Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘Ronald Reagan

The biggest of lies: US will never desist from supporting terrorist factions anywhere

The US led war against  the Islamic State is a big lie.

Going after ” Islamic terrorists”, carrying out a worldwide pre-emptive war to “Protect the American Homeland” are used to justify a military agenda.

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is a creation of US intelligence. Washington’s “Counter-terrorism Agenda” in Iraq and Syria consists in Supporting the Terrorists.  

The incursion of the Islamic State (IS) brigades into Iraq starting in June 2014 was part of a carefully planned military-intelligence operation supported covertly by the US, NATO and Israel.

The counter-terrorism mandate is a fiction. America is the Number One “State Sponsor of Terrorism” 

The Islamic State is protected by the US and its allies. If they had wanted to eliminate the Islamic State brigades, they could have “carpet” bombed their convoys of Toyota pickup trucks when they crossed the desert from Syria into Iraq in June. 

\

The  Syro-Arabian Desert is open territory (see map below). With state of the art jet fighter aircraft (F15, F22 Raptor, CF-18) it would have been  -from a military standpoint-  a rapid and expedient surgical operation  

In this article, we address 26 concepts which refute the big lie.  Portrayed by the media as a humanitarian undertaking, this large scale military operation directed against Syria and Iraq has resulted in countless civilian deaths.

It could not have been undertaken without the unbending support of  the Western media which has upheld Obama’s initiative as a counter-terrorism operation.  

THE HISTORICAL ORIGINS OF AL QAEDA

1. The US has supported Al Qaeda and its affiliated organizations for almost half a century since the heyday of the Soviet Afghan war. 

2. CIA training camps were set up in Pakistan.  In the ten year period from 1982 to 1992, some 35,000 jihadists from 43 Islamic countries were recruited by the CIA to fight in the Afghan jihad.

“Advertisements, paid for from CIA funds, were placed in newspapers and newsletters around the world offering inducements and motivations to join the Jihad.”

3. Since the Reagan Administration, Washington has supported the Islamic terror network.

Ronald Reagan called the terrorists “freedom fighters”.

The US supplied weapons to the Islamic brigades.  It was all for “a good cause”: fighting the Soviet Union and regime change, leading to the demise of a secular government in Afghanistan.

President Reagan and Mujahideen leaders from Afghanistan

Ronald Reagan meets Afghan Mujahideen Commanders at the White House in 1985 (Reagan Archives)

4. Jihadist textbooks  were  published by the University of Nebraska. “. “The United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings”

5. Osama bin Laden, America’s bogyman and founder of Al Qaeda was recruited by the CIA in 1979 at the very outset of the US sponsored jihadist war against Afghanistan . He was 22 years old and was trained in a CIA sponsored guerilla training camp.

Al Qaeda was not behind the 9/11 Attacks. September 11, 2001 provided a justification for waging a war against Afghanistan on the grounds that Afghanistan was a state sponsor of terrorism, supportive of Al Qaeda. The 9/11 attacks were instrumental in the formulation of the “Global War on Terrorism”.

THE ISLAMIC STATE (ISIL)

6. The Islamic State (ISIL) was originally an Al Qaeda affiliated entity created by US intelligence with the support of Britain’s MI6, Israel’s Mossad, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Saudi Arabia’s General Intelligence Presidency (GIP), Ri’āsat Al-Istikhbārāt Al-’Āmah ( رئاسة الاستخبارات العامة‎).

7. The ISIL brigades were involved in the US-NATO supported insurgency in Syria directed against the government of  Bashar al Assad.

8.  NATO and the Turkish High Command were responsible for the recruitment of ISIL and Al Nusrah mercenaries from the outset of the Syrian insurgency in March 2011. According to Israeli intelligence sources, this initiative consisted in:

“a campaign to enlist thousands of Muslim volunteers in Middle East countries and the Muslim world to fight alongside the Syrian rebels. The Turkish army would house these volunteers, train them and secure their passage into Syria. (DEBKAfile, NATO to give rebels anti-tank weapons, August 14, 2011.)

9.There are Western Special Forces and Western intelligence operatives within the ranks of the ISIL. British Special Forces and MI6 have been involved in training jihadist rebels in Syria.

10. Western military specialists on contract to the Pentagon have trained the terrorists in the use of chemical weapons.

“The United States and some European allies are using defense contractors to train Syrian rebels on how to secure chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria, a senior U.S. official and several senior diplomats told CNN Sunday. ( CNN Report, December 9, 2012)

11. The ISIL’s practice of beheadings is part of the US sponsored terrorist training programsimplemented in Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

12. Recruited by America’s ally, a large number of ISIL mercenaries are convicted criminals released from Saudi prisons on condition they join the ISILSaudi death row inmates were recruited to join the terror brigades. 

13. Israel  has supported  the ISIL and Al Nusrah brigades out of the Golan Heights.

Jihadist fighters have met Israeli IDF officers as well as Prime Minister Netanyahu. The IDF top brass tacitly acknowledges that “global jihad elements inside Syria” [ISIL and Al Nusrah] are supported by Israel. See  image below:

“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Moshe Ya’alon next to a wounded mercenary, Israeli military field hospital at the occupied Golan Heights’ border with Syria, 18 February 2014″

SYRIA AND IRAQ

14 The ISIL are the foot soldiers  of the Western military alliance. Their unspoken mandate is to wreck havoc and destruction in Syria and Iraq, acting on behalf of their US sponsors.

15. US Senator John McCain has met up with jihadist terrorist leaders in Syria. (see picture right)

16  The Islamic State (IS) militia, which is currently the alleged target of  a US-NATO bombing campaign under a “counter-terrorism” mandate, continues to be supported covertly by the US.  Washington and its allies continue to provide military aid to the Islamic State.

17. US and allied bombings are not targeting the ISIL, they are bombing the economic infrastructure of Iraq and Syria including factories and oil refineries.

18.  The IS caliphate project is part of a longstanding US foreign policy agenda to carve up Iraq and Syria into separate territories: A Sunni Islamist Caliphate, an Arab Shia Republic, a Republic of Kurdistan.

THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM (GWOT)

19. “The Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) is presented as a “Clash of Civilizations”, a war between competing values and religions, when in reality it is an outright war of conquest, guided by strategic and economic objectives.

20 U.S. sponsored Al Qaeda terror brigades (covertly supported by Western intelligence) have been deployed in Mali, Niger, Nigeria, the Central African Republic, Somalia and Yemen.

original

America’s “War on Terrorism” By Mchel Chossudovsky

These various affiliated Al Qaeda entities in the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa  and Asia are CIA sponsored “intelligence assets”. They are used by Washington to wreck havoc,  create internal conflicts and destabilize sovereign countries.

21 Boko Haram in Nigeria, Al Shabab in Somalia, the Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) (supported by NATO in 2011),  Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM),  Jemaah Islamiah (JI) in Indonesia,  among other Al Qaeda affiliated groups are supported covertly by Western intelligence.

22. The US is also supporting Al Qaeda affiliated terrorist organizations in the Xinjiang Uighur autonomous region of China. The underlying objective is to trigger political instability in Western China.

Chinese jihadists are reported to have received “terrorist training” from the Islamic State “in order to conduct attacks in China”. The declared objective of these Chinese-based jihadist entities (which serves the interests of the US)  is to establish a Islamic caliphate extending into Western China.  (Michel Chossudovsky, America’s War on Terrorism, Global Research, Montreal, 2005, Chapter 2).

HOMEGROWN TERRORISTS

23 The Terrorists R Us:  While the US is the unspoken architect of the Islamic State,  Obama’s holy mandate is to protect America against ISIL attacks.

24 The homegrown terrorist threat is a fabrication.  It is promoted by Western governments and the media with a view to repealing civil liberties and installing a police state. The terror attacks by alleged jihadists and terror warnings are invariably staged events. They are used to create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation.

In turn, the arrests, trials and sentences of “Islamic terrorists” sustain the legitimacy of America’s Homeland Security State and law enforcement apparatus, which has become increasingly militarized.

The ultimate objective is to instill in the minds of millions of Americans that the enemy is real and the U.S. Administration will protect the lives of its citizens.

25.  The “counter-terrorism” campaign against the Islamic State has contributed to the demonization of Muslims, who in the eyes of Western public opinion are increasingly  associated with the jihadists.

26  Anybody who dares to question the validity of the “Global War on Terrorism” is branded a terrorist and subjected to the anti-terrorist laws.

The ultimate objective of the “Global War on Terrorism” is to subdue the citizens, totally depoliticize social life in America, prevent people from thinking and conceptualizing, from analyzing facts and challenging the legitimacy of the inquisitorial social order which rules America.

The Obama Administration has imposed a diabolical consensus with the support of its allies, not to mention the complicit role of the United Nations Security Council.  The Western media has embraced the consensus; it has described

The Big Lie has become the Truth. 

Say no to the “Big Lie”. Spread the message.

The truth is ultimately a powerful weapon.

Please help us continue. We rely on the support of our readers.

Consider donating to Global Research. 

For Peace and Truth in Media, Michel Chossudovsky

What “Ghostbusters” have to do with Republican economic policy? And anti-government sentiments?

Ghostbusters, the greatest movie ever made about Republican economic policy

The death yesterday of Harold Ramis, the co-writer and co-star of Ghostbusters, has prompted encomiums for the iconic 1980s film.
Ghostbusters ideology isn’t about tracking and getting rid of ghosts.
It’s also about the power of the US private sector and the magic of market discipline to transform anyone—even effete, over-educated academics—into heroes.
Matt Phillips @MatthewPhillips posted on ZUULUNOMICS this February 25, 2014
Shown in this scene from the 1984 movie "Ghostbusters" are Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, center, and Harold Ramis. (AP Photo)

The private sector saves the day. AP Photo

Ghostbusters is a favorite of mine as well. But I just can’t believe how few people recognize the movie—which was released 30 years ago this June—for what it is: a Reaganite carnival of ideological triumph.

It’s hard to believe Ghostbusters was intended to be a pro-business, anti-government polemic.

Dan Aykroyd co-wrote the film with Ramis, whose previous flicks—such as Animal HouseStripesCaddyshack—are filled with liberal digs at establishment authority figures.

But the Ivan Reitman masterpiece was made in a certain time and place. And the movie is worth reconsidering now—almost three decades after its release—if only because it so perfectly captured one of the rare moments when the supertanker of American public opinion clearly changes course.

When Ghostbusters was released in June 1984, Ronald Reagan’s landslide re-election victory to a second term as president was still a few months away. But the ideological ascent of Reagan-style conservatism—cuts to taxes and social programs, boosts for military spending and heaping helpings of anti-government rhetoric—was nearly complete. And Ghostbusters is stuffed with Reaganomics.

This scene has several references.

Shaky lending from banks that were increasingly lightly regulated under Reagan sent US household debt levels soaring after he took office.

Economic growth in the 1980s was fueled in part by a burst of consumer debt and bad banking practices—culminating in the savings and loan collapse—that looks pretty familiar.

That’s exactly how the Ghostbusters got the financing they need to open.

One can’t help but wonder about the underwriting standards at Manhattan City Bank that enabled the Ghostbusters to get a loan.

​

Dr. Venkman’s elevator pitch on paranormal eliminations as a potential player in the defense industry shouldn’t be glossed over either, as defense spending boomed under Reagan, helping to drive the US deficit to heights previously seen only during wartime.

It would have been hard to imagine this kind of upbeat flick resonating with Americans if it had been released 18 months earlier.

In December 1982, unemployment was hanging around 11%, the highest since the Great Depression. While down from the peaks of the 1970s, inflation was still eating deeply into American incomes.

When pollsters asked Americans that month if the US was going in the right direction, or was off track, only 36% thought the US was in “drive” rather than “reverse.” Even though president Jimmy Carter had been booted from office in 1980, the country was still mired in the malaise that was associated with his administration.

And yet, by October 1984—on the eve of the presidential vote—America had radically regained its mojo, with 61% of Americans responding that things in the country were moving in the right direction.

+

What happened?

Well there’s a few answers: A surge in patriotic sentiment surrounding the 1983 US invasion of Grenada.

The pageantry of  the 1984 cross-country torch relay, which carried the Olympic flame to Los Angeles, the site of 1984 summer games, might have played a part. (As did the dominance of the US in those Soviet-boycotted games.)

And, who knows, perhaps Ghostbusters, the biggest grossing film of the year, just generally put people in a good mood.

But let’s be honest. Only one thing happened that really mattered. The US economic growth improved sharply and unemployment plummeted.

For the record, nobody knows exactly why. (And more to the point, no one ever really knows why any economy does anything.)

Republican economists argue that tax cuts and other supply-side policies helped drive growth.

Democratic economists—who argue that the success of Reaganomics is largely a myth—point out that the Federal Reserve, which caused the recession intentionally in order to rein-in inflation, basically restarted economic growth by taking its foot off the brake.

For our purposes it really doesn’t matter. The fact is, the US economy staged a huge turnaround on Reagan’s watch. America started really feeling good again for the first time since the early 1960s. And Reagan and his ideas got the credit.

As a direct result Democrats lost the advantage they had long held over Republicans on questions of managing the economy, which was part of a much-larger realignment of the American electorate that took shape under Reagan.

Party-advantage-on-economic-issues-Democratic-party-advantage-Republican-party-advantage_chartbuilder

But it wasn’t economic policy proposals and Reaganomics that resonated with the American public. It was the anti-government—specifically anti-federal-government—rhetoric.

Even the most obtuse Ghostbusters fanboy has to concede one thing. The real villain in Ghostbusters isn’t Gozer the Gozerian. It’s a bureaucrat from the Environmental Protection Agency.

Seriously, it’s the government—specifically the federal government—personified in the odious William Peck of the EPA, that unleashes hell on New York. Dangerously ignorant of what it takes to run a small business, Peck—played by William Atherton, the Laurence Olivier of prickish ’80s movie antagonists (see Die Hard)—cuts the power supply to the containment unit where Aykroyd & Company store their busted specters. The politics of this scene couldn’t be more clear.

Yes, Peck’s over-reach is a necessary plot point setting up the film’s final confrontation. But really, that confrontation isn’t between the Ghostbusters and the Stay Puft Mashmallow Man. It’s a conflict between these two: Venkman—representing the private sector—and Walter Peck as the federal government.

​ YouTube

We all know what happens. The private sector saves the day.

So what have we learned from this—perhaps overly long—meditation on a landmark piece of American pop cinema? Well, in one way, we learned that the 1980s were a long time ago, something Ramis’s death drove home this week. But, in a broader sense, we’re still very much living in the Reagan era.

The fact that Ghostbusters is almost 30 years old is a reminder that Americans really don’t make big changes in their thinking too often.

Prior to Reagan, the only comparable rethinking of American political values came during president Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal—when the idea that big government was the only way to pull the country out of its troubles carried the day.

During the Reagan years, a small-government, pro-business philosophy became much more prominent in national opinion, as Gallup survey data in the chart below show. Indeed, by some measures the anti-government turn in American public opinion took during the Reagan years has only gotten sharper over the subsequent decades.

​

Critics might point out that Ghostbusters doesn’t accurately reflect the fact that there’s a large gap between what Americans say they believe and how they actwhen disasters really strike. (Americans hold an overwhelmingly positive view offederal government disaster relief efforts.)

And that’s true. But, well, lighten up. It’s just a movie.

Evil polititians and Professional polititians

Note:  I re-edited and expanded on “The professional politician: Barack Obama” under a new title.

Democracy generates two major categories of politicians:  Professional politicians and evil, half-cooked politicians.  Obviously we may discriminate extensively on sub-categories and develop a taxonomy of politician’s types, but his is not the main purpose of this short article.  Sure, we can discriminate among politicians who can be excellent on a restrictive community level, but deficient as Congressman or Senator.

Professional politicians walk the streets, visit voters, love to communicate with people, they are people oriented: they keep up their training skills and develop their knowledge.  They care for the plights of people and listen to their demands and needs.  They have proven records of constancy in the struggle, frequent attempts to acceeding to political positions, and carrying on their programs with transparent processes. 

They worked hard for “serving the people” and they negotiate and discuss extensively complex problems before reaching acceptable resolutions. They are reluctant to going to war; thus, they honestly and steadfastly try out all the diplomatic venues and political alternatives for adequate resolutions of differences.

Half-cooked politicians inherit the position either from a political family or because a baron of industry wants one of his offspring getting in politics and profiting by open highway robbery. They are brought to political positions by hired political professionals, consultants:  Funding is mainly financed by big lobbying industries and multinational financial institutions.  

Half-cooked politicians are necessarily evil: they live in secluded closed environment and have high flatulent concepts to imposing on society. They have no patience for the “little people” harassing demands and want to preserve their comfortable life style and peace of mind.  They first decide on pre-emptive wars and then work out the political institutional restraints and procedures to carrying out the decision.

This introduction needs development and examples. For example, there is a qualitative difference between Obama and Bush Junior.  There is also qualitative difference between Bill Clinton and Bush Senior. The differences go beyond Democrats and Republicans or any ideological differences.

The main difference is that Obama and Clinton are professional politicians in their own rights:  They love to communicate with people and comprehend the harsh demands of people and are willing to sacrifice their comfort and peace of mind to serve the people.  They are aware of the attributes and job specifications of the professional politician. 

Bill clinton never talked of “The Evil Empires”, “evil enemies”, “evil axes”, or any evil spirits.  Obama didn’t so far mentioned any evil enemies and he will not.   Obama walked the streets for years and continued his political education; he continued his training and practised his political qualities and talents. Obama knows what it takes to serve the public and has the correct patience to grab the adequate moments for pressing the programs he promised to pass.

The Bushes and Ronald Reagan for example were selected and shouldered by their party and supported by the political professionals and consultants in their party.  The Bushes and Reagan had no valid qualifications as people lovers; they were mostly living in secluded environment, never relinquishing their life style of comfort and sheltered attitudes.  They get very upset when foreigners disturb their quietude and put pressures on them to meet frequently with their aids, congress, read reports, and be forced to make balanced decisions.  That is too much work and unsuited to their dispositions.

The Bushes and Reagan totally relied on their aids and political consultants; not only because they were limited in the mind and need all the help to comprehend the complex interactions in world problems,  and those foreigners they cannot understand, but mainly because the laziness of their minds and the necessary demands on professional  politicians were terribly deficients:  They were not people oriented, and communication was a necessary evil to them.

The Bushes and Reagan relished shortcuts:  They adopted simplified models of world’s problems and the consequent devastating resolutions.  Just blurting out who to them is the evil enemy was a mechanism that set their mind at peace; they resumed this “coherent” ignorance in their simplistic directions throughout their tenure.  Their political consultants felt relieved from exposing  elaborate concepts and detailed knowledge that would upset the limited mind of their Presidents.

Bush Junior must have prayed to fail in the first presidency.  Somehow, he succeeded by a very short margin.  A genius in his team knew his weaknesses and must have whispered in his ear: “God wanted you to win.  God has a project for you.  You cannot fail God’s wishes.”  Bush Junior took seriously this infamous hint and started to believe that he is fulfilling God’s directives. 

GW. Bush political chaperon, Dick Cheney, was too sick physically to educated his protegee and he indeed became senile quickly to be of any value to Bush Junior.  The consultants and aids were selected to be one-sided individuals who were not professional politicians, but half cooked academics.  The world had to lick his wounds, and the million of collateral  CIVILIAN DAMAGES HAD TO BURY THEIR DEAD.

We all agree that doing politics is a serious profession.  Not anyone is capable of assuming his mandate to serving the community: A voted-in political candidate is to be at the beck of his community 24 hours a day and fielding all kinds of requests; he has no reliable methods to controling his daily activities and set aside relaxation periods. 

And yet, candidates to “serving the public” are not taught and trained in schools like all the other professions. Actually, most of the students graduating from high schools and universities have a terrible bad connotation for the term “politics” or “doing politics”.    The field of political science does not train people in the social and psychological behavior of people, which are the right tools for doing politics.  Acquiring sketchy understanding of the macro politics, by lumping whole nations as a single entity or whole regions as potential enemies, is not the correct way for training politicians to thinking rationally and for the good of the people in the long term.

Our problems with our politicians stem from two factors.

First, most of the politicians inherit their jobs, one way or another; they realize soon that they are not up to the requirements and don’t want the hassle; and thus they delegate their responsibilities to people who were not elected in the first place. 

Second, politicians don’t work for the long term success because they don’t find the time to read, reflect, and grow their inner power.   Among the very few politicians who satisfy the two criteria of proven records of capable providers and verbal intelligence only those who realize the need to strengthen their inner power through reading and reflection and actually taking short “sabbaticals” away from the media have the potentials to become leaders of people.

In “Hiroshima my love” Marguerite Dora says: “Human political intelligence is a hundred folds lower than scientific intelligence”   On the face of it, many would be nodding their heads in consent.  We have got to analyze political intelligence from a different perspective to appreciate that the previous statement is not correct.  When we deal with human behaviors that are first, in the hundreds of varieties and ever changing with time and conditions and second, the inability of human cognitive powers to assimilate the different interactions of even four factors or variables at the same time and third, juggling these interactions in real time and under pressure then we can grasp the far complex intelligence requirements of doing and thinking politics. 

Democracy is the most difficult and intricate political system: voters have to know the detailed personal characteristics of the candidates that qualify them to be professional politicians.  Instead, voters are sidetracked by political programs that can be altered though individual characters and attitudes cannot.  Without prior selection of politicians, based on cognitive and emotional testing for mental capabilities, voting in a candidate is tantamount to more of the same repeated errors and mistakes for the public good.  Political intelligence would then be vastly appreciated to its own merit when candidates satisfy cognitive and emotional criteria before submitting their applications to public political posts.

The vote of the people would make much more sense when people are initiated and exposed to the complexities of serving the people and offering a higher value for the term “doing politics”.   Half-cooked politicians are necessarily evil: they end up discarding the rights and aspirations of the little peole and increasing the chasm for opportunities in society.

  Voters are to investigate the track records of the professionalism of politicians in doing politics.

The necessary condition, though not sufficient, for a politician is to have proven that he loves to communicate with people and to field requests around the day, as is the main job of public server:  He learns to be pragmatic because he is listening to the demands of the people. 

States Blackmails: Elected by multinational money?  (Apr. 19, 2010)

            Frequently, politics of governments, especially in election campaign periods, is to blow sands and divert the attention of citizens from the nasty important issues in order to cover up huge financial wastes in forms of aids to multinationals that contributed to finance election campaigns.

Two examples might shed lights to the direct connections among issues meant to sidetrack citizens and the critical problems that affected societies.

            After the latest financial crash, President Sarkozy of France bailed out the French financial institutions with over 20 billions dollars with no return whatsoever to the French treasury; not even a share of the French State in these institutions. The social security was in deficit of over 22 billions dollars and the French citizens were asked to tighten their belt along with reduced health care benefits, welfare systems, and retirement rights.  The government of Sarkozy tried to obscure this striking blunder by bringing up the irrelevant issue of Moslem women wearing veils in schools and public administrations.

To put things in perspective, only 400 Moslem women among all the Moslem communities in France wore veils.  The French voters were not duped by this political gimmick and defeated hands down the party of Sarkozy in the latest municipal election.

            The same process occurred in 1988 in the USA. Vice President Bush Senior was campaigning for the Presidency to replace Ronald Reagan.  Bush Senior had extended 500 billions dollars to the saving and loans financial institutions with no return to the Federal treasury. Thus, Bush Senior took out the skeleton of “patriotism” from the closet as his campaign slogan; mainly, banning the burning of the US flags.  

To put this slogan in perspective, only seven flags were burned that year in all the USA.  Since the saving and loans had contributed massively to re-elections of 90% of the members of the House of Representatives, then this House supported the slogan of the campaign. The Supreme Court intervened and cancelled this faked and unlawful act that abridged the liberty of expression of the US citizens.

The objective political observer can discover very high correlations linking faked campaign issues and huge highway robbery of financially aiding multinationals.

            Sarkozy was defeated in the municipal election for another very serious trampling of France dignity, honor, and sovereignty. The ultra Zionist Sarkozy made it his policy to tone down all Israel’s attempts at dishonoring the status of France.  For example, in 2009 two incidents in Israel were covered up; the director of French cultural center in Naplouse (Palestine) was beaten badly by Israeli soldiers; one soldiers said “I can kill you”.  

The other incident happened in Gaza during Israel slaughter war there.  Soldiers barged in the residence of the French consul and stole expensive and luxury items. In 2008, the consulate of France in Jerusalem was detained 17 hours in abject conditions. In 2009, French Foreign Affairs Bernard Kouchner met Israel’s racist Foreign Affairs Lieberman and then turned a blind eye to the new construction phase of 900 apartments in Jerusalem.  This year, Kouchner bowed down to the demand of Israel not to visit Gaza. Palestinian students in Gaza with scholarships to studying in France were denied passports to leave this sad enclave.

            Sarkozy lied to the French people in 2008 when Israel invaded Gaza claiming that Israel was reacting to Hamas missiles; facts from the Israeli Foreign Affairs documents stated that Hamas had respected the deal and no missile had fallen in Israel till November when Israel launched her savage pre-emptive war on Gaza.  Sarkozy is leading the file of Western hawks encouraging bombing of Iran. Before Iran, Israel used to demand pre-requisites of bombing Egypt and then Iraq before resuming any negotiations with the Palestinians.

            Gaza is suffering the worst economical blockades.  French Ambassador to Israel Christophe Bigot stated: “Gaza is receiving foodstuff through tunnels: saying there is blocus of Gaza is a strong term”.  The demolished hospital in Gaza that France had extended assistance to rebuild and that Israel agreed to facilitate the task is still undone: Israel has blocked the arrival of the necessary materials.  

Lately, Sarkozy is defying the European Union laws prohibiting imports of products from Israel colonies in the West Bank; he went as far as prosecuting any French company abiding by the EU laws and instructing judges to crackdown on law abiding French enterprises.  Britain reacted mildly by discrediting the Israeli military attaché in London after the blunder of the Mossad’s assassination of a Hamas leader in Dubai using European forged passports, including French passports; France Sarkozy didn’t make any waves of that incident.

Cycle of life orf Hostages; (Apr. 14, 2010)

French reporter Philippe Rochot published “Within Islam’s revolts” that describes his reporting jobs in many countries (over 40 States) most of them in conflict and civil wars.  Rochot had visited Lebanon many times for reporting purposes before and during the civil war.

In 1985, against his best judgment, he agreed to revisit Lebanon to report on a new French hostage Michel Seurat.  It was a period when sympathizers of Khomeini were on the ascendance.

France of President Mitterrand had sided squarely with Saddam Hussein of Iraq against Iran and shipped all kinds of fighter jets and sophisticated armaments to Iraq (Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were guarantors for the open credits of war materials).  This war  lasted 8 years leaving a million casualties on both sides and many millions of seriously injured handicapped persons.

Rochot was kidnapped in Lebanon in 1985 for 8 months and a long chapter describes his captivity.

Rochot writes:

“My life cycle revolved around two bottles: one bottle for drinking and the other one to urinate in.

I was chained to a radiator and allowed to piss once every 10 hours. I was not given a razor to shave and the length of my mustaches was a serious handicap for eating the fast food of hamburger kind.  I ended up pulling out the hair one by one; it was a painful act but efficacious.

My long beard reminded me of my reporting assignment in Afghanistan in 1980 when I purposely had to grow a beard to blend nicely with the people. I got into the habit of smoothing down my beard.”

Every 10 days, the abductors would bring a newer set of cloths; mainly sweat pants and T-shirts. (Probably the kidnappers had no washing machines or didn’t feel obligated to washing prisoners’ cloths).

Once, a “designated” photographer took pictures of the captive to dispatch to the French Embassy and the original cloths were dumped in front of Philippe to wear for the occasion. He was permitted to write a single line to his wife and two daughters “I am in good health”.

There was no correspondence or any kinds of messages arriving from the outside.  Occasionally, radio was brought in for specific events.  When Ronald Reagan of the US bombed Libya two British hostages were killed: The US bombers crossed Britain airspace.

It seemed as if the kidnappers in direct contact with the hostages had a day job: they showed up at nightfall for the night task of watching over the prisoners; sort of gaining extra money to make ends meet.

Rochot dreaded most to fall sick. Many captives died out of sickness because the kidnapping faction had no official links with a hospital or any kinds of health practitioner.

One night, the area of captivity was bombed and one of the militia was injured.  Rochot could hear the injured person in the next room and the kidnappers were at a loss what to do with their comrade.  For example, hostage Michel Seurat died of liver cancer in captivity; the kidnappers claimed to have killed him in retaliation for some kind of France political position.  Seurat was moved to another room to cry out his pains and sufferings.

The other French captive could hear Seurat moaning all the time for many weeks before death relieved Michel. (Probably, the kidnapping faction was not addicted to drugs as the Christian militias were, or it had not the means for purchasing drugs to relieve Seurat from his pains).

Law of silence: CIA; (Oct. 28, 2009)

On September 18, seven ex-CIA chiefs exhorted President Barak Obama to emulate former Presidents and cover up the serious infringements to laws and regulations.

The CIA and FBI during the two Bush Junior Administrations committed excesses by the operators in anti-terrorist interrogations; the CIA chiefs claim that opening public investigation may jeopardize State security. 

 Brigadier General John Magruder has stated the objective of the CIA by 1947: “Clandestine operations constantly implicate infringement of internal laws and regulations. The Pentagon and the State Department cannot take risks for covering such operations.  A new service for clandestine actions has to take charge for covering up the official institutions.” 

This statement is fundamentally the main reason for establishing the CIA: it was meant to execute unlawful orders and decisions taken by the Executive Administrations.

Allen Dulles, chief of the “Agency” from 1953 to 61, confirm the doctrine that the “CIA is to execute what the President authorizes it in the wide gamut of political assassinations and destabilization of countries. The CIA main job is to cover for the President; all plausible denials should be extended to cover the involvement of the President in the decision process.  Thus, the President can securely admit that he ignored any failed operations overseas.”

John Prados noted: “Thirty years ago the public perception of the CIA was of a lone and solitary elephant that escaped all kinds of control; that the CIA was running amuck with clandestine operations all over the world.  It is now clear that the Agency and its phalanges were just following presidential orders.  It is the Presidency that is the lone elephant because the Agency was not doing its publicly declared mission of providing intelligence to the President.  All the revealed documents show that Presidents had no intelligence of the imminent coming to power of Khomeini in Iran in 1979, the potential disintegration of the Soviet Union, or the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers.”

Gordon Thomas said: “The Agency never managed to implant a spy in the higher circles of the Soviet Union decision makers. Bill Casey just took the risk of misinforming Ronald Reagan and systematically overestimated whatever intelligence he had”

At every new Presidency, the CIA got worse in control and management: it was overwhelmed by paramilitary operations than doing intelligence gathering; intelligence was thus relegated to non-human operators of remote control data from satellites and computer processing of images.

 The newly sacked CIA chief Porter Goss pronounced an allocution at Tiffin University and gave a sound counsel to new recruits “Never admit, deny everything, and take the best strategy of launching counter accusations when targeted within the CIA and the political circles.”

 The engraved motto of the CIA at Langley is St. John pronouncement “And you will know truth and truth will set you free”. 

Apparently, to setting you free to assassinate and get away with it; to lie on State interests and get away with it; to cover up Evil Presidents and Administrations who follow orders from lobbying powerful interest groups.

The US had agreed to finance the Nile dam during Nasser but reneged on the deal. It was learned later that the lobby of the cotton producers in the US South put the squeeze on the ground that Egypt would later compete with US cotton.  The Soviet Union was invited to Egypt and many other regions.        

The CIA and FBI think that they can get away with a lot of crimes on the premise that the US citizen believes that intelligence gathering cannot be performed without breaking a couple of eggs in a democratic society in order to preserve citizen from further hardship and secure him more liberty. 

It is becoming evident that the more power you let a government gets the less liberty you should expect.  If the last eight years did not exhibit this fact then do not blame anyone for further slavery and totalitarianism.

It is a good thing to have more than two superpowers: extreme fundamentalism (i.e., religious and liberal capitalism) would be checked, cultural life would rejuvenate and people would enjoy more opportunities and choices instead of a gigantic financial crisis and global mass ignorance floating all over our planet.

For further declassified evidences read my post “The critical decade of Islamic extremism


adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

August 2020
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

Blog Stats

  • 1,404,898 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 755 other followers

%d bloggers like this: