1963 and had his musical training at the Rubin Academy of Music, Jerusalem (Composition and Jazz). As a multi-instrumentalist he plays Soprano, Alto, Tenor and Baritone Saxes, Clarinet and Flutes. His album Exile was the BBC jazz album of the year in 2003. More

US, NATO, POISED FOR MOST MASSIVE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN'S HISTORY

Global Research, September 24, 2009

Stop NATO

by Rick Rozoff

My $.02 of Snippits and Snappits is green.

In this decade, the United States has been so focused on defeating the Taliban and al-Qaeda it's made alliances with an assortment of drug lords, opium magnates, militia leaders, and other violent and corrupting elements which have contributed to the country's devastation still further. ~ The Huffington Post, June 6, 2009

AND THEY CALL THIS "OPERATION FREEDOM"?!?!?

Over the past week U.S. newspapers and television networks have been abuzz with reports that Washington and its NATO allies are planning an unprecedented increase of troops for the war in Afghanistan, even in addition to the 17,000 new American and several thousand NATO forces that have been committed to the war so far this year.

These are YOUR children, people! YOUR children being sacrificed for what? for whom? Surely not any gain YOU will see in your lifetime!

The number, based on as yet unsubstantiated reports of what U.S. and NATO commander Stanley McChrystal and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen have demanded of the White House, range from 10,000 to 45,000.

Fox News has cited figures as high as 45,000 more American soldiers and ABC News as many as 40,000. On September 15 the Christian Science Monitor wrote of "perhaps as many as 45,000."

When are you going to wake up and see what is being done? They say it is in YOUR name, but it is in the name of Israel, money, oil control, and preparation for MORE wars in "your" name.

The similarity of the estimates indicate that a number has been agreed upon and America's obedient media is preparing domestic audiences for the possibility of the largest escalation of foreign armed forces in Afghanistan's history. Only seven years ago the United States had 5,000 troops in the country, but was scheduled to have 68,000 by December even before the reports of new deployments surfaced.

An additional 45,000 troops would bring the U.S. total to 113,000. There are also 35,000 troops from some 50 other nations serving under NATO's International Security Assistance Force in the nation, which would raise combined troop strength under McChrystal's command to 148,000 if the larger number of rumored increases materializes.

"Soldiers are dumb animals

to be used as pawns in foreign policy."

~ Henry Kissinger

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/elections/445674-kissinger-repudiates-obama-7.html#ixzz0SSU4evaP

As the former Soviet Union withdrew its soldiers from Afghanistan twenty years ago the New York Times reported "At the height of the Soviet commitment, according to Western intelligence estimates, there were 115,000 troops deployed." [1]

Nearly 150,000 U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan would represent the largest foreign military presence ever in the land.

Rather than addressing this historic watershed, the American media is full of innuendos and "privileged" speculation on who has leaked the information and why, as to commercial news operations the tawdry world of Byzantine intrigues among and between American politicians, generals and the Fourth Estate is of more importance than the lengthiest and largest war in the world.

One that has been estimated by the chief of the British armed forces and other leading Western officials to last decades and that has already been extended into Pakistan, a nation with a population almost six times that of Afghanistan and in possession of nuclear weapons.

Two weeks ago the Dutch media reported that during a visit to the Netherlands "General Stanley McChrystal [said] he is considering the possibility of merging...Operation Enduring Freedom with NATO's ISAF force." [2] That is, not only would he continue to command all U.S. and NATO troops, but the two commands would be melded into one.

Who thinks up these idiotic misleading names for these deathfests? "Operation enduring Freedom!" The only freedom here is the freedom to die and help cull the population while you are at it.

The call for up to 45,000 more American troops was first adumbrated in mid-September by U.S. armed forces chief Michael Mullen, with the Associated Press stating "The top U.S. military officer says that winning in Afghanistan will probably mean sending more troops." [3]

Four days later, September 19, Reuters reported that "The commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan has drawn up a long-awaited and detailed request for additional troops but has not yet sent it to Washington, a spokesman said on Saturday.

"He said General Stanley McChrystal completed the document this week, setting out exactly how many U.S. and NATO troops, Afghan security force members and civilians he thinks he needs." [4]

The Pentagon spokesman mentioned above, Lieutenant-Colonel Tadd Sholtis, said, "We're working with Washington as well as the other NATO participants about how it's best to submit this," refusing to divulge any details. [5]

Two days later the Washington Post published a 66-page "redacted" version of General McChrystal's Commander's Initial Assessment which began with this background information:

"On 26 June, 2009, the United States Secretary of Defense directed Commander, United States Central Command (CDRUSCENTCOM), to provide a multidisciplinary assessment of the situation in Afghanistan. On 02 July, 2009, Commander, NATO International Security Assistance Force (COMISAF) / U.S. Forces-Afghanistan (USFOR-A), received direction from CDRUSCENTCOM to complete the overall review.

"On 01 July, 2009, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe and NATO Secretary General also issued a similar directive.

"COMISAF [Commander, NATO International Security Assistance Force] subsequently issued an order to the ISAF staff and component commands to conduct a comprehensive review to assess the overall situation, review plans and ongoing efforts, and identify revisions to operational, tactical and strategic guidance."

The main focus of the report, not surprising given McChrystal's previous role as head of the Joint Special Operations Command, the Pentagon's preeminent special operations unit, in Iraq, is concentrated and intensified counterinsurgency war.

It includes the demand that "NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) requires a new strategy....This new strategy must also be properly resourced and executed through an integrated civilian-military counterinsurgency campaign....This is a different kind of fight. We must conduct classic counterinsurgency operations in an environment that is uniquely complex....Success demands a comprehensive counterinsurgency (COIN) campaign."

McChrystal's evaluation also indicates that

the war will not only escalate within Afghanistan

but will also be stepped up inside Pakistan

and may even target Iran.

"Afghanistan's insurgency is clearly supported from Pakistan. Senior leaders of the major Afghan insurgent groups are based in Pakistan, are linked with al Qaeda and other violent extremist groups, and are reportedly aided by some elements of Pakistan's ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence].

"Iranian Qods Force [part of the nation's army] is reportedly training fighters for certain Taliban groups and providing other forms of military assistance to insurgents. Iran's current policies and actions do not pose a short-term threat to the mission, but Iran has the capability to threaten the mission in the future."

That the ISI has had links to armed extremists is no revelation. The Pentagon and the CIA worked hand-in-glove with it from 1979 onward to subvert successive governments in Afghanistan.

That Iran is

"training fighters for certain Taliban groups"

is a provocational fabrication.

As to who is responsible for the thirty-year disaster that is Afghanistan, McChrystal's assessment contains a sentence that may get past most readers. It is this:

"The major insurgent groups in order of their threat to the mission are: the Quetta Shura Taliban (05T), the Haqqani Network (HQN), and the Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin (HiG)."

The Haqqani network, born of the Russian war and nurtured by the CIA,Most Deadly US Foe in Afghanistan

The last-named is the guerrilla force of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the largest recipient of hundreds of millions (perhaps billions) of U.S. dollars provided by the CIA to the Peshawar Seven Mujahideen bloc fighting the Soviet-backed government of Afghanistan from 1978-1992.

YES AMERICAN CREATED INSURGENTS FOR THE WHIM OF THE MOMENT WITH NOT A THOUGHT TO THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THEIR ACTIONS!

While hosting Hekmatyar and his allies at the White House in 1985 then President Ronald Reagan referred to his guests as "the moral equivalents of America's founding fathers.”

Throughout the 1980s the CIA official in large part tasked to assist the Mujahideen with funds, arms and training was Robert Gates, now U.S. Secretary of Defense.

Richard J. Kerr, the Deputy Director of CIA at that time, meeting with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar in Islamabad in 1988.

Last December BBC News reported:

"In his book, From the Shadows, published in 1996, Mr Gates defended the role of the CIA in undertaking covert action which, he argued, helped to win the Cold War.

"In a speech in 1999, Mr Gates said that its most important role was in Afghanistan.

"'CIA had important successes in covert action. Perhaps the most consequential of all was Afghanistan where CIA, with its management, funnelled billions of dollars in supplies and weapons to the mujahideen, and the resistance was thus able to fight the vaunted Soviet army to a standoff and eventually force a political decision to withdraw,' he said." [6]

Now according to McChrystal the same Gulbuddin Hekmatyar who was cultivated and sponsored by McChrystal's current boss, Gates, is in charge of one of the three groups the Pentagon and NATO are waging ever-escalating counterinsurgency operations in South Asia against.

To make matters even more intriguing, former British foreign secretary Robin Cook ~ as loyal a pro-American Atlanticist as exists ~ conceded in the Guardian on July 8, 2005 that "Bin Laden was...a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally 'the database', was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians."

Zbigniew Brzezinski shows Tim Osman, aka Bin Laden, the selling points of these American gifts to "Al Qaeda". Ziggy the Puppet Master, founder of the Muslim extremist movement, the Taliban, and the database of Mujahadeen that formed “the Base” that came to be known as “Al-Qaeda.”

Russian analyst and vice president of the Center for Political Technologies Sergey Mikheev was quoted in early September as contending that "Afghanistan is a stage in the division of the world after the bipolar system failed. They [U.S. and NATO] wanted to consolidate their grip on Eurasia...and deployed a lot of troops there. The Taliban card was played, although nobody had been interested in the Taliban before." [7]

Pentagon chief Gates' 27 years in the CIA, including his tenure as director of the agency from 1991-1993, is being brought to bear on the Afghan war according to the Los Angeles Times of September 19, 2009, which revealed that "The CIA is deploying teams of spies, analysts and paramilitary operatives to Afghanistan, part of a broad intelligence 'surge' that will make its station there among the largest in the agency's history, U.S. officials say.

"When complete, the CIA's presence in the country is expected to rival the size of its massive stations in Iraq and Vietnam at the height of those wars. Precise numbers are classified, but one U.S. official said the agency already has nearly 700 employees in Afghanistan.

"The intelligence expansion goes beyond the CIA to involve every major spy service, officials said, including the National Security Agency, which intercepts calls and e-mails, as well as the Defense Intelligence Agency, which tracks military threats."

U.S. and NATO Commander McChrystal will put the CIA to immediate use in his plans for an all-out counterinsurgency campaign. The Los Angeles Times article added:

"McChrystal is expected to expand the use of teams that combine CIA operatives with special operations soldiers. In Iraq, where he oversaw the special operations forces from 2003 to 2008, McChrystal used such teams to speed up the cycle of gathering intelligence and carrying out raids aimed at killing or capturing insurgents.

"The CIA is also carrying out an escalating campaign of unmanned Predator missile strikes on Al Qaeda and insurgent strongholds in Pakistan. The number of strikes so far this year, 37, already exceeds the 2008 total, according to data compiled by the Long War Journal website, which tracks Predator strikes in Pakistan."

Indeed, on September 13 it was reported that "Two NATO fighter jets reportedly flew inside Pakistan's airspace for nearly two hours on Saturday.

"The airspace violation took place in different parts of the Khyber Agency bordering the Afghan border." [8]

Two days later "NATO fighter jets in Afghanistan...violated Pakistani airspace and dropped bombs on the country's northwest region.

"NATO warplanes bombed the South Waziristan tribal region....Moreover, CIA operated spy drone planes continued low-altitude flights in several towns of the Waziristan region." [9]

The dramatic upsurge in CIA deployments in South Asia won't be limited to Afghanistan. Neighboring Pakistan will be further overrun by U.S. intelligence operatives also.

On September 12 a petition was filed in the Supreme Court of Pakistan contesting the announced expansion of the U.S. embassy in the nation's capital.

"Pakistani media have been reporting that the United States plans to deploy a large number of marines with the plan to expand its embassy in Islamabad." [10]

The challenge was organized by Barrister Zafarullah Khan, who "said that Saudi Arabia was also trying to get 700,000 acres (283,400 hectares) of land in the country."

He was quoted on the day of the presentation of the petition as warning "Giving away Pakistani land to U.S. and Arab countries in this fashion is a threat for the stability and sovereignty of the country" and "further added that the purpose of giving the land to U.S. embassy was to establish an American military base...there.

"He maintained that such a big land was enough even to construct a military airport." [11]

Intelligence personnel and special forces are being matched by military equipment in the intensification of the West's war in South Asia.

On September 10 Reuters revealed in an article titled "U.S. eyes military equipment in Iraq for Pakistan" that "The Pentagon has proposed transferring U.S. military equipment from Iraq to Pakistani security forces to help Islamabad step up its offensive against the Taliban...."

A U.S. armed forces publication a few days afterward wrote that "U.S. hardware is moving out of Iraq by the ton, much of it going straight to the overstretched forces in increasingly volatile Afghanistan" and "The U.S. military has already started moving an estimated 1.5 million pieces of equipment ~ everything from batteries to tanks ~ by ground, rail and air either to Afghanistan for immediate use...." [12]

In the middle of this month "U.S. military leaders infused Gen. Stanley McChrystal's ideas of how to win the war in Afghanistan" by conducting a large-scale counterinsurgency exercise in Grafenwoehr, Germany.

"Dozens of Pashtun speakers joined more than 6,500 U.S. troops and civilians in an exercise for the Afghanistan-bound 173rd Airborne Brigade and Iraq-bound 12th Combat Aviation Brigade. It was the largest such exercise ever held by the U.S. military outside of the United States...." [13]

The Pentagon and NATO have their work cut out for them.

"A security map by the London-based International Council on Security and Development (ICOS) showed a deepening security crisis with substantial Taliban activity in at least 97 percent of the war-ravaged country.

"The Council added that the militants now have a permanent presence in 80 percent of the country." [14]

The United States is not alone in sinking deeper into the Afghan morass.

On September 14 U.S. ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder, in celebrating the "resilience and deep-seated support from our allies for what is happening in Afghanistan," was equally enthusiastic in proclaiming "Over 40 percent of the body bags that leave Afghanistan do not go to the U.S. They go to other countries...." [15]

Daalder also gave the lie to earlier claims that NATO troop increases leading up to last month's presidential election were temporary in nature by acknowledging that "Many of the extra troops that NATO countries sent to Afghanistan for the August presidential elections would stay on." [16]

Leading up to the Washington Post's publication of the McChrystal assessment, NATO's Military Committee held a two-day conference in Lisbon, Portugal which was attended by McChrystal and NATO's two Strategic Commanders, Admiral Stavridis (Supreme Allied Commander, Operations) and General Abrial (Supreme Allied Commander, Transformation) which "focused mainly on the operation in Afghanistan and on the New Strategic Concept." [17]

The 28 NATO defense chiefs present laid a wreath to the Alliance's first war dead, those killed in Afghanistan.

Earlier this month the Washington Post reported that "The U.S. military and NATO are launching a major overhaul of the way they recruit, train and equip Afghanistan's security forces," an announcement that came "in advance of expected recommendations by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal." [18]

The article quoted Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee:

"We're going to need many more trainers, hopefully including a much larger number of NATO trainers. We're going to need a surge of equipment that is coming out of Iraq and, instead of coming home, a great deal of it should be going to Afghanistan instead." [19]

According to the same report, this month NATO will "will establish a new command led by a three-star military officer to oversee recruiting and generating Afghan forces.

"The goal is to 'bring more coherence' to uncoordinated efforts by NATO contingents in Afghanistan while underscoring that the mission 'is not just America's challenge'..." [20]

Contributing to its quota of body bags, NATO has experienced losses in Afghanistan that have reached record levels. "According to the icasualties website, 363 foreign soldiers have died in Afghanistan so far this year, compared to 294 for all of 2008." [21]

This month Britain lost its 216th soldier in the nearly eight-year war. Canada lost its 131st. Denmark its 25th. Italy its 20th. Poland, where a recent poll showed 81 percent support for immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, its 12th.

Russian ambassador to Afghanistan Zamir Kabulov, who had been in the nation in the 1980s, was cited by Associated Press on September 12 as reflecting that in 2002 the U.S. had 5,000 troops in the nation and "Taliban controlled just a small corner of the country's southeast."

"Now we have Taliban fighting in the peaceful Kunduz and Baghlan (provinces) with your (NATO's) 100,000 troops. And if this trend is the rule, if you bring 200,000 soldiers here, all of Afghanistan will be under the Taliban."

Associated Press also cited Kabulov's concern that "the U.S. and its allies are competing with Russia for influence in the energy-rich region....Afghanistan remains a strategic prize because of its location near the gas and oil fields of Iran, the Caspian Sea, Central Asia and the Persian Gulf."

He also said "Russia has questions about NATO's intentions in Afghanistan, which...lies outside of the alliance's 'political domain'" and

"Moscow is concerned that NATO

is building permanent bases in the region."

The concerns are legitimate in light of this month's latest quadrennial report by the Pentagon on security threats which

"put emerging superpower China

and former Cold War foe Russia

alongside Iran and North Korea

on a list of the four main nations

challenging American interests." [22]

At the same time a U.S. military newspaper reported on statements by Pentagon chief Robert Gates:

"Gates said the roughly $6.5 billion he has proposed to upgrade the [Air Force] fleet assures U.S. domination of the skies for decades.

"By the time China produces its first ~ 5th generation ~ fighter, he said, the U.S. will have more than 1,000 F-22s and F-35s. And while the U.S. conducted 35,000 refueling missions last year, Russia performed about 30.

"The secretary also highlighted new efforts to support robust space and cyber commands, as well as the new Global Strike Command that oversees the nuclear arsenal." [23]

To add to Russian and Chinese apprehensions about NATO's role in South and Central Asia, ten days ago the U.S. ambassador to Kazakhstan, which borders Russia and China, "offered to Kazakhstan to take part in the peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan."

At the opening ceremony of the NATO Steppe Eagle-2009 military exercises in that nation envoy Richard Hoagland said

"Kazakhstan may again become

part of the international NATO

peacekeeping force in Afghanistan." [24]

Radio Free Europe reported on September 16 that NATO was to sign new agreements with Kyrgyzstan, which also borders China, for the use of the Manas Air Base that as many as 200,000 U.S. and NATO troops have passed through since the beginning of the Afghan war.

On the same day NATO' plans for expanding transit routes through the South Caucasus and the Caspian Sea region were described. "[T]he air corridor through Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan is the most feasible.

"This route will be best suited if ISAF transport planes fly directly to Baku from Turkey or any other NATO member....Moreover, it [Azerbaijan] is not a CSTO [Collective Security Treaty Organization] member, which allows Azerbaijan more freedom for maneuver in the region when dealing with NATO." [25]

Just as troops serving under NATO command in the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan now include those from almost fifty countries on five continents, so the broadening scope of the war is absorbing vaster tracts of Eurasia and the Middle East.

America's longest armed conflict since that in Indochina and NATO's first ground war threatens to not only remain the world's most dangerous conflagration but also one that plunges the 21st Century into a war without end.

FALLEN CANADIANS ~ Fallen means you can pick yourself up again. These children, parents, sons, lovers, daughters, will not rise again in this life time

.WHEN IS ENOUGH ENOUGH?

WHEN DO WE SAY STOP!

WHEN DO WE STOP LETTING OUR CHILDREN BE SENT

TO A WAR THAT NO ONE WANTS, NO ONE NEEDS?

WHEN DO WE STAND UP FOR OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES?

IF YOU ARE NOT BLOODY ANGRY BY NOW,

YOU HAVE NOT BEEN PAYING ATTENTION!

Notes

1) New York Times, February 16, 1989

2) Radio Netherlands, September 12, 2009

3) Associated Press, September 15, 2009

4) Reuters, September 19, 2009

5) Ibid

6) BBC News, December 1, 2008

7) Russia Today, September 7, 2009

8) Asian News International, September 13, 2009

9) Press TV, September 15, 2009

10) Xinhua News, September 12, 2009

11) Ibid

12) Stars and Stripes, September 19, 2009

13) Stars and Stripes, September 13, 2009

14) Trend News Agency, September 11, 2009

15) Reuters, September 14, 2009

16) Ibid

17) NATO, September 20, 2009

18) Washington Post, September 12, 2009

19) Ibid

20) Ibid

21) Agence France-Presse, September 22, 2009

22) Agence France-Presse, September 15, 2009

23) Stars and Stripes, September 16, 2009

24) Interfax, September 14, 2009

25) Jamestown Foundation, Eurasia Daily Monitor, September 16, 2009