I have had reactions to a few people in my time that I would categorize as “a wave of revulsion.” It could be mere flight or fright, but since I am only dealing with images of certain people on a TV screen, actual flight is not an issue. One such memorable moment was in January of 1990. The US had invaded Panama, and the Secretary of Defense, Richard Cheney, was giving a press conference. As I watched him, the hair on my neck stood up, my senses went on the defensive, and I felt revulsion. This was an evil man.
Continue reading “The shiver” →

To: Commissioner Roger Goodell, National Football League:

Take the Joe Flacco signage off my Mile High Stadium! Get it out of my Mile High City! Broncos Nation will not endure this detestable and audacious act. Who in their right mind thought we would just let this fly? We stand united against your unbearable Joe Flacco signage.

There’s also a petition circulating to ask the Colorado delegation to vote against authorization of the Syrian attack. (Just kidding.)

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, according the James Douglass, a back channel of communication facilitated by Norman Cousins and Pope John XXIII between Kennedy and Khrushchev allowed the two leaders to bypass their war hawks and work out a peace agreement. We can only hope that such a process is underway today, although the U.S. cannot be reduced to one leader, but rather a powerful clique possessing real power while Obama’s is merely apparent. How such a back channel can be facilitated when there is group consensus on this side without the ability of one designated leader to override it … it does not seem possible.

Russia, while of course having the same deep state powers as the US, does appear to have a masterful statesman at the helm. The following statements by Vladimir Putin would normally pass behind the scenes in back channels, but instead are made openly. This indicates to me that the US is not negotiating, but is rather intent on aggressive war, the ultimate crime in international affairs (according to the Nuremberg Tribunal). The whole of the Syrian situation, just as the “provocation” that allowed Germany to invade Poland in 1939, is a contrived fiction.

Here’s Putin, quoted at RT, my reliable news source:

“We believe that at the very least we should wait for the results of the UN inspection commission in Syria,” Putin said, adding that so far there is no information about what chemical agent exactly was used in the attack in Damascus’ suburbs and who did it.

“I’ve already said I find it absolutely ridiculous that [Syrian] government’s armed forces, which today are actually on an offense mission and in some regions have already encircled the so-called rebels and are finishing them off, that the Syrian army has used prohibited chemical weapons.”

“They know all too well that this could become a cause for sanctions and even for a military operation against them. That’s stupid and illogical.”

“We proceed from the assumption that if anyone has information that chemical weapons were used by the Syrian regular army, then such proof must be presented to the UN Security Council and the UN inspectors,” Putin said, stressing that the proof must be “convincing” and not based on “rumors” or any sort of “eavesdropped intelligence data,” conversations etc.

“Even in the US there are experts who question the reliability of the facts presented by the administration. These experts do not exclude the possibility that the Syrian opposition has conducted a pre-planned provocation in order to give their sponsors a reason for military intervention.”

Putin says he “does not exclude” that Russia may agree with a military operation if it is proved that the Syrian government is behind the attack, however he emphasized that in accordance with international law a decision of the UN Security Council is needed for that.

“All other reasons and means that excuse using military force against an independent sovereign state are unacceptable and cannot be classified otherwise but as an aggression.

The impetus for US aggression can be found in Putin’s words that the “so-called” rebels are being surrounded and finished off. That is what precipitated this crisis – failure of covert aggression requires overt aggression in its place.
______________
PS: In my view, though the “red line” was held in reserve as the ultimate tripwire, the event that triggered this (probable) false-flag event was the removal of Morsi from power in Egypt. The so-called rebels were losing, and the US called on Morsi to intervene on their behalf. The day he announced that decision, June 15, was his last day in office. Without a reliable proxy force to rescue to terrorist and death squads, the US has to resort to its own military.

If Moon of Alabama is correct, and there is insight there, we are headed [yet another] into war. Some will say that Obama has capitulated. These are the ones who view American government as being formed by popular mandate. There are indeed struggling factions and they have names that we can use with a little assurance that they are accurate: Neocons, neoliberals, bankers, global corporations. But the interbreeding and interplay among them make it impossible to distinguish them in any meaningful fashion. There are competing factions. We probably would not recognize the names.

American news centers on Obama and pronouncements from the executive branch as an accurate description of the activities of power. That is nonsense, but reality is also very complex, and any in media who try to fathom it are discouraged, or never got to prominence anyway.

It’s hard to watch wanton destruction and slaughter. My inclination is to go into a cave and wait for it to end. I should probably man up and pay attention. There is always unfounded confidence going into war. Events are unpredictable. Should the United States and its underlings fail to prevail in this conflict, the world can breathe a sigh of relief. Each success only raises the possibility for a newer and bigger war.

This is just a point of interest that struck me this morning as I read Polish Wolf’s analysis of the Syrian chemical weapons gambit. It is not a personal attack, as he is young and struggling to understand the world, as we old folks are too. His take is far more sophisticated than others I’ve seen from Democrats, and even hints at forward movement. Progress is slow for all of us.

What struck me was this: In American intellectual culture, all events must be explained without reference to the significance of the JFK assassination and the false-flag nature of 9/11. Given that shortcoming, by necessity such explanations will be laborious and far-fetched. To assume that the American executive has as much power after 11/22/63 as before requires imbuing subsequent occupants of that office with high intellect and character. There have been no men with those qualities since JFK’s death. So it is essential in understanding world and domestic events to elminate democratic governance as a driving force. PW’s closing lines are appeals to current congressional office holders. While essential from his viewpoint, it’s only a faint echo of a time when such people had real power. His whole argument is pointless. He does not understand where the center of power lies. This necessarily follows from his apparent failure to understand or study 11/22/63.

9/11 is similar in that one cannot understand events subsequent without understanding the event itself. And yet the whole of our intellectual culture centers on avoidance of that kind of study. With that deficit apparent, all events are misunderstood. So while it is easily apparent to anyone who understands the meaning of 9/11 that Syria is but another domino that must fall to the bankers and industrialists of the West, those who avoid the subject are forced to construct Rube Goldberg-like explanations. PW claims that the whole of the current intensity of the “crisis” centers on a “blunder” by “Obama.” Understanding 9/11, it’s easier to see Syria as one of many countries lined up for attack that day. The inability (to date) of the American military to bring down that regime, after its successes in Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan and Libya, is encouraging.

Of course we are pressured by propaganda and suggestion to avoid investigating the most important events of our times. Those who brought us those events, our deep state, want us to be asleep, or if awake, ignorant.

This cannot by any means be complete or detailed, but I do want to hit some of the high points of American use and/or approval of use of chemical weapons. The level of hypocrisy in Washington is appalling.

Before I forget, however, isn’t it great that we have elections? The anti-war movement is pretty much dead now because Democrats are making war. Republicans are generally in favor of war, and Democrats oppose Republican wars. George W. Bush’s people had to mount a major scare offensive, complete with the Colin Powell debacle at the UN, to invade Iraq. Democrats then won control of the congress in 2006 by campaigning against the Iraq war. But it turns out they didn’t mean a word of it! But from surface appearances, it seems that we get the same wars with either party. The only difference is the manner in which perceptions are managed.
_______________
Continue reading “A brief history of American use of chemical weapons” →

http://rt.com/news/chemical-weapons-iran-iraq-980/