The story of Violeta –CafeRevolution
Israel’s Big Lie of “Self-Defence”
An occupier does not have the right to use arms in “self-defence”.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Is the mass slaughter of civilians self-defence?
Every person has the right to life and to self-defence, but Israel’s “right to self-defence” is constantly being used to obfuscate the non-defensive nature of its military violence in Palestinian territory.
Israel’s self-defence is a lie, not just because their actions are not defensive but because Israel cannot legally use its military in self-defence against Palestinians.
Let me repeat that, Israel cannot legally use its military against Palestinians in self-defence. That is the big lie at the heart of the current horrors.
There are four reasons why Israel cannot cite a legal right to self-defence in response to Palestinian violence.
First and foremost is that the ability of a very strong military power to achieve anything defensive by the attrition of a much weaker military power is spurious and leads into the genocidal logic of attempting to deprive a people of all capacity for violence.
The second reason is that Israel is actively contravening UN Security Council resolutions and the UN Charter is very clear on the fact that the right to self-defence exists “until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.” A state that works to thwart UNSC measures to maintain peace and security cannot logically be extended the unimpaired right to self defence.
On the third count Israel is an occupying power and the occupied have a legal right to armed resistance. It would be nonsensical to accord a legal right to use arms to defend against another’s legal resistance.
Fourthly, it would be equally paradoxical to allow each party to act in self-defence against each other’s acts of self defence. Thus one of the parties must be the aggressor. On several counts, not least its defiance of UNSC resolutions, Israel must be considered the aggressor.
File photo of illegal Israeli settlements
Israel’s only legitimate way of defending itself begins with ending its occupation. Israelis have a right to life and they deserve peace and security as we all do, but they have no right to kill Palestinians and claim that they are pursuing those things.
Before tackling the specifics we should question the general validity of military violence as a form of self-defence.
At this time hundreds of people are killed by Israel everyday under the pretext of seeking to render Hamas 100% ineffective. This is a tacit claim of self-defence linked to the notion that Hamas is an ongoing source of potential violence to Israelis. However it is hard to reconcile this rationale with the actualities when one sees a parade of children’s corpses.
One body after another with the increasingly familiar pall of concrete dust on their lifeless faces. Thinking of all of that pain, fear and suffering should make it impossible to somehow see killing those children as an act of self-defence.
The human instinct to reject this monstrosity is not mere sentimentality. It would be impossible to make a sound detailed argument to show how the killing of any one of these children contributed materially to the increased security of Israelis. In truth it is far easier to argue that each dead Palestinian child makes Israeli people less secure.
Israel relies on broad and vague notions of “self-defence” to enact mass violence that does nothing to make any person safer and, in fact, is certain to cost the lives of many Israel personnel and any number of hostages.
Military violence can only achieve so much as no amount of attrition will deprive a people of all ability to commit violence in return short of extermination. Beyond a point violence becomes waged “not merely against states and their armies but against peoples.” These were the words that Raphäel Lemkin when he first described the concept of genocide. Military violence can be used in ways that can only be called “self-defence” through the logic of genocide that situates the threat within the people and their intrinsic capacity for violence (also known as resistance). This is not legitimate self-defence, yet it is clearly part of the racist thinking of some Israelis and their apologists elsewhere.
It is actually normal that the logic of genocide presents itself as self-defence. Consider this quote by Arnon Soffer, the pre-eminent alarmist in Israel over the “demographic” threat of Palestinians:
“When 2.5 million people live in a closed-off Gaza, it’s going to be a human catastrophe. Those people will become even bigger animals than they are today … The pressure at the border will be awful. It’s going to be a terrible war. So, if we want to remain alive, we will have to kill and kill and kill. All day, every day … the only thing that concerns me is how to ensure the boys and men who are going to have to do the killing will be able to return home to their families and be normal human beings.”
Debunking 18 Claims Justifying the Gaza Massacre
This is the reasoning of someone who has no concern for military power, who will never accept Israel’s overwhelming military might and nuclear deterrent as a sufficient lever ensure that Israel can be secure in a time of peace. These words are shockingly Himmleresque in labelling a people animals; in stating that mass killing is neither choice nor desire, but necessity; and in the sickening concern that mass killing might cause psychological harm to Israeli personnel.
Adolf Eichmann and others at the Wannsee Conference shared Himmler’s fear of the effect of killing on the murderers and it was a major consideration in their adoption of the “Final Solution” which industrialised the mass-murder of Jews.
Soffer later explained:
“I didn’t recommend that we kill Palestinians. I said we’ll have to kill them. I was right about mounting demographic pressures. I am also entitled to defend myself and my country.”
It is difficult to imagine any Israeli getting closer to Nazi rhetoric than this, but it says something that his ideas were not immediately denounced by everyone in Israel for what they are. This is the essence of genocide. Though referencing the circumstances in Gaza, he is openly saying that Palestinians must be killed because they are Palestinians.
In contrast to genocidal notions, the theory behind using military power in self-defence draws on the idea that warfare is a contestation of belligerents using violence in a manner, as Clausewitz suggested, of wrestlers: “Each strives by physical force to compel the other to submit to his will….” This begins from the presupposition that each belligerent has diametrically opposed aims, which might have sufficed in the 19th century, but does not suit our more complex polities today.
In reality, war is not a chess game and killing babies is not in any way the same as taking a pawn from the board, yet the use of aerial and ground artillery on populated areas implies that this brutal madness makes sense. We are tricked by the notion that the “self-defence” of nations is truly analogous to the self-defence of an individual using a weapon to counter an assailant. That analogy breaks down in an era of high-tech weaponry and in circumstances of asymmetry where the strong are killing the weak. Leaders and pundits often twist the notion of asymmetry itself to suggest that the strong are more vulnerable to the weak and are thus the real victims, but this is just one of those lies that are repeated so constantly that it becomes a commonplace.
Despite the clear disproportionate asymmetry of violence and the ever-growing numbers of people killed by Israel the media discourse enforces a framework that decontextualises Israeli violence, presenting it as a reaction to the violence of Hamas.
Pro-Palestinian and pro-peace interviewees on Western media cannot speak without first making pronouncements affirming that they condemn Hamas’ “terrorist” violence and affirming Israel’s “right to defend itself”. These statements function as “thought-terminating clichés”, though in such instances they might be more aptly called “thought-terminating pieties”. Pieties go beyond mere clichés to invoke moralistic religious, patriotic, or other emotive ideological beliefs that create both a dominant sentiment as well as a constrictive framework of discourse. They close off certain avenues of speech, so that those who speak for Palestinians must begin by stating that Israel has a legal and moral right to kill Palestinians, and then take the stance of a supplicant begging for moderation, clemency, or mercy.
Of late Palestinians and others have pushed back against the pressure to commence their testimony and commentary with a condemnation of Hamas. They are trying to evade a narrative in which events commence with a condemnable act by Hamas and thus Israel’s massive surge of killing and destruction is framed as a reaction to Palestinian violence. This framework decontextualises events from the occupation and oppression including the ongoing acts of killing and destruction which Israeli personnel enact every single day in Palestine.
The “self-defence” argument is even more insidious than the attempt to frame all Israeli military violence as being in reaction to “terrorism”. It relies on a persistent but unrecognised one-sidedness. One cannot deny the right for Israelis to defend their lives, but nor can one deny the right of Palestinians to defend their lives. If Israel can kill Palestinian civilians in “self-defence” and present its own reasons to explain why such killings are necessary, then logic dictates that Hamas can do the exactly the same. Thus it may seem that if applied even-handedly “self-defence” becomes totally meaningless.
It may surprise people to know that in legal terms the problem of self-defence is not tricky nor intractable. Israel very clearly does not have the right to use military violence and claim self-defence on several grounds. Firstly, an occupied people has the right to resistance, including armed resistance, “in or outside their own territory”. Obviously it would be illogical to accord a legal right to armed resistance and then accord a legal right to collective self-defence against that legal resistance.
Thankfully the United Nations Charter has a way out of the paradoxes of allowing two belligerents the right to self-defence against each other’s self-defence and that of allowing self-defence against legal acts of resistance. Chapter VII of Article 51 states
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”
Clearly “peace and security” has not been established but the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has passed many resolutions on Palestine. Israel is currently violating a very large number of these resolutions ranging at least as far back as UNSCR 242 in 1967 through to UNSCR 2334 in 2016. These violations are occurring despite the fact that the US constantly vetoes UNSC resolutions that it deems detrimental to Israel. Logically cannot claim a legal right to self-defence if it violates the UNSC resolutions designed to bring “peace and security” thus its real path to legitimate self-defence lies first and foremost in complying with all relevant resolutions. In simple terms Israel must end its occupation as the very first of any acts of self-defence. Thus it does have the right to self defence but it must cease its own belligerency first.
I want to complicate this further here, but in a way that will lead to greater elegance and certainty, by explaining the onus on the aggressor. In 1946 the International Military Tribunal described waging a war of aggression as “the supreme international crime” that “contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” Placing the onus on the aggressor (which is the government of the state not its people) in this way does not exonerate those who commit crimes in self-defence, but it means that the aggressor is also guilty. It is only thus that we can preserve the principle that all people have the right to life. Without the aggressor being morally and legally culpable it would mean not only that the military personnel of the aggressor belligerent have no right to life, but also that civilians of that state have no right to life if they should become legitimate collateral damage in legal military operations by the defending belligerent. This emphasis on the culpability of the aggressor is very satisfying because it closes these loopholes and also satisfies our moral instinct that a sovereign that wages aggressive war, knowingly sacrificing the lives of their own people, is guilty of the murder of those killed.
Gaza, 2023 (Source: Trong Khiem Nguyen Flickr)
We need to pause here to reflect on our habitual callousness towards death in times of conflict. Death in wartime is so inevitable that we become inured to to its nature. Deaths caused by armed conflict tend to be terrifying, agonising, lonely, and brutally untimely. The grief of needless loss over those who usually have health and life to spare is not lessened because death becomes so statistical when the machinery of killing is unleashed. War is an abomination and every person who is currently working to prevent a ceasefire in Gaza is a criminal.
As things currently stand Israel has such a grip on the framing of the Western media coverage that it can get away with claiming its murders in Gaza are all part of a campaign to eradicate Hamas and that this is a legitimate act of self-defence.
Of course, anyone who goes beyond the Western media (Al Jazeera being the easiest outlet to escape the censored narrative) will know that Israel is targeting civilians, hospitals, churches, ambulances, and so forth.
For those who see only the Western media they must deal with the cognitive dissonance of seeing the death, destruction, and suffering and being told that it is arguably some form of self-defence. The trick with the Western media is not to state outright that Israel’s self-defence claims are true, but to avoid all facts or basic reasoning that gives lie to that claim.
Once those who support peace and humanity learn to counter Israel’s claims to the right to use violence in “self-defence” it will be another foundation of the propaganda narrative removed. Brave individuals are challenging the demand to begin all media interviews by condemning Hamas and refusing to accept timelines that always assert that cycles of violence begin with Palestinian actions. They need to add to that by rejecting Israel’s right to use arms in self-defence.
The way to counter the distortions of the Western media is to attack the borders of the narrative where they are thinnest and most strained. Some ideas are the sledgehammers that break through walls of cognitive dissonance, forcing people to unite what their eyes see and what their emotional and moral senses tell them with their intellectual framework – the story that they force facts and feelings into. When people see bombing, missiles and siege warfare against a powerless people the imagery does not naturally lend itself to a conclusion of violence waged for defensive purposes. To break the argument we need to attack the very validity of Israel’s claims.
An occupier cannot use arms in self-defence until they cease being the occupier.
The aggressor cannot be the defender.
Genocide is never justified. The violence of those who see others as a threat because of their membership in a “national, ethnical, racial or religious group” is the defining character of genocide. It is always framed as self-defence.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Kieran Kelly – On Genocide; @keiyarkelly
Featured image is from Jewish Voice for Labour
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Kieran Kelly, Global Research, 2023
https://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-big-lie-self-defence/5838816
La menace géopolitique pour la France est l’importation du conflit Hamas-Israël, pas la Russie – Pierre-Emmanuel Thomann
Les assassinats islamistes à Arras en France et à Bruxelles, mais aussi la réactivation violente du conflit israélo-palestinien dont la guerre Hamas-Israël est une composante qui risque de s’importer en France, démontrent que les menaces principales pour la France proviennent de l’arc de Crise au sud, et non pas la Russie dans l’arc de crise à l’est de l’Union européenne. Non seulement des citoyens français meurent dans des attentats islamistes mais une cinquième colonne islamiste issue de l’immigration de masse extra-européenne et susceptible d’être aussi manipulée de l’étranger se développe sur le territoire français. On peut s’attendre à terme à l’éclatement de conflits civils suite à la fracturation géopolitique de la nation.
Depuis 2014 (coup d’Etat à Kiev), et particulièrement depuis 2022 (intervention russe en Ukraine provoquée par Washington après son refus de stopper l’élargissement de l’OTAN pour poursuivre son encerclement de la Russie), Paris et les Etats membres de l’OTAN et de l’UE, en alignement avec les priorités géopolitiques de Washington, se sont focalisés sur une menace russe qui n’existe pas pour la France. Cette focalisation sur le flanc Est, en détournant les vrais enjeux géopolitiques pour la France et à la remorque d’un système d’alliances (l’OTAN et l’UE vassalisée) nous aspire vers une confrontation avec la Russie mais aussi la Chine. Cette évolution est en contradiction avec nos intérêts selon la vision gaullienne de puissance d’équilibre dans une Europe de Brest à Vladivostok et prive Paris en termes de moyens financiers, de temps et de réflexion géopolitique pour faire face aux vraies menaces.
Les transferts financiers à fonds perdus et les armes envoyées au régime de Kiev seraient plus utiles pour renforcer les capacités militaires nationales, et non pas le complexe militaro-industriel otanisé au service de Kiev et donc les priorités géopolitiques de Washington. Les tonnes d’armes envoyées en Ukraine, pays réputé pour sa corruption abyssale s’éparpillent en Europe et dans le monde et vont inévitablement tomber dans les mains de terroristes islamistes comme cela s’est produit lors de la guerre de l’OTAN contre la Yougoslavie.
Cette énergie, ce temps et cet argent gaspillés en Ukraine seraient plus utiles pour combattre l’inexorable renforcement de l’islamisme sur le territoire français, stopper l’immigration de masse et donc sécuriser les frontières de la France et de ses voisins européens, combattre les acteurs, Etats ou réseaux criminels, qui aggravent la crise migratoire, et enfin faire face au prosélytisme islamiste du Qatar, de la Turquie et de l’Arabie Saoudite. En clair, s’éloigner à propos de cet enjeu, des alliances à risques. Ce combat devra être mené en parallèle de l’abandon de l’idéologie de la société ouverte (la démocratie libérale et multiculturaliste d’inspiration américaine promue par l’UE) qui débouche sur une France ouverte à tous les flux et qui perd sa culture nationale et ses racines civilisationnelles européennes.
Enfin il sera nécessaire de se préparer à la guerre de haute intensité contre des Etats ou les interventions ciblées contre les groupes terroristes djihadistes qui menacent directement la France, principalement en Méditerranée.
Vis à vis des conflits qui ne concernent pas la France directement comme le conflit en Ukraine et le conflit israélo-palestinien, jouer le rôle de puissance d’équilibre au sein d’un nouveau concert de puissances mondiales serait plus judicieux.
La France et l’Europe, coincées entre deux arcs de crises, se trouvent dans la pire configuration géopolitique depuis la guerre froide. Les changements de régimes, interventions militaires et guerres par procuration (avec le concours des extrémistes islamistes comme en Syrie ou les bandéristes néonazis du régime de Kiev) provoqués par Washington et ses alliés de l’OTAN en Serbie, Irak, Libye, Ukraine et la tentative en Syrie, pour imposer la suprématie de Washington dans l’espace euro-atlantique en expansion, souvent avec Paris sous l’influence des idéologues atlantistes, ont abouti à cette configuration qui menace la sécurité mais aussi la marge de manœuvre géopolitique de la France. Lors de la guerre américaine en Irak en 2003, Paris qui n’était pas encore sous l’hégémonie des idéologues atlantistes, avait refusé avec raison d’y participer et avait fait la promotion visionnaire d’une Europe continentale sur l’axe France-Allemagne-Russie.
Pour faire face aux menaces provenant de l’arc de crise Sud qui s’enchevêtrent avec la menace islamiste sur le territoire français et européen, il faudrait éviter de se disperser sur deux fronts. Cela signifie un rapprochement avec la Russie pour surmonter le conflit en Ukraine (notamment stopper définitivement les élargissements OTAN) et négocier une nouvelle architecture européenne de sécurité dans un monde multicentré. D’autant plus que la Russie est ouverte à la négociation sur un nouvel ordre spatial et géopolitique, mais sur un pied d’égalité géopolitique et sur le principe des intérêts communs européens et non pas occidentalistes avec l’acceptation de la diversité des civilisations. C’est la seule option qui fait sens du point de vue géopolitique.
(voir les cartes » Les menaces de fragmentation géopolitiques au niveau national et européen » de 2017 et « L’Union européenne entre deux arcs de crise que j’ai élaborée en 2014 il y a presque ans et qui souligne déjà la dérive vers la configuration actuelle )
Die USA beabsichtigen, den Nahen Osten durch ethnische Säuberungen umzugestalten
„Neuer Naher Osten“ – ein Königreich des allgemeinen Chaos und ethnisch-religiöser Kriege
Die York Times veröffentlichte einen Artikel mit dem mysteriösen Titel „Wie aus 5 Ländern 14 werden könnten“. Dabei handelt es sich keineswegs um ein mathematisches Rätsel, wie man meinen könnte, sondern um die Neuformatierung des Nahen Ostens.
Dies ist nicht einmal ein Artikel, sondern eine Karte des Nahen Ostens, die zeigt, wie man aus fünf Ländern der Region vierzehn macht. Die Beschneidung der Region „auf den Punkt“ wird politisch korrekt als Prognose dargestellt.
In Syrien „könnten sektiererische und ethnische Rivalitäten das Land in mindestens drei Teile spalten.“
1. Alawiten, eine Minderheit, die Syrien seit Jahrzehnten kontrolliert, dominieren den Küstenkorridor.
2. Syrisch-Kurdistan könnte sich abspalten und schließlich mit den Kurden des Irak fusionieren.
3. Das sunnitische Zentrum wird sich trennen und sich dann möglicherweise mit den Provinzen des Irak vereinigen, um Sunnistan zu bilden.“
„Aufgrund mächtiger Stammes- und Regionalrivalitäten könnte Libyen in zwei Teile gespalten werden: die historischen Teile – Tripolitanien und Kyrenaika – und möglicherweise einen dritten Staat, Fezzan im Südwesten.“
„Das ärmste arabische Land [Jemen] könnte durch ein mögliches Referendum über die Unabhängigkeit des Südjemen (erneut) in zwei Teile gespalten werden.“
Amerikanische Prognostiker waren besonders daran interessiert, Saudi-Arabien aufzuteilen, das ihrer Meinung nach langfristig [wie 1914] aufgrund von Stammes- und schiitisch-sunnitischen Rivalitäten sowie wirtschaftlichen Problemen und der Konkurrenz zwischen den Kronen in fünf Teile zerfallen könnte Prinzen.
Laut NYT werden auch unabhängige Stadtstaaten entstehen: Bagdad, Misurata im libyschen Norden und Jabal al-Druz im Süden Alawitistans, das sich von Syrien trennte.
Auch die Vereinigung syrischer und irakischer Kurden und die Bildung eines unabhängigen Kurdistans werden vorhergesagt. Im syrischen Süden könnte Schiitistan entstehen.
Tatsächlich handelt es sich bei diesen Fantasien überhaupt nicht um eine Prognose, sondern um die Darstellung eines Plans zur Umgestaltung des Nahen Ostens im Einklang mit Woodrow Wilsons Doktrin „Jedes Volk auf seinem eigenen Territorium“.
Was den von NYT in kleine Stücke zerschnittenen Nahen Osten betrifft, handelt es sich hierbei um eine Version der berüchtigten „Ralph-Peters-Karte“, angepasst an die aktuellen Realitäten.
Im Juni 2006 veröffentlichte der amerikanische Militäranalyst Oberstleutnant Ralph Peters im Armed Forces Journal einen Artikel mit dem Titel „Bloody Borders“. Darin ging es um Fakten, die im Allgemeinen jedem bekannt sind, der mit der Geschichte des Nahen Ostens und der arabischen Welt im Allgemeinen vertraut ist. Alle heutigen Grenzen und fast alle heutigen Staaten wurden von den englisch-französischen Kolonialisten in der Erwartung geschaffen, dass es an diesen Orten niemals Frieden geben würde.
„Wir haben es mit kolossalen, von Menschenhand geschaffenen Monstrositäten zu tun, die weiterhin Hass und Gewalt schüren werden, bis sie korrigiert werden.“ Was diejenigen angeht, die sich weigern, „das Undenkbare zu denken“, indem sie erklären, dass Grenzen sich nicht ändern sollten, und das ist alles, es sei daran erinnert, dass Grenzen im Laufe der Jahrhunderte nie aufgehört haben, sich zu verändern“, schrieb Peters .
In seinem Artikel forderte Peters, dass wir sofort damit beginnen sollten, die Grenzen des gesamten Nahen Ostens, dieses „Frankenstein-Monsters“, neu zu ziehen. Alle neuen Länder mussten in seinem Plan auf unterschiedlichen ethnischen Gruppen gegründet werden, denn laut Peters „funktionieren ethnische Säuberungen “ .
Peters veröffentlichte auch eine Karte des sogenannten „Neuen Nahen Ostens“. Auf einem der amerikanischen Militärforen waren sie empört darüber, dass Peters, der nie an ernsthaften Kampfhandlungen teilgenommen hatte, eine „Todeskarte“ veröffentlichte, die die Aufteilung des Nahen Ostens entlang der Grenzen ethnischer Gemeinschaften nahelegte.
Gleichzeitig mit Peters‘ Veröffentlichung wurde in Tel Aviv von US-Außenministerin Condoleezza Rice der Begriff „Neuer Naher Osten“ geäußert . Der Begriff und das entsprechende Konzept wurden bald vom US-Außenministerium und dem israelischen Premierminister Ehud Olmert auf dem Höhepunkt des israelischen Krieges im Libanon übernommen. Olmert und Rice informierten die Weltmedien darüber, dass die Umsetzung des „New Middle East“-Projekts im Libanon begonnen habe.
Das Projekt „Neuer Naher Osten“ lief darauf hinaus, einen Bogen der Instabilität und des Chaos vom Libanon bis zu den Grenzen Afghanistans zu schaffen, wo sich damals NATO-Garnisonen befanden.
Washington und Tel Aviv hofften, dass der von Israel besiegte Libanon der kritische Punkt sein würde, von dem aus die Neuziehung der Grenzen im gesamten Nahen Osten beginnen und die Kräfte des kontrollierten Chaos freisetzen würden. Dies würde es den Vereinigten Staaten und Israel ermöglichen, ihre geopolitischen Interessen unter dem Vorwand der Friedenssicherung und der Aussöhnung der Parteien zu verwirklichen.
Die NYT begleitete die Veröffentlichung der neuen „Todeskarte“ mit einem Artikel von Robin Wright, Fellow am Woodrow Wilson Institute, der die blutigen Konflikte der letzten Jahre im Nahen Osten rechtfertigt, die von den Angelsachsen gerade wegen des Wunsches der ethnischen Gemeinschaften angezettelt wurden der Region für Selbstbestimmung. Der Zusammenbruch Syriens entlang ethnischer und religiöser Grenzen hat seiner Meinung nach de facto bereits stattgefunden. Die Sunniten und Schiiten im Irak werden angeblich in den separatistischen Strudel hineingezogen.
In Libyen „blicken die Tripolitaner auf den Maghreb, die westliche islamische Welt, und die Zyrenaikaner auf den Maschrik, die östliche islamische Welt. Darüber hinaus absorbiert die Hauptstadt Öleinnahmen, obwohl 80 Prozent dieser Einnahmen aus dem Osten kommen. So könnte sich Libyen in zwei oder sogar drei Teile teilen … Auch Süd-Fezzan weist ausgeprägte Stammes- und geografische Merkmale auf.“
Der Südjemen, wo laut Wright Sunniten leben, träumt davon, sich Saudi-Arabien anzuschließen, das wiederum einfach mit einer „Balkanisierung“ schwanger ist.
Im Jahr 2006 scheiterte der Versuch des Westens, die Karte des Nahen Ostens neu zu zeichnen, an der Niederlage der israelischen Armee im Krieg gegen die libanesische Hisbollah, wie wir schrieben .
Jetzt haben die Vereinigten Staaten und ihre Verbündeten mit einer aktualisierten „Karte des Todes“ das mottenzerfressene Konzept eines „Neuen Nahen Ostens“ erneut ans Licht gebracht, was auf groß angelegte ethnische Säuberungen schließen lässt, die jedoch bereits begonnen haben.
Am 31. Oktober berichtete die Times of Israel unter Berufung auf eine Erklärung des Büros von Premierminister Benjamin Netanyahu über einen Plan zur Abschiebung von mehr als 2,3 Millionen Palästinensern aus dem Gazastreifen nach Ägypten.
Eine Kopie eines vom Geheimdienstministerium erstellten Dokuments, das am 28. Oktober vom Portal Sicha Mekomit veröffentlicht wurde , empfiehlt der Regierung, die gesamte Zivilbevölkerung der Enklave nach Ägypten umzusiedeln.
„Das Dokument vom 13. Oktober fordert die Umsiedlung von Zivilisten in Zeltstädten im nördlichen Sinai und den eventuellen Bau dauerhafter Städte sowie die Eröffnung eines humanitären Korridors. Der Plan sieht vor, innerhalb Ägyptens eine mehrere Kilometer breite „sterile“ Pufferzone zu schaffen, um sicherzustellen, dass sich die Bevölkerung nicht an den Grenzen Israels niederlassen kann .
Es wird darauf hingewiesen, dass Ägypten möglicherweise nicht das einzige Endziel für die Aufnahme von Palästinensern ist: Die Türkei, Katar, Saudi-Arabien und die Vereinigten Arabischen Emirate könnten den Plan angeblich finanziell unterstützen oder Gaza-Bewohner als Flüchtlinge und langfristig als vollwertige Staatsbürger aufnehmen. Auch der israelische Geheimdienst beabsichtigt aufgrund seiner sanften Migrationspolitik, Flüchtlinge nach Kanada zu schicken. All diese Maßnahmen sind nach Angaben des israelischen Geheimdienstes wünschenswert, um die Sicherheit Israels zu gewährleisten.
Laut der israelischen Zeitung Haaretz stellte Netanyahus Büro fest, dass dieser Plan nur „erste Gedanken“ über das Schicksal der Bevölkerung des Gazastreifens darstelle.
Tatsächlich koordinieren die USA und Israel ihre Aktionen und beginnen in der Praxis mit der ethnischen Säuberung im Nahen Osten.
Die USA sind ein Aggressorland, ein Terrorland muss zerstört werden. Die gesamte jüdische Elite der USA muss zerstört werden
Asamblea General de Naciones Unidas rechaza de pleno el #Bloqueo contra #Cuba: 187 votos a favor, dos en contra (EEUU e Israel) y una abstención (Ucrania) (Videos)
#ONU Gráfico de portada: Carlos González Penalva.- La resolución presentada por Cuba para pedir el fin del bloqueo económico, comercial y financiero impuesto por Estados Unidos fue aprobada hoy por la Asamblea General con 187 votos a favor. El texto, apoyado por trigésimo primera ocasión, recibió dos votos en contra (Estados Unidos e Israel) y […]
Immer dumpfer und direkter werben Medien und Politik für die mentale Mobilmachung gegen Russland (UZ, Unsere Zeit)
Seit dem 24. Februar 2022 überschlagen sich Medien, Politiker und andere Talkshow-Dauergäste in ihrem Hass gegen den russischen Staat, dem sie unter anderem Völkerrechtsbruch, die wahllose … Propagandadämmerungweiterlesen
Nothing screams Christian values like massacres and mass weapons sales.
Roughly half of President Biden’s recent budget request for more than $105 billion for Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and border security is dedicated to weapons sales. Nothing screams Christian values like massacres and mass weapons sales.
Nothing Screams Christian Values Like Massacres and Mass Weapons Sales
Mensch-Zuletzt-Bank. Für den Profit löst sich die Post in nichts auf.
Ein Artikel von Ralf Wurzbacher
Die Postbank macht demnächst 250 von 550 Filialen dicht. So will es die Konzernmutter in Frankfurt am Main, die Deutsche Bank. Die DHL Group schlägt ein und verspricht Ersatz am Kiosk, an der Tanke oder Wurstbude, bei garantiert schlechtem Service und steigenden Preisen. Was noch mehr Gewinne und noch mehr Arbeitslose verspricht, sorgt bei Beschäftigten und Kunden für noch mehr Frust. Wann ist wohl die Schmerzgrenze erreicht, fragt sich Ralf Wurzbacher.
Manch einen dürfte es überraschen zu hören, dass die Postbank gar nicht zur Post gehört, also dem, was lange Zeit Deutsche Post AG hieß und neuerdings unter DHL Group firmiert. Schließlich sind da allerhand Ähnlichkeiten: Steht Post drauf, das Logo ist gelb, und Briefmarken gibt es dort auch zu kaufen. Alles Täuschung! Im Nachgang der Ende der 1980er-Jahre eingeleiteten sogenannten Postreform – ein Euphemismus für brutalst mögliche Privatisierung – wanderte das Kreditinstitut ab 2009 schrittweise ins Portfolio der Deutschen Bank, bis schließlich im Jahr 2018 beide Geldhäuser ihr Privat- und Firmenkundengeschäft unter einem Dach verschmolzen.
Aber richtig glücklich machte das die Macher von Deutschlands Skandalbank Nr. 1 nie – vor allem wegen der Sache mit den Briefmarken und den Paketen und den ganzen anderen Postdienstleitungen, die man vertragsgemäß zu erfüllen hatte. Und eigentlich hätte man gerne längst viele viele mehr dieser ganzen Filialen dichtgemacht, von denen es 2017 immerhin noch 850 gab, wovon heute 550 übrig sind. Aber auch da waren den Bossen die Hände gebunden, weil eben eine Vereinbarung mit der Deutschen Post den ganz großen Kahlschlag verunmöglichte. Aber zum Glück enden Verträge irgendwann, und mit dem neuen wird jetzt alles besser – für die Banker, versteht sich, nicht für die Kunden, Menschen zum Beispiel, die Briefmarken brauchen oder Pakete verschicken wollen. Für sie alle wird alles schlechter.
Weg damit!
Zu Wochenanfang hat der Private-Banking-Chef der Deutschen Bank, Claudio de Sanctis, in einem Interview mit der Financial Times (hinter Bezahlschranke) verkündet, was der neue Kontrakt mit dem „gelben Riesen“ hermacht. Bis 2026 soll demnach fast die Hälfte aller Postbank-Zweigstellen in Deutschland von der Bildfläche verschwinden. Damit verblieben dann bestenfalls noch 300. Begründung: Die betreffenden Standorte seien bereits dauerhaft unprofitabel. Aber statt Energien darauf zu ver(sch)wenden, die Profitabilität zu steigern, radiert man sie einfach aus – und dampft die Angebotspalette beim Rest radikal ein: Lediglich in 200 Niederlassungen soll auch künftig die Post abgehen, die anderen 100 werden auf ein „ausschließlich auf Bankdienstleistungen fokussiertes Filialformat“ getrimmt.
Der Aderlass ist nicht nur ärgerlich für die vielen Kontoinhaber, die künftig durch eine noch wüstere Servicewüste irren werden. Seit Monaten nämlich sorgt die Postbank mit gravierenden Technikpannen für Schlagzeilen (dazu weiter unten mehr). Schwerer noch wiegt das Ganze mit Blick auf die ohnehin schon arg ausgedünnte Infrastruktur bei den Postdienstleistungen. Das einst flächendeckende Filialnetz der früheren Deutschen Bundespost hat sich mittlerweile praktisch verflüchtigt. Im direkten Eigentum des Bonner Konzerns sollen sich lediglich noch zwei echte Post-Zweigstellen befinden, eine im Deutschen Bundestag, eine in der Unternehmenszentrale. Unter dem Renditedruck der Aktionäre wurden die Dienste in großem Stil ausgelagert an sogenannte Postagenturen in Gestalt von Tankstellen, Kiosken, Schreibwarenläden und Supermärkten. Selbstredend werden Service und Beratung unter solchen Bedingungen kleingeschrieben. Aber wenigstens gab es bisher noch besagte 550 Postbank-Stationen – demnächst nicht mehr.
Mobile-First-Bank
Im Neusprech der Konzernlenker laufen die Abrissarbeiten unter „Optimierung“ und „Anpassung an die veränderte Nachfrage“. Stationäre Vertriebswege spielten für die persönliche Beratung weiterhin eine wichtige Rolle, „jedoch mittelfristig nicht mehr im gleichen Umfang“, beschied ein Sprecher der Deutschen Bank. Die verbleibenden Filialen würden in „Tech-Center“ umgewandelt. De Sanctis selbst sprach davon, die Postbank in eine „Mobile-First-Bank“ zu verwandeln. Kundenbetreuung vor Ort spiele dabei eine kleinere Rolle, dafür sollen alle Produkte über Mobiltelefon, Tablet oder den heimischen Computer offeriert werden. Von dem Umbau erhofft er sich „sehr wesentliche Einsparungen, die mehr ausmachen als die Investitionen, die wir tätigen müssen“.
Derlei Sprüche kennt man ja: digital first, Mensch zuallerletzt. Unlängst haben sich in Hamburg 25 Bürgerberatungsstellen in einem offenen Brief an die Öffentlichkeit gewandt und beklagt, die Digitalisierung führe dazu, eine mit endlosen Spardiktaten heruntergewirtschaftete Verwaltung gegen die Bürger abzuschotten und damit die Unwuchten bei der sozialen Teilhabe innerhalb der Bevölkerung weiter zu verschärfen. Behörden und politische Entscheidungsträger müssten dafür Sorge tragen, „dass Zugangs- und Kommunikationsbarrieren auf dem Weg zu einer bürgerfreundlichen Verwaltung abgebaut werden und alle Menschen in Hamburg leichter zu ihrem Recht kommen“, heißt es zum Abschluss des Appells.
Heute Schützengraben, morgen Arbeitsamt
Passenderweise entpuppt sich die Digitalisierung bei der Postbank als einziges Desaster. Nachdem man das hauseigene IT-System mit dem der Konzernmutter vermählt hatte, gelangten zahllose ihrer insgesamt zwölf Millionen Kunden wochenlang nicht an ihre Konten, wurden Opfer unberechtigter Abbuchungen und gerieten laut Verbraucherschützern teils in existenzielle Nöte. Für die Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) liegen die Gründe für das Chaos darin, dass Deutsche-Bank-Chef Christian Sewing die Umstellung „in einer Art Sparvariante durchziehen wollte“ und nicht ausreichend Callcenterpersonal eingeplant hatte. Die Vorgänge riefen zuletzt sogar die Finanzaufsicht BaFin auf den Plan mit der Konsequenz, dass ein Sonderbeauftragter bis zum Jahresende für Ordnung sorgen soll.
Topmanager de Sanctis soll jüngst die Gefühlslage der Postbank-Beschäftigten mit der von Kindersoldaten im Ersten Weltkrieg verglichen haben, in Schützengräben kauernd, „völlig allein“ und unter Beschuss „ohne Verbindung zum Hauptquartier“. Zum Dank wird nun ein beträchtlicher Teil der Belegschaft vor die Tür gesetzt. „Zynisch“ findet das Jan Duscheck von der Gewerkschaft ver.di. „Das Timing ist desaströs“ und die Schließung etlicher Filialen „ein Schlag ins Gesicht“ der Mitarbeiter.
Zubrot für Aktionäre
Das Vorhaben klinge wie „blanker Hohn“, meint man beim Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen (vzbv). Mit Blick auf die massiven und anhaltenden Probleme beim Online-Banking „sollte die Deutsche Bank den Kundenservice endlich verbessern, statt diesen durch Filialschließungen zu schwächen“, erklärte die Verbandsvorsitzende Ramona Pop. Übel mitgespielt wird absehbar auch den Angestellten der Deutschen Bank. Deren Netz soll laut de Sanctis ebenfalls gestutzt werden, weshalb nach SZ-Informationen in der Belegschaft die Angst umgeht. Tausende Mitarbeiter könnten ihre Stelle verlieren, „und zwar gerade die, die in den letzten Monaten für die Bank den Kopf hingehalten haben“, zitierte das Blatt einen Insider.
Für die durch den Digitalisierungspfusch Geschädigten haben die Konzernführer auch nichts übrig. Bei der Vorlage der Quartalszahlen vor einer Woche ließ Finanzchef James von Moltke durchblicken, die Betroffenen fürs Erste nicht entschädigen zu wollen, zumal man auch nicht mit vielen Klagen rechne. Dafür stellte sein Vorgesetzter Sewing den Anteilseignern eine „über die acht Milliarden Euro bis einschließlich 2025“ hinausgehende Dividende in Aussicht, weil man „Spielraum“ für zusätzliches Kapital in Höhe von drei Milliarden Euro identifiziert habe. Jetzt wird klar, wo das Geld herkommen soll.
Trostlos kryptisch
Und was sagt zu all dem die Post? Von der heißt es, sie wolle nahe der wegfallenden Postbank-Stützpunkte „eigene“ Standorte aufmachen. Soll heißen: noch mehr McPost am Kiosk, beim Bäcker oder an der Wurstbude. Und dann freut man sich in Bonn auf die nahende Reform des Postgesetzes. Die Ampelregierung plant weniger Zustelltage und mehr Wettbewerb. Vor drei Wochen hatten 30.000 Briefträger in Berlin gegen das Vorhaben demonstriert. Sie fürchten riesige Jobverluste und noch miesere Arbeitsbedingungen. Zum Trost führt die DHL Group seit gestern ganz was Modernes im Sortiment: „Die erste Deutschland-Krypto-Briefmarke.“ Das spart sogar das Anfeuchten. Da bleibt einem die Spucke weg.
Titelbild: Lutsenko_Oleksandr/shutterstock.com
Findings cast doubt on the Roots of the current Ukraine War – Maidan massacre False Flag presaged 100’s of 1000’s of deaths –
from thefreeonline on November 3, 2023 Lou at Tales from the Conspiratum
Earlier this month, a district court in Kiev announced its findings in a case that had dragged on since 2015, handing down sentences to five former officers of the long-dissolved ‘Berkut’ police unit.
The ex-police grouping became internationally known during the 2013/14 protests which culminated with the violent ‘Maidan.’
Charged with involvement in the shooting of anti-government protesters by snipers in the center of the Ukrainian capital on February 20, 2014, four of the accused – three of them in absentia – were found guilty and sentenced to terms between five years and life. One was acquitted.
Politically, this was, or should have been, Ukraine’s single most important trial since independence in 1991.
The judges closed – at least for now as appeals have already been announced – the country’s attempt to come to terms judicially with the darkest moment of what has been called a “revolution,” as well as a “coup”: the fall of the government of former President Viktor Yanukovich under pressure from initially peaceful – then violent – street protests and Western meddling.
The events producing regime change and geopolitical re-orientation unfolded over three months, but the killing of almost 50 protesters that February was a crucial tipping point.
The case quickly became known as the “Maidan massacre.”
The shootings were squarely blamed on Yanukovich and his administration and seemed to rule out domestic compromise and confirm Western and Ukrainian pro-insurgent narratives, casting the crisis as a national and democratic freedom struggle against a corrupt and oppressive regime beholden to Moscow.
Neither the disproportionate role of an aggressive and manipulative Ukrainian far right nor the ruthless geopolitics of the West had a place in this framing.
Within days after the killings, a last attempt to stop the spiral of escalation by an internationally mediated agreement failed, Yanukovych fled to Russia, and Moscow’s troops were on the move in Crimea.
Then things got worse. Clashes between Kiev’s new government and rebels in Donbass evolved into an initially intense, then mostly slow-burn, regional civil war, including limited Russian interventions.
The best chance for peace, the 2015 Minsk 2 Agreement, was sabotaged systematically by Kiev and its Western supporters, and, after February 2022, Ukraine became the theater of a proxy war of the collective West against Russia.
The West and Ukraine are now likely to lose this conflict at immense cost in lives and wealth, mostly to Ukraine. International tension is extremely high, trust has evaporated, and meaningful communication is almost impossible.
Ukraine and the world could be in a much better place if the last days of February 2014 had played out differently, allowing for the compromise already negotiated between Ukraine’s government and the insurgents to take hold.
The Maidan Massacre was not the only but the single most important shove toward an ever-widening conflict, especially as the dominant Western narrative about the killings has remained the same, blaming only the old regime and rejecting any challenge to the narrative as a pro-Russian “information war.”
Here was the perfect story, in short, to emotionally legitimize not only support but uncritical backing for Kiev, the rejection and sabotage of any concessions to Ukraine’s domestic rebels in the East, and vilifying any effective cooperation with Moscow.
Maidan massacre trial verdict now confirms: My video appendix visually shows that Zherebnyi was killed from Maidan-controlled Hotel Ukraina & that bullet holes in Paris Match photo of his wooden shield were from this hotel located in his back (3:29, 4:19). https://t.co/Fhyes0S9xD… pic.twitter.com/xWIc706YuU— Ivan Katchanovski (@I_Katchanovski) October 27, 2023
But what if we were not told the truth about the killings? That is the key claim advanced by Canadian-Ukrainian political scientist Ivan Katchanovski. Katchanovski (who also recently exposed the scandal around the honoring of a Waffen-SS veteran by the Canadian parliament) has long argued that “the Maidan massacre was a false-flag mass killing of … protestors and … police in order to seize power in Ukraine.
It was conducted with the involvement of oligarchic and far-right elements of the Maidan opposition using concealed groups of Maidan snipers in Maidan-controlled buildings.”
The rich detail of Katchanovski’s findings cannot be reproduced here, but three points should be noted: Snipers belonging to the insurgents’ side started shooting at the police on the morning of February 20; key positions, such as in the Hotel Ukraina and a conservatory, from which these policemen were attacked and later Maidan protesters as well, were and remained under the control of insurgent units (not the police); and after 9.00 am, protesters, too, were shot by insurgent snipers (again: not by the police).
In sum, two things happened, according to Katchanovski’s findings: Insurgent snipers first shot at the police to provoke an escalation, and then, in addition, even killed protesters – that is, those on their own side.
At the same time, Katchanovski does not rule out the possibility that the police also shot protesters. But his careful analysis of video and other evidence shows that many victims, likely the majority, were targeted by insurgent shooters.
Maidan massacre trial verdict that 31 Maidan protesters were killed & 44 wounded with involvement of convicted in absentia 3 special Berkut company members is based on fabricated forensic ballistic examination. My synchronized video appendix shows that single match in this… pic.twitter.com/jbvcDtUnTi— Ivan Katchanovski (@I_Katchanovski) October 27, 2023
Katchanovski has come to these conclusions through years-long, rigorous, and exhaustive forensic research, as summarized in his peer-reviewed article “The ‘Snipers’ Massacre’ on the Maidan in Ukraine” in Cogent Social Sciences, an academic journal published by Taylor and Francis.
He has not been the only one reaching such or similar results, but his work is the most thorough and important independent investigation.
Clearly, that is why, due to its political implications, he has had to withstand being smeared as a “conspiracy theorist” and pro-Kremlin information warrior; his work has been censored; and he has suffered severe retaliation by attempts at professional and social marginalization and the pseudo-legal confiscation of his family’s property in Ukraine.
BBC airs Maidan fighter admitting he fired on police before Kiev ..
Ukrainian courts are not politically independent. Judges, whatever their own views or professional ethics, work under the threat of ostracism and violence from Ukraine’s far right (at least).
And yet, as Katchanovski has pointed out, buried in the million-word findings of the recent verdict, the court has recognized several facts that confirm his interpretation of the Maidan Massacre, including the following: four police officers were killed and 39 wounded by insurgent snipers; snipers shot from buildings under insurgent control; and it cannot be ruled out that eight victims were killed and 20 injured by “unknown” perpetrators who were not from the police.
While Katchanovski is to be admired for his research and steadfastness, what is especially important here is that the long backlash against his research is a symptom of something larger that is badly amiss in both Ukraine and the West.
A Kyiv court has delivered limited justice for the deaths of nearly 50 protesters shot in February 2014.
Even now, the Ukrainian information war outlet Euromaidan Press, for instance, still combines a personal attack on Katchanovski with disinforming its readers, claiming that the verdict somehow contradicts his findings (which are, by the way, badly misrepresented).
The opposite is the case.
This is just the latest example of a deep culture of disinformation and self-disinformation that has taken root in the West. While Western elites may well lie deliberately much of the time, substantial parts of the Western media, it seems, have come to not only believe these lies – or those of favorites, clients, and allies – but to defend them with a vigor that betrays psychological investment.
The emotionally-charged reality denial around Hillary Clinton’s richly-deserved defeat in the US election of 2016 (“Russiagate”), the bizarre doublethink regarding Western forces (and/or Ukraine) blowing up Nord Stream (thereby committing an act of war among “allies” and of eco-terrorism), Israel’s “right to defend itself” interpreted as the permission to commit crimes against humanity with Western support – all are instances of a form of collective self-indulgence.
Too many people in the West still claiming to be the world’s “value” guardian practice lying and lying to themselves as if it were their special birthright.
Yet these lies and fiercely guarded illusions corrupt individuals and politics, polarize societies, disrupt international relations and, last but not least, cost lives – thousands, tens of thousands, and, in the case of Ukraine by now, hundreds of thousands. Conflict is a normal part of human life, and, to some extent, inevitable.
Driving yourself insane with dishonesty is not. And it certainly does not help keep the peace.
LARRY ROMANOFF: False Flags and Conspiracy Theories — Chapter 3 – KAL Flight 007 and TWA Flight 800
False Flags and Conspiracy Theories
Chapter 3 – KAL Flight 007 and TWA Flight 800
Seymour Hersh, journalist, Soviets Thought They Were Downing Spy Plane, Report Says (August 25, 1986). Source
Korean Air Lines Flight 007
KAL 007 was a scheduled Korean Air Lines flight en route from New York City to Seoul, Korea, via Anchorage Alaska when it flew through prohibited Soviet airspace and was shot down by a Soviet aircraft west of Sakhalin Island, in the Sea of Japan on September 1, 1983. All 269 passengers and crew aboard were killed, including a member of the US Congress. Maybe. Here are two reports on the event, one being a CNN “anniversary story”, [1] another a Wikipedia statement of “alternative theories”. [2]
At about 10 minutes after take-off from Alaska, KAL 007 began to deviate from its assigned route and headed directly toward Russia’s Sakhalin Island, the location of a top-secret Soviet military installation. American officials claimed the aircraft had suffered a failure of its navigational electronics, its transponder, autopilot, and external communications. In short, the aircraft had no way of knowing where it really was or that it was off-course, and had no ability to receive communications or warnings to inform that it was entering restricted Soviet airspace. Soviet aircraft were launched to intercept Flight 007 and identify the intruder. The Russians made repeated attempts at radio communications, gave repeated warnings, and fired warning shots, but were apparently ignored. A Russian aircraft flew near Flight 007 and waggled its wings, which is a universally-understood instruction to land, but this was also ignored. Finally, the Russian aircraft were given permission to fire on the intruder.
RC-135 Rivet Joint reconnaissance aircraft the USAF converted Boeing 707 that closely resembles the KA 007 Boeing 747. Source
From this point, the truth becomes very hazy. In the end, the only practical conclusion that fits the facts is that the US deliberately sent a passenger aircraft to overfly and to spy upon a top-secret Russian military base, calculating incorrectly that the Russians would not have the courage to fire on what appeared to be an American civilian aircraft. Due to the inconsistencies, misstatements, obvious falsehoods, conclusions contradicted by hard data, and the simple fact of a story that lacks the ring of truth, the saga of Flight 007 has been the subject of continuing controversy and has spawned a number of what the officials denigrate as “conspiracy theories”. Many of these are based on the suppression of real evidence such as the flight data recorders, unexplained details such as the role of a USAF RC-135 surveillance aircraft in the vicinity at the same time, and on a vast amount of political propaganda that was disseminated at the time.
For one thing, the official (US) version of events states that the aircraft “had an unusually high ratio of crew to passengers”, since an extra flight crew was ‘deadheading‘ to Korea. This claim was proven false. Evidence was released – then quickly suppressed – that when Flight 007 landed in Anchorage its civilian pilots and flight engineers were replaced by a military crew. Next, public investigation focused on the fact that Flight 007 was far off course, in a restricted military area and refused to communicate. One needs little knowledge of commercial aviation to recognise that something was very wrong here, and not due to electronics failures. Commercial airliners have multiple redundancies for all critical systems, double and triple backups for most systems, including power supply. It simply is not possible that the aircraft was totally ignorant of its location, whether or not the autopilot conveniently malfunctioned as claimed. If nothing else, every aircraft contains a simple magnetic compass, which alone would be sufficient to inform the crew of its incorrect heading. But according to the official narrative, “The simple fact of crew error, combined with continued inattentiveness, appears to have put the Boeing airliner on a collision course with disaster.” The official claim itself is clearly false. A large passenger aircraft suffers multiple total failures of all navigation and communications systems, but the crew suffered from “continued inattentiveness”. In other words, in such a critical situation where death was imminent, an experienced professional aircrew paid no attention at all to where they were or where they were heading.
KAL 007 was well off its course (red line), instead of following the red dotted line. Source
It was virtually impossible for a civilian airliner to accidentally go astray and unnoticed in one of the most militarily sensitive and constantly-monitored areas of the world during the Cold War. There were powerful and long-range land and sea radar arrays in both Alaska and Russia that would have tracked KAL 007 as it crossed through the NORAD prohibited flight zone and approached and entered Soviet territory. Moreover, there was at least one US RC-135 reconnaissance plane on a spy mission in the area, and it would have been fully aware of Flight 007s position and could have warned it of danger, or at least have informed its own military or civilian controllers. It was probably near enough to Flight 007 to be in visual contact, and would certainly have been monitoring the Soviet ground communications. Another curious fact is that Flight 007 did not suffer a communications failure as claimed, because it was in almost constant communication with its “sister aircraft”, Flight 015, and was using the latter to relay its communications to Tokyo.
But even more to the point, a commercial aircraft carrying hundreds of passengers over a long stretch of ocean and having just lost all its navigation and communications, would be focused on only one thing – finding a safe place to land. In this condition, the aircraft heading would assume overwhelming importance, but according to the US narrative the entire crew, having just suffered a total failure of everything except the engines and toilets, were unconcerned about their position and blithely continued directly toward the one major “deadly-force” restricted section of airspace in the entire region. The narrative also conveniently provides a large amount of technical double-talk that attempts to explain how the aircraft could have been off-course while providing false but reassuring information to the crew.
To anyone with even a bit of aviation knowledge, the explanations are nonsense, as are the US claims that the flight was “just a little bit too far off course” to receive radio communications. Another early nonsense claim by the US was that the first officer did know they were flying away from the planned course, but he remained silent because the airline’s culture discouraged questioning a captain’s conduct. Right. So, the First Officer realises the aircraft is flying directly into a forbidden military zone where imminent death-by-missile is assured, but his “culture” demands that, rather than inform the captain, he remains silent and commits suicide, killing all 300 passengers and the captain. But in any case, when the Russian aircraft drew alongside and waggled its wings, Flight 007 could have followed it to a safe landing field, the only sensible action when supposedly flying without navigation or communications ability.
In fact, there were many radar stations that would have been monitoring Flight 007, and their records would all be archived. However, according to the US, “These tapes remain unavailable to the public for national security reasons”. The US military radar installation at King Salmon, Alaska, would have provided conclusive records, but the US Department of Justice explained that the tape records from this location had unfortunately been destroyed. At first the claim was that they were destroyed 15 hours after the event, but then Justice Department lawyer Jan Van Flatern said he had “misspoken” and the tapes had really been destroyed within hours. But since the fatal end of Flight 007 was already known, why would anyone have permitted the destruction of the data? Obviously, they would not have done. Another factor is that US aircraft had been consistently overflying this same Soviet airspace, infringing on Russian territorial integrity to test the rapidity of Russia’s responses. It was a game the US played constantly on virtually all Russian borders, and especially near secret military bases like that on Sakhalin Island. When the Russians first detected Flight 007, they had no reason to believe it was anything other than yet one more US military intrusion into their airspace. In real terms, the Americans pushed their luck once too often. But in any case, the use of civilian aircraft for military purposes is hardly unusual.
Another inconsistency is that after the Soviet fighter plane fired its warning shots, the military pilots of Flight 007 radioed Tokyo and requested permission to proceed to a higher altitude, a move we are told was intended to save fuel. But this transmission was apparently made by an aircraft that had lost all its communications systems, so how could it communicate with Tokyo? It would be impossible that when Tokyo air control granted permission for a change in altitude, it would not also have informed Flight 007 that it was well off its intended course and was at the time overflying restricted Soviet airspace. And, since the aircraft’s radios appeared to suddenly be in good working order, it is surprising that Flight 007 refused to respond to the Russian ground station or transmissions from the Russian military aircraft, informing them they were violating Soviet airspace.
Even more curious is the salvage operation for the aircraft and bodies. As a point of interest, the aircraft was not destroyed by the Soviet missiles, at least not initially. Due to the numerous back-up systems, Flight 007 continued on its way for another 45 minutes before finally crashing in relatively shallow water near Moneron Island. In the salvage operation, almost no bodies were found among the wreckage, but what was found was even more of a surprise. Clothing was recovered, with buttons still buttoned and zippers still zipped, but without bodies inside them. ““Something else was inexplicable to us—zipped up clothes. For instance, a coat, slacks, shorts, a sweater with zippers—the items were different, but, zipped up. And nothing inside. We came to this conclusion then: Most likely, the passengers had been pulled out of the plane by decompression, and they fell in a completely different place from where [the debris was found]. [3]
The US version was that when the plane exploded (which it obviously did not, continuing to fly for another 45 minutes before slowly crashing into the sea), the bodies “were sucked out” of the clothing due to the rapid decompression of the aircraft, a ridiculous impossibility. It is also curious that no luggage was found anywhere within the crash site and, although few bodies were recovered, the salvage teams recovered more than 100 pairs of shoes among the wreckage. Looking at the evidence, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that there may have been fewer passengers on that aircraft than the US claimed, and that the clothing and shoes were planted to provide misleading evidence in case the spy mission went wrong – as it did.
Related to this lack of bodies is the curious fact that another Korean Airlines aircraft, referred to as “sister flight KAL 015”, was flying only 15 minutes behind KAL 007 on its way to the same destination. A brief check of the records indicates that this was also a first of its kind, since neither Korean Airlines nor any other airline have ever operated two such long-distance flights, both with Boeing 747s, from the same departure point to the same destination, in such close time proximity, which leads one to conclude that Flight 007 was a fake flight containing only military personnel – which was why no bodies were ever found.
We need only use our heads, and think. The story was that Korean Airlines operated two weekly flights from New York to Seoul, Korea, via Anchorage, Alaska. But instead of scheduling them perhaps one on Sunday and the second on Wednesday or Thursday, KAL operated them on the same day, only 15 minutes apart. No airline in the world has ever done anything so nonsensical. And indeed, the records showed that these two flights simultaneous flights were an exception that had never occurred before and would never occur again.
Further, the records show that the civilian crew of Flight 007 was replaced in Anchorage with an entirely military crew, and in much greater numbers than necessary, hence the “unusually high ratio of crew to passengers”. From the various flight logs, what appears to have happened is that both aircraft were on the tarmac at Anchorage at the same time, the first aircraft, Flight 007 full of passengers and with a civilian crew. The second “sister flight”, KAL Flight 015, was almost surely an empty aircraft flown by military personnel, and most likely containing a large amount of espionage equipment. It is possible that while at the airport in Anchorage, the passengers changed aircraft, being transferred to KAL Flight 015. Either that, or the aircraft swapped the transponders which automatically identify each flight. One of the flights – and we cannot know which one – continued to Korea with its complement of passengers and civilian crew, while the second aircraft with its military crew continued on its mission of espionage toward Sakhalin Island. One aircraft departed only minutes behind the other.
Another curious fact is that the investigation of the crash was quickly taken out of the hands of the NTSB and given to the International Civil Aviation Organization, who had no expertise whatever in crash investigations, having done only one in its entire life – a political move arranged by the US for the purpose of absolving Israel of shooting down an innocent civilian aircraft. But the NTSB was ordered to halt its investigation and turn over all material – originals and copies – to the US State Department. Eighteen months later, the State Department claimed it had done no investigation because it had no expertise or facilities. The advantage of anchoring the investigation with the ICAO is that it is removed from US press freedom and the media cannot gain access to its records. Perhaps a greater advantage is that the ICAO is almost entirely a political organisation under the control of the US, and its reports typically contain only what is politically expedient to the US government and its agencies.
After the incident, there was also a major PR campaign conducted by the Americans, which was riddled with falsehoods and misinformation. The US State Department arranged for the production of a video to be aired at the United Nations, which dramatically “proved” that the Russians deliberately – and knowingly – shot down a civilian airliner and that “at no point did the pilots raise the question of the identity of the target aircraft”. However, the Americans had cleverly manipulated both the radio and radar data to display only the information that would make the Russians appear to be evil. It was revealed much later that both the Russian ground station and the Russian aircraft made repeated attempts to contact Flight 007, and it was obvious from the transcripts that the Russians genuinely believed they were firing on an American spy plane. But the PR damage had long since been done. One Soviet journalist later claimed that this US video was the biggest propaganda blow ever suffered during the Cold War, one from which the Soviets never fully recovered.
White House Deputy Special Assistant Alvin Snyder with President Richard Nixon before his resignation speech in 1974. Source
Alvin Snyder, who was the director of television for the US Information Agency, and responsible for the construction of the misleading propaganda video, finally told the story of this US misinformation campaign in 1996, thirteen years later, and of the part he played in constructing the video for the US State Department. He blames his employers for providing him with incomplete information, but admits today that “The story of Flight 007 will be remembered pretty much the way we told it in 1983, not the way it really happened.” [4] He claims that US officials involved in the coverup told him that monitoring data was intentionally withheld from the tape he made for the UN, that he was given only selective information – some of the pilots’ words and none of the comments of the ground controllers. He tells us now that “Those full conversations reveal that the Russians believed the intruder aircraft was an American RC-135 reconnaissance plane, many of which flew routine missions in the area.” And he claims further that one former State Department official told him “Although untrue and unfair, it intimidated the Russians. We gave them a beating”. It was only in 1993 that the International Civil Aviation Organization released their report on the investigation of the incident and permitted at least some of the truth to emerge. Regardless of the number of military or civilian personnel aboard Korean Airlines Flight 007, the essential truth is that yet one more time the US, in its morally-deformed arrogance, sacrificed some considerable number of lives, simply for political and military gain. Again, this wasn’t the first time, and it wasn’t the last time.
“The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control…. Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent.” — Rep. Larry McDonald. Source
Another curiosity about this event is that one of the passengers on Flight 007 was American Congressman Larry McDonald who was an outspoken critic of much of the establishment and considered by the political Right Wing to be “one of the most dangerous people in America” – at least to them. McDonald despised and denounced the “hidden government’s” Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission, and regularly exposed their One-World Government plans. In 1976 he was on record as stating, “The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining super-capitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control…. Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent.” McDonald was a surgeon who had organised a private intelligence network that apparently threatened to rival that of the CIA, had announced plans to campaign for President of the US, and was apparently a great threat to the plans of George Bush senior and of other powerful men hidden deep in the establishment. McDonald was on his way to Korea with two other Senators, Jesse Helms and Steve Symms, to jointly establish another link in his worldwide intelligence network. It would seem worthy of note that the other two men were transferred aboard Flight 007s “sister aircraft”, leaving him to go down with the ship. Washington at the time was swirling with suggestions and allegations that the powers behind the throne were happy to sacrifice McDonald if the opportunity arose.
Any reader performing even the smallest amount of research on this event, other than reading the “official story”, will have no choice but to conclude that most portions of the official story make no sense, contain physical impossibilities, and repeatedly strain credulity. Moreover, the transfer of the investigation to the ICAO is just begging for claims of a fraud and a coverup. And slowly, after many years, the truth is being revealed.
TWA Flight 800
TWA Flight 800 took off for Paris from Kennedy Airport in New York City on July 17, 1996, and crashed just 12 minutes later off the coast of Long Island, killing all 230 people on board in one of the deadliest aviation accidents in US history. The official explanation given by the NTSB was that the crash was caused by a spark that ignited a gas tank explosion, but there were serious doubts about a conspiracy and a cover-up from the very beginning. The entire investigation and aftermath of the tragedy were riddled with inconsistencies, fabrications, intimidation of witnesses and the apparent suppression of evidence. Many branches of the US government and the main US media made extensive efforts to silence both witnesses to the disaster and critics of the accident investigation. Many witnesses were threatened by government officials and many reporters lost their jobs and saw their careers in ruins when they persisted in pursuing the story.
There were so many problems with the official story that provided fuel for the cynics and skeptics, that it is difficult to know where to begin. For one, Boeing engineers uniformly testified there were no electrical contacts inside the fuel tanks and so the spark theory was a physical impossibility. For the record, and you can check this with any aircraft engineer, nobody – I repeat, nobody – would be so foolish as to design an aircraft with electrical flash points in or anywhere near a fuel tank. To do so would be suicide.
FILE – In this Nov. 19, 1997 file photo, FBI agents and New York state police guard the reconstruction of TWA Flight 800 in Calverton, N.Y. Flight 800 exploded and crashed July 17, 1996 while flying from New York to Paris, killing all 230 people aboard. Former investigators on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 called on the National Transportation Safety Board to re-examine the cause, saying new evidence points to the often-discounted theory that a missile strike may have downed the jumbo jet. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan, File. Source
For another, more than 200 witnesses claimed to have seen a missile launched from one of the US naval vessels that were carrying out secret manoevers in the area at the time, streak toward Flight 800, and explode in close proximity to the aircraft. Suspicions were further heightened when, in the ensuing investigation, those 200 witnesses were not only specifically excluded from testifying, but were forbidden to appear at the enquiry. When a public outcry forced the authorities to permit these individuals to bear witness to what they saw, they were not permitted to provide written statements but to give only oral testimony – which was not recorded – the interviewer simply making casual notes. Witnesses to an event are normally requested to write and sign a complete statement, after which they may be debriefed or interrogated further, but their written statements form part of the permanent record. But in the case of Flight 800, there were no written witness statements; the FBI agents took only verbal statements which were not recorded, then made whatever written notes they cared to make, notes which the witnesses were not permitted to see. This event was so complex that specific accusations of government malfeasance and cover-up extended to the hundreds.
From the testimony, it appears to have been a proximity detonation rather than a direct strike and explosion, that brought down the aircraft. It is a known fact that in water a proximity explosion can often produce far greater damage than a direct hit, and for this reason some torpedoes are constructed to explode prior to contact with a target. It is quite possible the US Navy was experimenting with such a device for use in the air, and used a civilian airliner in their test. From the testimony of eyewitnesses, the explosion(s) they saw were near the aircraft, but that the aircraft itself did not explode.Some have speculated that the US Navy “accidentally” fired a missile at the aircraft, but that is not possible. If it were indeed a Navy missile that brought down Flight 800, the targeting was deliberate, not accidental. Military hardware has too many safeguards for an event like this to be an accident. It isn’t as if we have a panel full of buttons, where a careless sailor pressed “missile launch” instead of “double espresso”. If it were indeed a Navy missile that brought down the aircraft, the act was deliberate, and this wouldn’t be the first time.
April Oliver
From all reports, it certainly appears that the FBI, CIA, US military and the US government eliminated all those whose testimony would contradict their official narrative. A Fox News reporter testified that the station’s General manager insisted they alter their stories or be fired. The company offered these reporters a full year’s salary and $200,000 in “consulting jobs” on condition they never discuss how Fox covered up the story. After declining, they were fired. April Oliver, a CNN reporter, claimed that CNN willingly helped to kill the story after receiving pressure from Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell and Special Forces staff. She claimed she and her co-producer “were branded journalistic felons” and were fired.
One investigator related how he obtained a small piece of the aircraft and took it to an FBI lab to test it for the presence of nitrates – proof of an ordnance explosion. The lab tested the sample and found it positive, then made a phone call. He claims that within a minute, three FBI agents appeared in the lab, confiscated his sample evidence, claimed the machine had “frequent false positives”, and physically escorted him from the premises. A CBS news reporter also obtained a small sample of the aircraft and took it for testing. The FBI immediately claimed she had false and stolen evidence, and a few weeks later she was fired. Testimony from one eyewitness: “The FBI came to talk to me. It was almost abusive. They took me into the back room. They said, “Well, we heard that you saw something. Tell us what you saw.” I told them what I saw, and they looked me straight in the face and said, “You did not see that. You saw nothing”. Testimony from another eyewitness: “They said to her, “Well, you have your papers in to become an American citizen, don’t you?” And she said, “Yes.” And they said, “Well, if you want to become an American citizen, you’d best be very quiet about this.” And she said, “And so, I kept quiet, and I never spoke about it.”
Pierre Salinger
“The missile theory was given early credence by Pierre Salinger, President John Kennedy’s former press secretary, who reported that the Navy was testing missiles off the New York coast at the time. Salinger was one of the strongest supporters of the missile theory, claiming he had seen proof that the Navy shot down the 747 and then attempted to cover it up. Salinger was widely condemned for expressing his views, the FBI, CIA and US military attacking him so viciously that he decided to abandon America as a place to live and moved to Europe.”
One of the persons interviewed in the immediate aftermath was a senior US military officer who apparently stated, “I’ve been in the military for 30 years. I know a missile when I see one.”
There is much more, but this is the gist of the story. There are three elements that are damning in this tale. One is the sheer number of people in various locations who swear they saw a missile streaking toward the aircraft and exploding prior to contact. The second is the astonishing amount of what appears to have been forcible CIA and FBI suppression of the testimony of the witnesses. Only oral statements were permitted. No witnesses were permitted to testify at the enquiry. Witnesses were threatened and told “You saw nothing.” Reporters were threatened and lost their jobs for relating witness testimony. The third is that the investigation was removed from the authority of the NTSB and turned over to law enforcement and espionage agents, this being a first in the history of the United States. If you recall, the investigation of Korean Airlines Flight 007 was also suddenly and inexplicably removed from the authority of the NTSB and turned over to the ICAO – who had never done a flight crash investigation. Something similar occurred when Russia was accused of shooting down a civilian airliner (Malaysia Airlines Flight 17) over Ukraine – the US inexplicably turned over the investigation to Holland who had little experience and no authority in the matter. In each of these cases, the result was to remove the contents of the investigation from access to the US media or FOIA requests, thereby eliminating any possibility of the facts becoming known.
And so on. None of this happens in a real investigation where authorities are searching for the truth. We will not likely learn what really occurred on that day, but those challenging the official story do not deserve the label of “conspiracy theorists”.
*
Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 32 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chap. 2 — Dealing with Demons).
His full archive can be seen at
https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ + https://www.moonofshanghai.com/
He can be contacted at:
2186604556@qq.com
*
NOTES
https://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/31/us/kal-fight-007-anniversary/index.html
[2] Korean Air Lines Flight 007 alternative theories
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007_alternative_theories
[3] KAL 007: The Russian Explanations for the Missing Bodies
https://www.conservapedia.com/KAL_007:_The_Russian_Explanations_for_the_Missing_Bodies
*
This document may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.
Der Friedensstifter 
