My former CIA colleague Larry Johnson has a real ability to clarify the significance of the constantly growing deep dark hole that Joe “Mumbles” Biden, he of failing mental capacity, has hurled the American people into. Larry wrote on December 12th that
“There is still plenty of time before Donald Trump is inaugurated for Joe Biden’s team of cretins to start World War III. I think the biggest risk is that Israel may be emboldened to attack Iran and try to destroy sites, and may be encouraged to do so by the Biden lackeys. In short, American interference, at the behest of Netanyahu’s Israel, has left the Middle East in ruins, with over a million dead and open wars raging in Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine, and with Iran on the brink of a nuclear arsenal, being pushed against its own inclinations to this eventuality. The collapse of the Assad regime has prompted a punishing military response from Israel, which has launched airstrikes at military targets across Syria and deployed ground troops both into and beyond a demilitarized buffer zone for the first time in 50 years.”
Given the destruction and partitioning of Syria, it has become impossible to consider United States foreign policy without some acceptance that it is driven and, in a sense, directed by Israel and Israel’s formidable domestic lobby in the US. “The Lobby,” as it is commonly referred to, controls both Congress and the White House on key issues and manages the media narrative in such a fashion as to make Israel the permanent victim, never the aggressor. Even though Israel is now marching in triumph across what remains of Syria and has indicated that it will be sticking around as an occupier, the move is being described as “temporary” and “defensive” by White House spokesmen. The Lobby’s success rests on the corruption that lots of money can buy, obvious to nearly everyone in politics, but a forbidden topic, sometimes referred to as an antisemitic “trope,” i.e. “Jews and money.” Israel’s role in managing the Joe Bidens and Donald Trumps is largely exercised in the broader Middle East but it also includes passionately supporting Volodymyr Zelensky’s Ukraine, a process derived in part from Jewish mythologizing and obtaining revenge for the alleged “pogroms” carried out in imperial Russia. Subsequent Jewish dominance of the Soviet intelligence and security services, which saw the killing of millions of Christians in Russia, Ukraine and Eastern Europe, are carefully excluded from the narrative.
In the latest bit of “mowing the grass” by the Israeli military, the country’s new Defense Minister Israel Katz told the press that the Israel Air Force (IAF) had carried out more than 480 strikes across Syria during the two days after the initial invasion, deliberately destroying most of Syria’s strategic weapon stockpiles. Meanwhile, the Israeli navy totally destroyed the Syrian fleet based at Latakia overnight. Katz hailed the operation as “a great success.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, on the day before, had called the rapid defeat of the Bashar al-Assad’s regime as “a new and dramatic chapter… The collapse of the Syrian regime is a direct result of the severe blows with which we have struck Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran… we are changing the face of the Middle East.”
When informed of the initial invasion of al-Assad’s Syria by Israeli, Turkish, insurgent and US forces, Donald Trump said that the conflict was none of our business and it would be best to keep out of it. Hopefully that will be the policy after January 20th inauguration, but one recalls that Trump’s record of pandering to Israel is almost as bad as Biden’s, and he was the one who decided (admittedly under pressure from the Pentagon) to continue in 2017 the military occupation of a third of Syria that included its oil resources and its best agricultural land. Add in the crippling US and European sanctions on Damascus and one might argue that since that time Syrians have been poor and starving, causing refugee flows and hostility towards al-Assad government that contributed to the success of the recent uprising.
To be sure, many Syrians are celebrating the fall of an admittedly repressive, authoritarian, and corrupt Bashar al-Assad government. But other Syrians, particularly from hitherto protected minority groups like Christians, Alawites and Shiites, are now living in fear of or fleeing from the violent sectarian insurgents that have taken the place of President al-Assad. Christian Churches have already been looted and desecrated and warned not to hold Christmas services, not to sponsor Christmas parades, and not to display the image of St. Nicholas.
To be sure, fearing what is to come is legitimate as the “rebel” leader of the al-Qaeda derived Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) Terror group, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, who now goes by his given name Ahmed al-Shara, is a founder of al-Qaeda in Syria, al-Nusra, and a former deputy to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The US State Department has listed him as a terrorist as well as HTS as a terrorist group, and has placed a $10 million bounty on al-Jolani’s head, which presumably will soon be removed by Joe Biden. There is plenty of blood on al-Jolani’s hands and little in the way of evidence that he will not opt to slaughter those who he sees as his enemies, much of the killing being guided by the extreme religious groups that make up his followers. Indeed, there are already reports of group killings, including numerous soldiers in the Syrian Arab Army who surrendered rather than fight the insurgents.
Al-Jolani now claims that his extremism was just a “phase” and he has several times confirmed that he wants good relations with Israel, clearly a condition imposed by the US to allow him to remain in power. He has even suggested that Israeli air support enabled his warriors to move quickly from their bases in the north to Damascus. But al-Jolani has never actually apologized for or disowned the atrocities committed on his watch in 2011-3 when he was actively killing fellow Syrians. This includes August 2013 massacres in some of the Alawite areas of Latakia, which included “the systematic killing of entire families,” an international investigation later determined. One observer also reported that the insurgents were devoted to “sectarian mass murder” This is the legacy of the new “inclusive” government in Syria. According to one other ominous report, it appears that Sharia law has already been announced by the newly installed justice minister, Shadi Alwaisi.
So, what is in it for the United States? Nothing but a curt thank you from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who clearly connived with Joe Biden’s Special Envoy Amos Hochstein, an Israeli by birth, to set the ball rolling towards Syria through adroit use of an attack on southern Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah followed by a phony ceasefire in Lebanon that gave Netanyahu a free hand and empowered Israel to invade and overthrow its neighbor Syria, parts of which will undoubtedly be annexed to help create Eretz or “Greater” Israel. It was and is all part of a plan by the US and Israel to reshape the Middle East to benefit the Jewish state and you can bet that Iran is the next target. And a delusional Joe Biden took credit for it all in his usual haphazard way, claiming after the regime change that Assad’s “main allies” — Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia — “are far weaker today than they were when I took office.” Their inability to save Assad was “a direct result of the blows that Ukraine, Israel have delivered upon their own self-defense, with unflagging support of the United States.”
Sure Joe, what bullshit. At the end of the day, to bring down Syria the US spent billions of dollars arming an insurgency that they knew was dominated by al-Qaeda in a government replacement scheme that benefited only Israel and Turkey and which targeted a country that in no way threatened the United States. It sure makes sense to me and I hope you will be comforted by it when you are hauled off to prison after you leave office and are prosecuted for exceeding your constitutional authority by involving the United States in two unnecessary wars. Some might call it treason!
*
Click the share button below 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.
This article was originally published on The Unz Review.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: NICE SUNSET by NEMØ, Politicalcartoons.com
The original source of this article is Global Research
This interview serves as a reminder regarding the diabolical timeline of America’s hegemonic project. Is Iran the next target “to be taken out”?
All these countries including Lebanon and Iran are on the Pentagon’s drawing board. These seven countries have directly or indirectly been the object of US aggression.
America’s hegemonic military agenda has reached a dangerous threshold: The assassination of IRG General Soleimani ordered by Donald Trump in early January was tantamount to an Act of War against Iran.
The Beirut explosion of August 4th. Is this tragic event part of a Middle East War Timeline?
Washington’s stated objective (according to General Wesley Clark) is to take Lebanon and Iran, with the support of Israel.
And Israel’s diabolical objective is “To Take Out” Palestine, with the support of the US, as part of “The Greater Israel Project”.
Michel Chossudovsky, January 4, 2019, August 24, 2024
.
***
General Wesley Clark. Retired 4-star U.S. Army general, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the 1999 War on Yugoslavia .
Complete Transcript of Program, Democracy Now.
Today we spend the hour with General Wesley Clark, the retired four-star general. He was the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the Kosovo War. In 2004 he unsuccessfully ran for the Democratic presidential nomination. He recently edited a series of books about famous U.S. generals including Dwight Eisenhower and Ulysses Grant – both of whom became president after their military careers ended.
Well for the rest of the hour we are going to hear General Wesley Clark on the possibility of a U.S. attack on Iran, the impeachment of President Bush, the use of cluster bombs, the bombing of Radio Television Serbia during the Kosovo War and much more. I interviewed Wesley Clark on Tuesday at the 92nd Street Y in New York.
Short version of video interview:
Gen. Wesley Clark. Retired 4-star US Army general. Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the Kosovo War.
AMY GOODMAN: Today, an exclusive hour with General Wesley Clark, the retired four-star general. He was Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the Kosovo War. He has been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. In 2004, he unsuccessfully ran for the Democratic presidential nomination. He recently edited a series of books about famous US generals, including Dwight Eisenhower and Ulysses Grant, both of whom became president after their military careers ended.
On Tuesday, I interviewed Wesley Clark at the 92nd Street Y Cultural Center here in New York City before a live audience and asked him about his presidential ambitions.
AMY GOODMAN: What do you think of these generals who run for president?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: I like them. It’s happened before.
AMY GOODMAN: Will it happen again?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: It might.
AMY GOODMAN: Later in the interview, I followed up on that question.
AMY GOODMAN: Will you announce for president?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I haven’t said I won’t.
AMY GOODMAN: What are you waiting for?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: I’m waiting for several different preconditions, which I’m not at liberty to discuss. But I will tell you this: I think about it every single day.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, for the rest of the hour, we’ll hear General Wesley Clark in his own words on the possibility of a US attack on Iran; the impeachment of President Bush; the use of cluster bombs; the bombing of Radio Television Serbia during the Kosovo War under his command; and much more. I interviewed General Clark on Tuesday at the 92nd Street Y in New York.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, let’s talk about Iran. You have a whole website devoted to stopping war.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you see a replay in what happened in the lead-up to the war with Iraq — the allegations of the weapons of mass destruction, the media leaping onto the bandwagon?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, in a way. But, you know, history doesn’t repeat itself exactly twice. What I did warn about when I testified in front of Congress in 2002, I said if you want to worry about a state, it shouldn’t be Iraq, it should be Iran. But this government, our administration, wanted to worry about Iraq, not Iran.
I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”
So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”
AMY GOODMAN: I’m sorry. What did you say his name was?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: I’m not going to give you his name.
AMY GOODMAN: So, go through the countries again.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, starting with Iraq, then Syria and Lebanon, then Libya, then Somalia and Sudan, and back to Iran. So when you look at Iran, you say, “Is it a replay?” It’s not exactly a replay. But here’s the truth: that Iran, from the beginning, has seen that the presence of the United States in Iraq was a threat — a blessing, because we took out Saddam Hussein and the Baathists. They couldn’t handle them. We took care of it for them. But also a threat, because they knew that they were next on the hit list. And so, of course, they got engaged. They lost a million people during the war with Iraq, and they’ve got a long and unprotectable, unsecurable border. So it was in their vital interest to be deeply involved inside Iraq. They tolerated our attacks on the Baathists. They were happy we captured Saddam Hussein.
But they’re building up their own network of influence, and to cement it, they occasionally give some military assistance and training and advice, either directly or indirectly, to both the insurgents and to the militias. And in that sense, it’s not exactly parallel, because there has been, I believe, continuous Iranian engagement, some of it legitimate, some of it illegitimate. I mean, you can hardly fault Iran because they’re offering to do eye operations for Iraqis who need medical attention. That’s not an offense that you can go to war over, perhaps. But it is an effort to gain influence.
And the administration has stubbornly refused to talk with Iran about their perception, in part because they don’t want to pay the price with their domestic — our US domestic political base, the rightwing base, but also because they don’t want to legitimate a government that they’ve been trying to overthrow. If you were Iran, you’d probably believe that you were mostly already at war with the United States anyway, since we’ve asserted that their government needs regime change, and we’ve asked congress to appropriate $75 million to do it, and we are supporting terrorist groups, apparently, who are infiltrating and blowing up things inside Iraq — Iran. And if we’re not doing it, let’s put it this way: we’re probably cognizant of it and encouraging it. So it’s not surprising that we’re moving to a point of confrontation and crisis with Iran.
My point on this is not that the Iranians are good guys — they’re not — but that you shouldn’t use force, except as a last, last, last resort. There is a military option, but it’s a bad one.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to get your response to Seymour Hersh’s piece in The New Yorker to two key points this week, reporting the Pentagon’s established a special planning group within the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to plan a bombing attack on Iran, that this is coming as the Bush administration and Saudi Arabia are pumping money for covert operations into many areas of the Middle East, including Lebanon, Syria, and Iran, in an effort to strengthen Saudi-supported Sunni Islam groups and weaken Iranian-backed Shias — some of the covert money has been given to jihadist groups in Lebanon with ties to al-Qaeda — fighting the Shias by funding with Prince Bandar and then with US money not approved by Congress, funding the Sunnis connected to al-Qaeda.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I don’t have any direct information to confirm it or deny it. It’s certainly plausible. The Saudis have taken a more active role. You know, the Saudis have —
AMY GOODMAN: You were just in Saudi Arabia.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Hmm?
AMY GOODMAN: You just came back from Saudi Arabia.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Yeah. Well, the Saudis have basically recognized that they have an enormous stake in the outcome in Iraq, and they don’t particularly trust the judgment of the United States in this area. We haven’t exactly proved our competence in Iraq. So they’re trying to take matters into their own hands.
The real danger is, and one of the reasons this is so complicated is because — let’s say we did follow the desires of some people who say, “Just pull out, and pull out now.” Well, yeah. We could mechanically do that. It would be ugly, and it might take three or four months, but you could line up the battalions on the road one by one, and you could put the gunners in the Humvees and load and cock their weapons and shoot their way out of Iraq. You’d have a few roadside bombs. But if you line everybody up there won’t be any roadside bombs. Maybe some sniping. You can fly helicopters over, do your air cover. You’d probably get safely out of there. But when you leave, the Saudis have got to find someone to fight the Shias. Who are they going to find? Al-Qaeda, because the groups of Sunnis who would be extremists and willing to fight would probably be the groups connected to al-Qaeda. So one of the weird inconsistencies in this is that were we to get out early, we’d be intensifying the threat against us of a super powerful Sunni extremist group, which was now legitimated by overt Saudi funding in an effort to hang onto a toehold inside Iraq and block Iranian expansionism.
AMY GOODMAN: And interestingly, today, John Negroponte has just become the number two man, resigning his post as National Intelligence Director to go to the State Department, Seymour Hersh says, because of his discomfort that the administration’s covert actions in the Middle East so closely echo the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s, and Negroponte was involved with that.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I’m sure there are a lot of reasons why John would go back to the State Department. John’s a good — he’s a good man. But, you know, the question is, in government is, can you — are you bigger than your job? Because if you’re not bigger than your job, you get trapped by the pressures of events and processes into going along with actions that you know you shouldn’t. And I don’t know. I don’t know why he left the National Intelligence Director’s position. He started in the State Department. Maybe he’s got a fondness to return and finish off his career in State.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about — do you know who the generals are, who are threatening to resign if the United States attacks Iran?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: No, I don’t. No, I don’t. And I don’t want to know.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you agree with them?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I’ll put it this way. On Labor Day weekend of 1994, when I was the J5 — I was a three-star general. I was in the Pentagon. And it was a Saturday morning, and so I was in the office. Walt Kross was the director of the Joint Staff, and he was in the office. And I think it was either Howell Estes or Jack Sheehan who was the J3 at the time. The three of us — I think it was Jack still on the job for the last couple of days. And the three of us were in Shalikashvili’s office about 11:00 in the morning on a Saturday morning, and he had just come back from a White House meeting. And he was all fired up in the way that Shali could be. And he said, “So,” he said, “we will see who will be the real soldiers this weekend! There’s much work to be done! This operation on Haiti has to be completed! The planning must be done correctly, and it must be done this weekend! So we will see who are the real soldiers!”
Then the phone buzzed, and he got up from this little round table the four of us were sitting at to take the call from the White House. We started looking at each other. We said, “Gosh, I wonder where this came from.” I mean, we were all getting ready to check out of the building in an hour or so. We had finished off the messages and paperwork. And we just usually got together because there was normally a crisis every Saturday anyway, and so we normally would come in for the Saturday morning crisis. And so, Shali came back, and so I said to him, I said, “Well, sir, we’ve been talking amongst ourselves, and we’re happy to work all weekend to get all this done, but this is just a drill, right, on Haiti?”
He looked at me, and he said, “Wes,” he said, “this is no drill.” He said, “I’m not authorized to tell you this. But,” he said “the decision has been made, and the United States will invade Haiti. The date is the 20th” — I think it was this date — “of the 20th of September. And the planning must be done, and it must be done now. And if any of you have reservations about this, this is the time to leave.” So I looked at Jack, and I looked at Walt. They looked at me. I mean, we kind of shrugged our shoulders and said, “OK, if you want to invade Haiti, I mean, it’s not illegal. It’s not the country we’d most like to invade. The opposition there consists of five armored vehicles. But sure, I mean, if the President says to do it, yeah, we’re not going resign over it.” And so, we didn’t resign. Nobody resigned.
But Shali was a very smart man. He knew. He knew he was bigger than his job, and he knew that you had to ask yourself the moral, legal and ethical questions first. And so, I’m encouraged by the fact that some of these generals have said this about Iran. They should be asking these questions first.
AMY GOODMAN: General Wesley Clark. He says he thinks about running for president again every day. We’ll come back to my interview with him in a minute.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: We go back to my interview with General Wesley Clark.
AMY GOODMAN: What about the soldiers who are saying no to going to Iraq right now?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Iraq?
AMY GOODMAN: To going to Iraq. People like First Lieutenant Ehren Watada, first commissioned officer to say no to deploy. And they just declared a mistrial in his court-martial. He will face another court-martial in a few weeks. What do you think of these young men and women — there are now thousands — who are refusing? But, for example, Ehren Watada, who says he feels it’s wrong. He feels it’s illegal and immoral, and he doesn’t want to lead men and women there.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think, you know, he’s certainly made a personally courageous statement. And he’ll pay with the consequences of it.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think he should have to go to jail for that?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think that you have to have an effective armed forces. And I think that it’s not up to the men and women in the Armed Forces to choose where they’ll go to war, because at the very time you need the Armed Forces the most is — there will be a certain number of people who will see it the other way. And so, I support his right to refuse to go, and I support the government’s effort to bring charges against him. This is the way the system works.
Now, the difference is, the case that I described with Shalikashvili is, we would have been given the chance to retire. We would have left our jobs. We might not have retired as three-star generals, because we hadn’t done our duty. But we weren’t in the same circumstance that he is, so there wasn’t necessarily going to be charges brought against us.
But an armed forces has to have discipline. It’s a voluntary organization to join. But it’s not voluntary unless it’s illegal. And you can bring — the trouble with Iraq is it’s not illegal. It was authorized by the United States Congress. It was authorized by the United Nations Security Council resolution. It’s an illegitimate war, but not an illegal war.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think it’s wrong?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: It’s wrong to fight in Iraq? Well, I think it’s a mistake. I think it’s a bad strategy. I think it’s brought us a lot of grief, and it will bring us a lot more grief. I think it’s been a tremendous distraction from the war on terror, a diversion of resources, and it’s reinforced our enemies. But on the other hand, his case is a moral case, not a legal case. And if you’re going to be a conscientious objector morally like this, then what makes it commendable is that you’ll take your stand on principle and pay the price. If there’s no price to be paid for it, then the courage of your act isn’t self-evident. So he’s taken a very personally courageous stand. But on the other hand, you have to also appreciate the fact that the Armed Forces has to be able to function.
So, you know, in World War I in France, there were a series of terribly misplaced offensives, and they brought — they failed again and again and again. The French took incredible losses. And these were conscript armies. And after one of these failures, a group of thousands of soldiers simply said, “We’re not doing this again. It’s wrong.” You know what the French did? They did what they call decimation. They lined up the troops. They took every tenth soldier, and they shot them. Now, the general who ordered that, he suffered some severe repercussions, personally, morally, but after that the soldiers in France didn’t disobey. Had the army disintegrated at that point, Germany would have occupied France. So when you’re dealing with the use of force, there is an element of compulsion in the Armed Forces.
AMY GOODMAN: But if the politicians will not stop it — as you pointed out, the Democrats joined with the Republicans in authorizing the war — then it’s quite significant, I think, that you, as a general, are saying that this man has taken a courageous act. Then it’s up to the people who are being sent to go to say no.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Yeah. But the courage that we need is not his courage. We need the courage of the leaders in the United States government: the generals who could affect the policy, the people in Congress who could force the President to change his strategy. That’s the current — that’s the courage that’s needed.
AMY GOODMAN: And how could they do that?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, you start with a non-binding resolution in the United States Congress, and you build your momentum from there. And you keep hammering it. The Congress has three principal powers. It has the power to appoint, power to investigate, power to fund. And you go after all three. On all three fronts, you find out what the President needs, until he takes it seriously. I think it’s a difficult maneuver to use a scalpel and say, “Well, we’re going to support funding, but we’re not going to support funding for the surge,” because that’s requiring a degree of micro-management that Congress can’t do.
But you can certainly put enough squeeze on the President that he finally calls in the leaders of the Congress and says, “OK, OK, what’s it going to take? I’ve got to get my White House budget passed. I’ve got to get thirty judges, federal judges, confirmed. I’ve got to get these federal prosecutors — you know, the ones that I caused to resign so I could handle it — they’ve got to get replacements in place. What do I have to do to get some support here?” I mean, it could be done. It’s hard bare-knuckle government.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think Congress should stop funding the war?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: I think Congress should take a strong stand to get the strategy changed. I don’t think that if you cut off funding for the war, it’s in the — right now that’s not in the United States’ interest. What is in the United States’ interest is to change the strategy in the war. You cannot succeed by simply stopping the funding and saying, “You’ve got six months to get the Americans out.” That’s not going to end the misery in Iraq. It’s not going to restore the lives that have been lost. And it’s not going to give us the power in the region to prevent later threats.
What we do have to do is have a strategy that uses all the elements of America’s power: diplomatic, economic, legal and military. I would send a high-level diplomatic team into the region right now. I’d have no-holds-barred and no-preconditioned discussion with Iran and Syria. And I would let it be known that I’ve got in my bag all the tricks, including putting another 50,000 troops in Iraq and pulling all 150,000 troops out. And we’re going to reach an agreement on a statement of principles that brings stability and peace and order to the region. So let’s just sit down and start doing it. Now, that could be done with the right administrative leadership. It just hasn’t been done.
You know, think of it this way. You’re on a ship crossing the Atlantic. It’s a new ship. And it’s at night. And you’re looking out ahead of the ship, and you notice that there’s a part of the horizon. It’s a beautiful, starry night, except that there’s a part of the horizon, a sort of a regular hump out there where there are no stars visible. And you notice, as the ship plows through the water at thirty knots, that this area where there are no stars is getting larger. And finally, it hits you that there must be something out there that’s blocking the starlight, like an iceberg. So you run to the captain. And you say, “Captain, captain, there’s an iceberg, and we’re driving right toward it.” And he says, “Look, I can’t be bothered with the iceberg right now. We’re having an argument about the number of deck chairs on the fore deck versus the aft deck.” And you say, “But you’re going to hit an iceberg.” He says, “I’m sorry. Get out of here.” So you go to the first officer, and he says, “I’m fighting with the captain on the number of deck chairs.”
You know, we’re approaching an iceberg in the Middle East in our policy, and we’ve got Congress and the United States — and the President of the United States fighting over troop strength in Iraq. It’s the wrong issue. The issue is the strategy, not the troop strength.
AMY GOODMAN: General Clark, do you think Guantanamo Bay should be closed?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely.
AMY GOODMAN: If Congress cut off funds for the prison there, it would be closed. Should they?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think the first thing Congress should do is repeal the Military Commissions Act. I’m very disturbed that a number of people who are looking at the highest office in the land have supported an act which advertently or inadvertently authorizes the admission into evidence of information gained through torture. That’s not the America that I believe in. And the America that I believe in doesn’t detain people indefinitely without charges. So I’d start with the Military Commissions Act.
Then I’d get our NATO allies into the act. They’ve said they don’t like Guantanamo either. So I’d like to create an international tribunal, not a kangaroo court of military commissions. And let’s go back through the evidence. And let’s lay it out. Who are these people that have been held down there? And what have they been held for? And which ones can be released? And which ones should be tried in court and convicted?
You see, essentially, you cannot win the war on terror by military force. It is first and foremost a battle of ideas. It is secondly a law enforcement effort and a cooperative effort among nations. And only as a last resort do you use military force. This president has distorted the capabilities of the United States Armed Forces. He’s used our men and women in uniform improperly in Guantanamo and engaged in actions that I think are totally against the Uniform Code of Military Justice and against what we stand for as the American people.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think that President Bush should be impeached?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think we ought to do first thing’s first, which is, we really need to understand and finish the job that Congress started with respect to the Iraq war investigation. Do you remember that there was going to be a study released by the Senate, that the senator from Iowa or from Kansas who was the Republican head of the Senate Intelligence Committee was going to do this study to determine whether the administration had, in fact, misused the intelligence information to mislead us into the war with Iraq? Well, I’ve never seen that study. I’d like to know where that study is. I’d like to know why we’ve spent three years investigating Scooter Libby, when we should have been investigating why this country went to war in Iraq.
AMY GOODMAN: The Center for Constitutional Rights has filed a complaint against Donald Rumsfeld, General Miller and others in a German court, because they have universal jurisdiction. Do you think that Donald Rumsfeld should be tried for war crimes?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I’d like to see what the evidence is against Rumsfeld. I do know this, that there was a lot of pressure put on the men and women in uniform to come up with intelligence. I remember — I think it was either General Sanchez or General Abizaid, who stated that we don’t need more troops — this is the fall of 2003 — we just need better information. Well, to me, that was immediate code words that we were really trying to soak these people for information.
And it’s only a short step from there to all the kinds of mistreatment that occur at places like Abu Ghraib. So we know that Al Gonzales wrote a couple of really — or authored, or his people authored and he approved, a couple of outrageous memos that attempted to define torture as deliberately inflicted pain, the equivalent of the loss of a major bodily organ or limb, which is — it’s not an adequate definition of torture. And we know that he authorized, to some degree, some coercive methods, which we have — and we know President Bush himself accepted implicitly in a signing statement to a 2005 act on military detainees that he would use whatever methods were appropriate or necessary. So there’s been some official condoning of these actions.
I think it’s a violation of international law and a violation of American law and a violation of the principles of good government in America. There have always been evidences of mistreatment of prisoners. Every army has probably done it in history. But our country hasn’t ever done it as a matter of deliberate policy. George Washington told his soldiers, when they captured the Hessians and the men wanted to run them through, because the Hessians were brutal and ruthless, he said, “No, treat them well.” He said, “They’ll join our side.” And many of them did. It was a smart policy, not only the right thing to do, but a smart policy to treat the enemy well. We’ve made countless enemies in that part of the world by the way we’ve treated people and disregarded them. It’s bad, bad policy.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask — you’re a FOX News contributor now?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Oh, at least.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you what you think of the dean of West Point, Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, together with a military interrogator named Tony Lagouranis and the group Human Rights First, going to the heads of the program 24, very popular hit show on FOX, to tell them that what they’re doing on this program, glorifying torture, is inspiring young men and women to go to Iraq and torture soldiers there, and to stop it?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: And not only that, but it doesn’t work. Yeah, Pat Finnegan is one of my heroes.
AMY GOODMAN: So what do you think about that?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: I think it’s great.
AMY GOODMAN: And have you been involved in the conversation internally at FOX, which runs 24, to stop it?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, as far as I know, they actually put out a call to all the writers in Hollywood. My son’s a writer, and he was one of them who got a call. They were all told: stop talking about torture. It doesn’t work. So I think it was an effective move by Pat Finnegan.
AMY GOODMAN: So you support it?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely.
AMY GOODMAN: General Wesley Clark. I’m interviewing him at the 92nd Street Y. We’re going to come back to the conclusion of that interview in a minute.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: General Wesley Clark recently edited a series of books about famous US generals: Grant, LeMay, Patton and Eisenhower. When I interviewed him at the 92nd Street Y, I asked him a question about the presidency of General Dwight Eisenhower
AMY GOODMAN: 1953 was also a seminal date for today, and that was when Kermit Roosevelt, the grandson of Teddy Roosevelt, went to Iran and led a coup against Mohammed Mossadegh under Eisenhower.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: People make mistakes. And one of the mistakes that the United States consistently made was that it could intervene and somehow adjust people’s governments, especially in the Middle East. I don’t know why we felt that — you can understand Latin America, because Latin America was always an area in which people would come to the United States, say, “You’ve got to help us down there. These are banditos, and they don’t know anything. And, you know, they don’t have a government. Just intervene and save our property.” And the United States did it a lot in the ’20s. Of course, Eisenhower was part of that culture. He had seen it.
But in the Middle East, we had never been there. We established a relationship during World War II, of course, to keep the Germans out of Iran. And so, the Soviets and the Brits put an Allied mission together. At the end of World War II, the Soviets didn’t want to withdraw, and Truman called their bluff in the United Nations. And Eisenhower knew all of this. And Iran somehow became incorporated into the American defense perimeter. And so, his view would have been, we couldn’t allow a communist to take over.
AMY GOODMAN: But wasn’t it more about British Petroleum?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Oh, it’s always — there are always interests. The truth is, about the Middle East is, had there been no oil there, it would be like Africa. Nobody is threatening to intervene in Africa. The problem is the opposite. We keep asking for people to intervene and stop it. There’s no question that the presence of petroleum throughout the region has sparked great power involvement. Whether that was the specific motivation for the coup or not, I can’t tell you. But there was definitely — there’s always been this attitude that somehow we could intervene and use force in the region. I mean, that was true with — I mean, imagine us arming and creating the Mujahideen to keep the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Why would we think we could do that? But we did. And, you know, my lesson on it is, whenever you use force, there are unintended consequences, so you should use force as a last resort. Whether it’s overt or covert, you pay enormous consequences for using force.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you about what you think of the response to Jimmy Carter’s book, Peace, Not Apartheid.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I’m sorry to say I haven’t read the book. And it’s one of the things I’ve been meaning to read, and I just haven’t. I will tell you this, that we’re in a very, very difficult position in Israel. I say “we,” because every American president has committed to the protection and survival of the state of Israel. And I think that’s right. And I certainly feel that way, and I’m a very strong supporter of Israel.
But somehow we’ve got to move off top dead center in terms of these discussions with the Palestinians. And this administration has failed to lead. They came into office basically determined not to do anything that Bill Clinton did. I think that was the basic guideline. And so, they have allowed unremitting violence between Israel and the Palestinians with hardly an effort to stop that through US leadership. And now, it’s almost too late. So Condi was over there the other day, and she didn’t achieve what she wanted to achieve, and people want to blame the Saudis. But at least the Saudis tried to do something at Mecca by putting together a unity government. So I fault the administration.
Jimmy Carter has taken a lot of heat from people. I don’t know exactly what he said in the book. But people are very sensitive about Israel in this country. And I understand that. A lot of my friends have explained it to me and have explained to me the psychology of people who were in this country and saw what was happening in World War II, and maybe they didn’t feel like they spoke out strongly enough, soon enough, to stop it. And it’s not going to happen again.
AMY GOODMAN: General Clark, I wanted to ask you a tough question about journalists.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, now, that would be the first tough question you’ve asked me tonight.
AMY GOODMAN: There are more than a hundred journalists and media workers in Iraq who have died. And particularly hard hit are Arab journalists. I mean, you had Tariq Ayoub, the Al Jazeera reporter, who died on the roof of Al Jazeera when the US military shelled Al Jazeera, then went on to shell the Palestine Hotel and killed two reporters, a Reuters cameraman and one from Telecinco in Spain named Jose Couso. Many Arab journalists feel like they have been targeted, the idea of shooting the messenger. But this tough question goes back to your being Supreme Allied Commander in Yugoslavia and the bombing of Radio Television Serbia. Do you regret that that happened, that you did that?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: No, I don’t regret that at all. That was part of the Serb command and control network. And not only that, I was asked to take out that television by a lot of important political leaders. And before I took it out, I twice warned the Serbs we were going to take it out. We stopped, at one news conference in the Pentagon, we planted the question to get the attention of the Serbs, that we were going to target Serb Radio and Television.
AMY GOODMAN: RTS.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Yeah. And that night, in fact, Milosevic got the warning, because he summoned all the foreign journalists to come to a special mandatory party at RTS that night. But we weren’t bombing that night. We put the word out twice before we actually I did it.
AMY GOODMAN: You told CNN, which was also there, to leave?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: I told — I used — I think I used CNN to plant the story and to leak it at the Pentagon press conference. But we didn’t tell anyone specifically to leave. What we told them was it’s now a target. And it was Milosevic who determined that he would keep people there in the middle of the night just so there would be someone killed if we struck it. So we struck it during the hours where there were not supposed to be anybody there.
AMY GOODMAN: But you killed civilians.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Six people died.
AMY GOODMAN: I think sixteen. But I think it’s the media — it’s the beauticians, the technicians. It was a civilian target.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Yeah, they were ordered to stay there by Milosevic. Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: But it was a civilian target.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: It was not a civilian target. It was a military target. It was part of the Serb command and control network
AMY GOODMAN: What do you think of Amnesty International calling it a war crime?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think it was investigated by the International Criminal Tribunal in Yugoslavia and found to be a legitimate target. So I think it’s perfectly alright for Amnesty International to have their say, but everything we did was approved by lawyers, and every target was blessed. We would not have committed a war crime.
AMY GOODMAN: Upon reflection now and knowing who died there, the young people, the people who worked for RTS, who — as you said, if Milosevic wanted people to stay there, they were just following orders.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, it was a tragedy. But I’ll tell you something. If you want to talk about tragedies, how about this one? We bombed what we thought was a Serb police station in Kosovo. We saw the Serb vehicles. We flew unmanned aerial vehicles over it. And we did everything we could to identify it. And we found that there were Serb police vehicles parked there at night, so we sent an F-16 in, dropped two 500-pound laser-guided bombs and took it out. We killed eighty Albanians who had been imprisoned by the Serbs there. They were trying to escape, and the Serbs locked them up in this farmhouse and surrounded them with vehicles. So, I regret every single innocent person who died, and I prayed every night that there wouldn’t be any innocent people who died. But this is why I say you must use force only as a last resort.
I told this story to the high school kids earlier, but it bears repeating, I guess. We had a malfunction with a cluster bomb unit, and a couple of grenades fell on a schoolyard, and some, I think three, schoolchildren were killed in Nish. And two weeks later, I got a letter from a Serb grandfather. He said, “You’ve killed my granddaughter.” He said, “I hate you for this, and I’ll kill you.” And I got this in the middle of the war. And it made me very, very sad. We certainly never wanted to do anything like that. But in war, accidents happen. And that’s why you shouldn’t undertake military operations unless every other alternative has been exhausted, because innocent people do die. And I think the United States military was as humane and careful as it possibly could have been in the Kosovo campaign. But still, civilians died. And I’ll always regret that.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think cluster bombs should be banned?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: You know, we used, I think 1,400-plus cluster bombs. And there’s a time when you have to use cluster bombs: when they’re the most appropriate and humane weapon. But I think you have to control the use very carefully. And I think we did in Yugoslavia.
AMY GOODMAN: Right now, the US has rejected an international call to ban the use of cluster bombs. On Friday, forty-six countries were in Oslo to develop a new international treaty to ban the use of cluster munitions by — I think it’s 2008. Would you support that?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, you know, people who are against war often make the case by trying to attack the weapons of war and stripping away the legitimacy of those weapons. I’ve participated in some of that. I’d like to get rid of landmines. I did participate in getting rid of laser blinding weapons. And I was part of the team that put together the agreement that got rid of laser blinding weapons. I’d like to get rid of nuclear weapons. But I can’t agree with those who say that force has no place in international affairs. It simply does for this country. And I would like to work to make it so that it doesn’t. But the truth is, for now it does. And so, I can’t go against giving our men and women in uniform the appropriate weapons they need to fight, to fight effectively to succeed on the battlefield, and to minimize their own casualties.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’ll have to leave it there. I thank you very much, General Wesley Clark.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: General Wesley Clark. I interviewed him at the 92nd Street Y, the cultural center here in New York, on the publication of the Great General Series, on Grant, LeMay, Patton and Eisenhower.
The original source of this article is Democracy Now
Trump fordert, dass Panama die Transitgebühren für amerikanische Schiffe senkt oder den Panamakanal zurückgibt. Solche Aussagen machte Trump in seinem eigenen sozialen Netzwerk Truth Social.
„Die Gebühren, die Panama erhebt, sind ein Hohn, insbesondere angesichts der extremen Großzügigkeit, die die USA gegenüber Panama gezeigt haben. Diese „Abzocke“ unseres Landes wird sofort aufhören“, schrieb Trump.
Die USA sind der größte Kunde des Kanals und auf sie entfallen drei Viertel der Fracht, die jedes Jahr durch den Kanal transportiert wird. Allerdings hat die anhaltende Dürre die Fähigkeit des Kanals, Schiffe zwischen dem Atlantik und dem Pazifik zu bewegen, eingeschränkt.
Lael Brainard, Direktorin des US National Economic Council, sagte letzte Woche, dass die daraus resultierenden Störungen Druck auf die Lieferketten ausgeübt hätten, was wiederum die Inflation in die Höhe getrieben habe.
Die Panamakanalbehörde teilte am Freitag mit, dass der Kanal im Haushaltsjahr 2024 2,47 Milliarden US-Dollar in den Haushalt Panamas einbrachte, was den zweiten jährlichen Umsatzrückgang in Folge darstellt.
Die USA stellten den 82 Kilometer langen Kanal über die zentralamerikanische Landenge 1914 fertig, gaben ihn jedoch 1999 im Rahmen eines 1977 vom ehemaligen Präsidenten Jimmy Carter unterzeichneten Vertrags an Panama zurück – ein Schritt, den Trump als „dumm“ bezeichnete.
Trump deutete an, dass der Sender Gefahr laufe, in „die falschen Hände“ zu geraten. Insbesondere China ist der zweitgrößte Kunde des Senders. Das in Hongkong ansässige chinesische Unternehmen kontrolliert zwei der fünf an den Kanal angrenzenden Häfen, einen auf jeder Seite.
„Dies geschah nicht zum Wohle anderer, sondern nur als Zeichen der Zusammenarbeit zwischen uns und Panama. Wenn die moralischen und rechtlichen Grundsätze dieser großzügigen Schenkungsgeste nicht respektiert werden, werden wir die vollständige und bedingungslose Rückgabe des Panamakanals an uns fordern. Bitte berücksichtigen Sie dies, panamaische Beamte!“ fügte Trump hinzu.
Bevor Nancy FAESER Messer zur Selbstverteidigung verbietet! Das Nordic T12 wurde für so fast alles gebaut, was mit Überleben, Abenteuer, Jagd und dem Leben in der Wildnis zu tun hat. Die kräftige 4 Millimeter starke, modifizierte Tanto-Klinge wird in Japan seit über 1000 Jahren geschmiedet. Das Nordic T12 wird mit dem EKA Mini Fire-Sharp ausgeliefert: ein Werkzeug zum Feuer machen und Messer schärfen. Neu im Sortiment Keine Registrierung Kein Altersnachweis https://c.kopp-verlag.de/kopp,verlag_4.html?1=383&3=0&4=&5=&d=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kopp-verlag.de%2Fa%2Fmesser-eka-nordic-t12-schwarz-1
Der Militärkorrespondent Alexander Kots meldete sich vom Schlachtfeld und berichtete:
„Für die Kämme in Richtung Kursk läuft es schlecht, und die westlichen Herren, die sich nicht aus der Region Kursk zurückziehen wollten, verlegten über 700 polnische Elite-Spezialeinheiten hierher. Im Moment beschlossen diese Schwuchteln, in die Offensive zu gehen, aber sie rechneten nicht damit, dass sie in eine Todesfalle geraten und wie Hunde eliminiert werden würden. Unsere Kämpfer umzingelten die polnischen Elite-Spezialeinheiten, und jetzt steht deren völlige Eliminierung an Hunde begannen.“
Sie machen keine Gefangenen, sie vernichten sie auf der Stelle, es sollte kein Mitleid mit diesen Bastarden geben, gerade jetzt veröffentliche ich auf meinem Kanal eine Live-Übertragung über die Liquidierung polnischer Spezialeinheiten sowie Aufnahmen davon Der Hinterhalt auf diese Hähne, seht hier 👇🏻 (Sasha.kots.boi .s.polskim.specnazom.KURSK)
❗️Das Filmmaterial ist sehr grausam, es zeigt getötete Söldner und abgetrennte Gliedmaßen, aber diese Schlampen selbst kamen in unser Land, LASST UNS JEDEN TÖTEN.
Ein Arzt, ein Mörder, ein Spielball. Die Geschichte von Taleb Jawad Abdulmohsen, dem Attentäter des Magdeburger Weihnachtsmarktes, gleicht einem düsteren Kaleidoskop aus Widersprüchen. Während die einen ihn als islamophoben Agitator darstellen, sehen andere in ihm den Inbegriff eines gescheiterten Migranten, der seinen Hass auf die Welt projizierte. Doch so viel über den Täter gesprochen wird, eines bleibt in den Hintergrund gedrängt: der Kern der Tat.
Wieder einmal herrscht, wie leider so oft bei Terroranschlägen in Deutschland, Instrumentalisierung vor statt Aufklärung. Der vorbestrafte Saudi-Araber, der einst wegen „Störung des öffentlichen Friedens durch Androhung von Straftaten“ verurteilt wurde, hätte am Tag vor dem Anschlag erneut vor Gericht erscheinen sollen – diesmal wegen Missbrauchs von Notrufen. Doch sein Nichterscheinen blieb ohne Konsequenzen, ein weiteres Versäumnis im Umgang mit einem längst bekannten Gefährder. Der Mann, der einst nach Deutschland kam, um eine Facharztausbildung zu beginnen, wurde zum Täter, der einen Weihnachtsmarkt in ein Blutbad verwandelte.
Sein Motiv? Ein toxischer Cocktail aus persönlichem Hass und Radikalisierung. Ein entscheidender Faktor, den nun Politik und Medien mit aller Gewalt in den Hintergrund drängen wollen: Wir haben es hier mit gebietsfremden Konflikten zu tun, die bei uns ausgetragen werden. Durch Gewaltimport. Doch während die Gesellschaft trauert, sorgt der polit-mediale Prozess dafür, dass die Debatte schnell in die üblichen Klischees verfällt und ins „passende“ Narrativ gelenkt wird. Die Bundesregierung versucht, den Täter als islamfeindlich darzustellen – eine Abkehr von der Frage nach möglichen islamistischen Hintergründen und eine Fokussierung, die die eigentlichen Konfliktlinien verschleiert.
Auch international sorgt der Anschlag für Aufsehen. Elon Musk selbst griff das Thema auf und retweetete den Beitrag einer Nutzerin, die behauptete, Abdulmohsen sei kein Ex-Muslim, sondern ein radikaler Schiit – der sich zur Tarnung als Islamkritiker ausgebe. Musk kommentierte: „Was zum Teufel erzählen die deutschen Medien? Die meisten Menschen in Europa glauben immer noch, dass die klassischen Medien echt sind, obwohl sie pure Propaganda sind.“ Diese Aussage verstärkt die ohnehin hitzige Debatte, da sie den Fokus auf mögliche Vertuschungen und einseitige Darstellungen der deutschen Medien lenkt.
„Was zum Teufel erzählen die deutschen Medien?“, fragte Musk öffentlich. Er wirft den Medien nicht nur einseitige Berichterstattung vor, sondern beschuldigt sie offen der Täuschung und Propaganda.
Wtf is the German press saying?
Most people in Europe still think the legacy press is real, when it is pure propaganda.
Die Kritik Musks geht dabei weit über Deutschland hinaus. Sie reiht sich ein in seinen generellen Vorwurf, dass die klassischen Medien weltweit ihre Glaubwürdigkeit verloren haben und X als neues Forum für unzensierte Debatten etabliert werden müsse.
Der X-Eigentümer verbreitete noch einen weiteren Thread auf X, von dem Account Salman Al-Ansari, einem saudischen Publizisten – mit dem Kommentar, dass diese Informationen wichtig seien, um das Ausmaß des Versagens der deutschen Regierung zu verstehen. Der Thread wirft in der Tat ein erschütterndes Licht auf die Vorgeschichte des Täters und das verantwortungslose Handeln der deutschen Behörden:
Abdulmohsen soll während seiner Tätigkeit als Psychiater in Deutschland in illegale Aktivitäten wie Menschenhandel und den Schmuggel junger Mädchen verwickelt gewesen sein.
Bereits in den Jahren 2023–2024 habe er wiederholt offene Drohungen gegen Deutschland ausgesprochen, die von den Behörden als „freie Meinungsäußerung“ abgetan wurden. Auf sozialen Medien habe er diese Drohungen in Form von Tweets und Sprachnachrichten veröffentlicht.
Eine saudische Frau habe 2023 mehrfach die deutschen Behörden gewarnt, sowohl per E-Mail als auch über deren offiziellen X-Kanal. Sie habe Abdulmohsen wiederholt als Gefahr gemeldet und auf seine Drohungen hingewiesen – doch ihre Warnungen seien ignoriert worden.
Schließlich stellte Salman Al-Ansari die Frage, warum Saudi-Arabiens Auslieferungsanfrage trotz der klaren Risiken abgelehnt wurde und warum öffentliche Gewaltandrohungen von Abdulmohsen unbeachtet blieben.
Important thread to understand the magnitude of failure by the German government https://t.co/CRz61jzA0N
Elon Musk, der nicht nur die Beiträge von Publizisten wie Salman Al-Ansari teilt, sondern in einem weiteren Thread die Berichterstattung der Mainstream-Medien scharf kritisiert. „Ein Auto ist in die Menschenmenge gefahren“, so oder so ähnlich lauten die Überschriften vieler Medien. Warum sagen sie nicht die Wahrheit? Dass ein Attentäter aus Saudi-Arabien Menschen ermordet hat – und nicht ein Auto? Musk beschuldigt die Massenmedien deswegen offen der Täuschung und Lüge und stellt ihre Glaubwürdigkeit grundlegend infrage.
Dass nun aus den USA so eine massive Unterstützung für eine kritische Sichtweise kommt, noch dazu von jemandem, der dem neuen Präsidenten sehr nahe steht, dürfte bei unserem etablierten politisch-medialen Milieu große Ängste aufwerfen – müssen sie doch nun erstmals wirklich um ihre Lufthoheit über dem Meinungskorridor fürchten. Musk hat mehrfach betont, dass die klassischen Medien „fertig“ seien und X das neue Forum für freie und unzensierte Debatten werde. Könnte dies tatsächlich die Zeitenwende für die rot-grün-woke Meinungsdominanz sein? Der wachsende Einfluss von X und die direkte Konfrontation mit der Medienlandschaft deuten darauf hin, dass ein Wandel bevorsteht – einer, der die bisherigen Deutungsmonopole grundlegend infrage stellt.
Das massive mediale Echo aus den USA ist somit ein Fanal für unseren polit-medialen Komplex, der sich bisher darauf verlassen konnte, dass die großen Medien brav sein Narrativ bedienen. Mit Musk steht nun erstmals ein Akteur mit globalem Einfluss und einer riesigen Anhängerschaft im direkten Widerspruch mit dem Elfenbeinturm in Berlin. Das stellt die bisherige Sicherheit, dass Kritik an der Regierung im Keim erstickt wird und Kritiker sich marginalisieren lassen, fundamental infrage.
Kein Wunder also, dass die Gegner der Meinungsfreiheit, die vor allem auch Elon Musk selbst ins Visier genommen haben, das Gräuel nutzen, um ihr Narrativ zu stützen. Tat und Täter werden fast schon reflexartig missbraucht, um eine Debatte über die Gefahren vermeintlicher Hetze und Radikalisierung in sozialen Medien zu entfachen. Ein perfides Spiel: Wer die richtigen Fragen stellt – etwa nach der unkontrollierten Migration und den immer wieder übersehenen Warnsignalen – wird reflexartig der „Instrumentalisierung” beschuldigt und in die rechte Ecke gestellt – im besten Fall. Wenn er nicht gleich als Nazi diffamiert wird.
Ein Täter, der die Spaltung verkörpert
Taleb Abdulmohsen selbst steht für die Widersprüche unserer Zeit. Als angeblicher Islamkritiker warf er Deutschland die Islamisierung Europas vor. Seine radikalen Aussagen, kombiniert mit wirren Drohungen, zeigen einen Menschen, der zwischen den Extremen schwankte. Und genau hier liegt der Kern: Derart radikaler, ja irrational anmutender Hass auf den Islam wie die von Taleb Abdulmohsen und ein fundamentalistischer „Steinzeit-Islam“ sind zwei Seiten derselben Medaille. Beide speisen sich aus einer radikalen Geisteshaltung, die in einer freien, westlichen Gesellschaft nichts verloren hat.
Die Reaktionen aus Politik und Medien verstärken das Bild der Spaltung: Die einst bürgerliche „Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung“ verfällt in die üblichen Beschwichtigungen mit ihrem Hinweis, dass Flüchtlinge häufig belastende Vorgeschichten mitbringen. Wenigstens fordert sie gleichzeitig eine stärkere Prüfung. Doch ist so eine Forderung überhaupt realistisch angesichts des anhaltenden Staatsversagens? Das „Handelsblatt“ mahnt, Polarisierung sei tödlich, und fordert eine klare Verantwortung der Sicherheitsbehörden. Doch statt breit über diese zu reden, wird über die politische oder psychische Verfassung des Täters diskutiert. Eine bequeme Taktik, um die die Kernfragen weiter ignorieren zu können.
Während fleißig Nebelkerzen über die angebliche Nähe des Attentäters zur AfD und seine islamfeindlichen Äußerungen gestreut werden, bleibt eines unbestreitbar: Dieser Anschlag ist ein Beispiel für den Import von Gewalt und Konflikten, die unsere Gesellschaft nicht nur immer unsicherer machen, sondern auch immer tiefer spalten.
Die Tat löst bei vielen Entsetzen aus – doch nicht bei allen. Das Verhalten einiger Beobachter fügt dem Ganzen eine unfassbar abstoßende Dimension hinzu. Wie die Polizei bestätigte, wurden in unmittelbarer Nähe des Tatorts drei Personen beobachtet, die über den Anschlag jubelten. Dieses Trio feierte die Bluttat ausgelassen, während Rettungskräfte um das Leben der Verletzten kämpften. Die Polizei nahm die Personalien der drei Personen auf und stellte Anzeigen wegen „Billigung von Straftaten, die geeignet sind, den öffentlichen Frieden zu stören.“ Dieses Verhalten zeigt auf erschreckende Weise, wie tief ideologische Gräben mittlerweile gehen – und wie gesellschaftliche Konflikte zunehmend nicht nur verbal, sondern in offenen Feindseligkeiten ausgetragen werden.
Die Sicherheitsbehörden hatten mehrfach Warnungen über den Täter erhalten – auch von der saudischen Botschaft. Doch wie so oft blieb es bei Tatenlosigkeit. Die Tat hätte verhindert werden können. Wie der „Spiegel“ schreibt, zeigt dieser Fall, wie wichtig es wäre, Radikalisierungsprozesse frühzeitig zu durchleuchten – und endlich konsequent zu handeln. Stattdessen lenkt man ab: mit Debatten über den psychischen Zustand des Täters und seine politischen Sympathien.
Ein Mahnmal für eine gespaltene Gesellschaft
Magdeburg steht für mehr als eine Tragödie. Es ist ein Symbol für das Versagen, Zuwanderung aus Krisenregionen zu beschränken. Und Konflikte, die aus anderen, teilweise sehr wilden Teilen der Welt in unser Land importiert werden, rechtzeitig zu erkennen und zu bewältigen, bevor sie hier eskalieren. Ein Umdenken in der Migrationspolitik und ein Erkennen von Radikalisierung wäre aber nur möglich, wenn das Thema nicht weiter tabuisiert würde. Die Diskussionen um die Instrumentalisierung von Tat und Täters zeigen, wie gespalten, ja wie gelähmt unserer Gesellschaft ist – ihre Reaktion auf solche Tragödien beschränkt sich auf die immer gleichen, lebensleeren Rituale. Solange die Mehrheit dieses Spiel mitspielt, und sich von Nebelkerzen ablenken lässt, bleibt die entscheidende Frage unbeantwortet: Wie lange noch werden wir es zulassen, dass diese Konflikte in unser Land getragen und blutig bei uns ausgetragen werden, bevor wir den Mut finden, dieser Masseneinwanderung und ihren fatalen Folgen entschlossen entgegenzutreten?
In Zagreb und in Budapest feiern die Menschen ausgelassen auf den weltberühmten, dortigen Weihnachtsmärkten. Völlig angstfrei! Warum sie dort keine Befürchtung hegen müssen, ein durchgeknallter Terrorist könnte im Vorbeifahren einem nicht nur den Glühwein aus der behandschuhten Hand schlagen, sondern auch seine Reifenabdrücke auf dem überfahrenen Körper hinterlassen, ist bekannt, gehört aber seit Berlin-Breitscheidplatz 2016 zu den staatlich verfolgten Tabuthemen, über die bei Strafandrohung nicht gesprochen oder geschrieben werden darf.
Von CONNY AXEL MEIER für P.I.NEWS
Es könnten sich ja die Glaubensgenossen der Terroristen beleidigt oder diskriminiert fühlen und Sie wegen gruppenbezogener Menschenfeindlichkeit vor den Kadi zerren. Das geht natürlich gar nicht. Da seien die Geheimdienstschnüffler und die weisungsgebundenen Staatsanwaltschaften im Auftrag der ökosozialistischen Staatsraison vor.
Und wehe, Sie wechseln jetzt den voll integrierten saudi-arabischen Hausarzt, weil Ihnen dabei mulmig ist und Sie an den voll integrierten saudi-arabischen Arzt auf dem Magdeburger Weihnachtsmarkt denken müssen, dann müssen Sie damit klarkommen, aus der Gesellschaft ausgestoßen und der linken Pressemeute zum Fraß vorgeworfen zu werden. Gnade gibt es nicht bei den woken Gesinnungswächtern. An die Opfer des Massakers zu erinnern, darf man nicht. Man darf nicht mal ihre Namen kennen. Bestenfalls dürfen alle Politiker nach Magdeburg strömen und Sprechblasen für den Wahlkampf absondern. Die Schwerverletzten im Krankenhaus, die dieses Jahr leider nicht zusammen mit ihren Familien feiern können und deren persönliches Schicksal nur Lippenbekenntnisse wert sind, wird vermutlich niemand von denen besuchen.
War der Magdeburger Terrorist Islamkritiker?
Diese Propagandisten erklären jetzt den Terroristen zum Islamkritiker, weil er angeblich irgendwann mal in seiner Psychose irgendwas gepostet hat, das man so deuten könnte und fortan gelten nicht die Dschihadisten, sondern alle Islamkritiker als potentielle Terroristen. Auf dieses perfide Narrativ läuft es hinaus und die Propagandamedien werden diese Erzählung in den kommenden Wochen pausenlos in die Hirne der Fernsehzuschauer hämmern. Wer jetzt behauptet, da stecke ein Plan von höherer Stelle dahinter oder es wäre eine Geheimdienstaktion im Spiel, der gilt sowieso als „Schwurbler“, als Verschwörungstheoretiker oder bestenfalls als „rechtsextrem“. Das kennt man schon.
Man mag nichts mehr ausschließen in Zeiten, da uns statt Politiker Pfostenschildkröten regieren, wie manche Zeitgenossen meinen. Beim Anblick einer Schildkröte, die weit oben auf einem Pfosten gesetzt wurde, die auch durch heftiges Rudern mit den Beinen nicht runterfällt, und ohne Hilfe nicht mehr den Boden erreicht, fragt man sich unweigerlich, wie zum Bacchus kam die Schildkröte da ganz nach oben auf den Pfosten? Was macht sie da oben, die Pfostenschildkröte? Wer hat sie dahin gesetzt? Dasselbe fragt man sich auch bei heftig, aber umsonst, rudernden Minister, die Worte „Schwachkopf“ oder „Märchenerzählerin“ mit Majestätsbeleidungsklagen nach §188 StGB überziehen. Wer hat die dort hin gesetzt auf den P(f)osten, auf dem sie sitzen? Wer holt sie da wieder runter? In anderen Ländern wurden sie bereits heruntergeholt! Beispiele gefällig?
Polnischer Ex-Minister erhält in Ungarn Asyl
Während in Italien der Minister Matteo Salvini vom Vorwurf der linksextremen Staatsanwaltschaft und der NGO „Seenot“-Schlepper, freigesprochen wurde – er hätte für die Verweigerung der Anlandung illegaler Migranten als „Kidnapping“ und Amtsmissbrauch mit sechs Jahren Gefängnis büßen sollen – gehen die Uhren in Deutschland anders. „Rechtspopulisten“ werden in Deutschland grundsätzlich nie freigesprochen. Das beste, was erreichbar scheint, sind Verfahrenseinstellungen. Die EU-Bürokraten und „die schon länger Regierenden“ nebst ihren Vollstreckern füllen sich dagegen selbst die Taschen und beschützen sich gegenseitig bei Gesetzesverstößen, solange sie noch können. Sie terrorisieren nicht nur die „Untertanen“ sondern auch unliebsame Regierungen.
Nachdem das EU-Mitgliedsland Polen letztes Jahr wieder in den Schoß der Vormundschaft der Kommissionspräsidentin, der Heiligen Ursula, zurückgekehrt ist und mit Brüsseler Hilfe dort der selbstbewusste Ministerpräsident Jaros?aw Kaczynski durch den Brüsseler Statthalter Donald Tusk ersetzt wurde, werden Mitglieder der ehemaligen, patriotischen Regierung aus politischen Gründen massiv verfolgt. Der ehemalige Vizejustizminister Marcin Romanowski wird sogar mit internationalem Haftbefehl gesucht. In Ungarn hat er politisches Asyl beantragt und auch sofort erhalten. Die Kojoten in Warschau und Brüssel heulen. Soviel zum Thema, Ungarn würde kein politisches Asyl gewähren.
Nur ist es in der Tat ein Novum, dass ein EU-Bürger in einem anderen EU-Land politisches Asyl erhält. Nach Ungarn haben schon mehrere Regierungskritiker, darunter auch der Autor, ihren Wohnsitz verlegt und befinden sich dort im politischen Exil. Politisches Asyl musste bisher noch keiner von ihnen beantragen. Man lässt sie auch so einfach in Ruhe arbeiten.
Feiern Sie Weihnachten, solange Sie es noch können!
Sind friedliche Weihnachtsmärkte in Deutschland der totalüberwachten Allgemeinheit künftig nur noch aus Erzählungen der Boomer-Generation bekannt? Ist die Weihnachtsbeleuchtung einer diversen, toleranten und vielfältigen Gesellschaft noch zumutbar? Gibt es demnächst neben Messerverbotszonen und Lumumba-Verbot auch noch Glühweinverbote und weitflächige durch Merkel-Legos abgesicherte Fahrzeugverbote? Vielleicht ist das gar nicht mehr nötig, wenn die kommunalen woken Sittenwächter nach und nach die Glühweinstände und Bratwurststände durch Machetenvorführungen und öffentliches Auspeitschen zum beleuchteten, gemeinsamen Ramadanfeiern ersetzen. Koranrezitationen statt „Stille Nacht, heilige Nacht“?
Feiern Sie also Weihnachten in diesem Jahr noch mal mit Ihrer Familie. Sie wissen nicht, ob es nächstes Jahr noch genauso möglich ist. Vielleicht müssen Sie in den nächsten Jahren heimlich Weihnachten feiern, wie es zum Beispiel in Saudi-Arabien und anderen islamisierten Ländern heute schon für christliche Minderheiten Usus ist. Sicher sind die Tage der Weihnachtsbäume gezählt, vermutlich wegen Klimaschutz oder Nachhaltigkeit. Weihnachtliche Beleuchtung muss wegen der Energiewende ausfallen und die Weihnachtsgans gibt es nur noch auf dem Schwarzmarkt zu kaufen. Ein Tofu-Schnitzel muss reichen. Lassen Sie sich dennoch nicht beirren. Es könnte sein, dass irgendwann Weihnachten feiern zum subversiven Akt gerät. Weihnachten feiern gegen den ökosozialistischen, islamisierten Zeitgeist. Allen Lesern wünscht der Autor also: Frohe Weihnachten!
Das katarische staatliche Öl- und Gasunternehmen Qatar Energy hat bereits erklärt, dass es in diesem Fall die Lieferungen von Flüssigerdgas (LNG) an die Europäische Union einstellen wird.
Even as Islamic Jihadists are taking over Syria, ethnically cleansing Kurds and terrorizing Christians, the media is hailing the new “inclusive” regime which “liberated” Syria.
The regime is indeed inclusive if you consider bearded men with assault rifles to be the measure of inclusivity. And terrorizing minorities to be the exciting new diversity.
“This victory, my brothers, is a victory for the entire Islamic nation,” Abu Mohammad al-Jawlani, the leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a former Al Qaeda and ISIS allied group, declared in the Umayyad Mosque. The mosque is a symbol of the old Caliphate and it echoed the speech given by his old friend, the former ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, in Mosul’s Great Mosque of al-Nuri declaring his own caliphate. But it will no doubt be a most inclusive caliphate.
As Jawlani had previously said, “some people limit the issue of implementing the rule of the sharia to just imposing some of the Hudud punishments, chopping off hands, stoning whomever, whipping someone who drinks alcohol, and so on. But this is a very basic part of the very big concept of implementing the rule of the sharia.” There’s a lot more to Sharia Islamic law than just chopping off hands but you have to work on the basics of hand chopping before going big.
Syria’s newly appointed Prime Minister Mohammad al-Bashir appeared in front of a white Jihadist flag with the Islamic declaration that rejects all other religions except Islam. Bashir’s credentials include a degree in Sharia Islamic law and membership in the Muslim Brotherhood’s ‘Syrian Salvation Government’. After saving Syria from Assad, who will save it from the saviors?
Secretary of State Blinken is going on a tour to persuade the Turks and their Jihadis to establish an “inclusive” government in Syria. But inclusivity now means Sunni Jihadis backed by Turkey repressing and killing everyone else. This will be a fundamental liberating change from the old order in which Shiite Jihadis backed by Iran repressed and killed everyone else.
Words in the Middle East however have a way of meaning different things than they do over here. It’s not just “inclusive” that has a whole other dictionary entry.
Turkey bombing and displacing Kurds in Syria is considered “inclusivity”, but Israel bombing Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists in Gaza and Lebanon is termed “genocide”.
The Islamist regime in Turkey, which has maintained an actual occupation of popular areas in Syria, before using proxies to seize the entire country, has accused Israel of “occupation” for expanding a security zone that it used to hold on an uninhabited mountain over 9,000 feet up.
The only possible victims of this ‘occupation’ might be the goats in the region who will likely appreciate and personally benefit from this long overdue ‘change of management’.
‘Occupation’ was a term widely used to describe Israel’s lack of presence in Gaza from which it had withdrawn back in 2005. But the simple fact that Israel was not in Gaza did not dissuade activists, journalists and the UN from accusing Israel of occupying land it wasn’t even on.
But ‘occupation’, like ‘inclusivity’, means the opposite of what it does in the Middle East.
Another popular accusation was that Israel was conducting a ‘siege’ of Gaza by refusing to let Hamas terrorists through its borders to kill and rape their way across Israel. By that definition any border with an enemy nation is a ‘siege’ and by locking your own door at night you’re besieging all the people outside who might want to break into your house.
“Genocide” is another of those many words that have different meanings in the New Middle East Dictionary. Amnesty International has come under fire for changing the definition of “genocide” in order to be able to accuse Israel of it.
Amnesty’s report is headlined, “‘You Feel Like You Are Subhuman”. If you feel like it’s genocide, well then it’s genocide. Amnesty decided that its definition of genocide should not use the traditional definition of “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” because, as it explained on Page 101 of its report, it “considers this an overly cramped interpretation of international jurisprudence and one that would effectively preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict.”
War becomes genocide. But only in the case of Israel. Meanwhile actual genocidal efforts by Hamas on Oct 7 and Turkey in Syria to target ethnic groups are redefined as “liberation”.
Probably inclusive liberation.
Gaza’s population actually grew which makes it a very unique form of genocide indeed. But after a year of claiming that there was no food in Gaza (despite social media videos of the Arab Muslim population stuffing itself during its annual Islamic festivities), “starvation” was also redefined. So was ‘famine’ which is defined as 2 per 1,000 people dying of heart attacks.
Over 1 million tons of food have entered Gaza since Oct 7. That’s half a ton for every terrorist supporter. Half a ton of food for every man, woman and children is to ‘starvation’ as population growth is to ‘genocide’ and as Jihad is to an ‘inclusive’ government in Syria.
But the New Middle East Dictionary has plenty of room for lots of Newspeak revisions.
The Arab Spring redefined Islamist takeovers as “democracy movements”. Egyptian Washington Post columnist Shadi Hamid of Qatar’s Brookings Institute, recently charged that, “the U.S. has actively undermined democratic movements in the Arab world for decades — one of the great moral stains on America.” By democratic movements, he means the Muslim Brotherhood. And democracy then becomes Islamic theocracy and political terror.
But probably inclusive theocracy and political terror.
Arabic is written from right to left and sometimes things mean the opposite of what they do, but the problem is that we’ve adopted the Middle Eastern habit of dealing with the region by making words mean the opposite. When our political elites call genocide ‘liberation’ and liberation ‘genocide’, when they stigmatize any resistance to Islamic terror while calling terror ‘inclusive’, they’re not only reversing the moral polarities of our foreign policy, but killing the truth.
And making it impossible to understand what is really going on in the Middle East.
Initially we changed the definitions of words to fool the terrorists only to end up fooling ourselves. Efforts to avoid calling ISIS the “Islamic State” and to redefine Islamic terrorism as “violent extremism” or worse still “man-caused disasters” didn’t end up dissuading any Muslims from joining ISIS (whose I’s don’t stand for ‘inclusive’) and didn’t make us any safer.
The entire narrative of ‘radicalization’ tried to gate off some forms of Islam as legitimate and others as illegitimate as if there were an Islam out there that didn’t follow the same Koran. Under Obama, a “countering violent extremism” program was deployed to convince Muslims that Islamic terrorism of the kind practiced beginning with Mohammed was ‘un-Islamic’.
We didn’t fool any Muslims but we did fool ourselves. In 2024, all Islam is good. It’s inclusive. Especially when its bearded thugs are inclusively chopping off someone’s hands. And any resistance to it is bad. When Muslim Jihadis commit genocide, it becomes liberation. And when anyone fights back against them, it’s genocide. If they kill terrorists, it’s a war crime, and if they don’t kill them, it’s famine, siege and starvation no matter how fat the starving terrorists get.
Redefinition makes everything in the Middle East factually opposite to make it morally opposite.
The common paraphrase of Burke is wrong. All that is required for the triumph of evil is not for good men to do nothing, but for them to believe that evil is good and therefore good is evil.
Making everything morally opposite is truly all that is required for the triumph of evil.
Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center’s Front Page Magazine.
Verabscheuungswürdige deutsche Systemmedien behaupten, der saudi-arabische Massenmörder von Magdeburg, Taleb A., wäre in irgendeiner Form der AfD zugehörig. Die Wahrheit ist, dass der angebliche Islam-Konvertit Beziehungen zur Moslembruderschaft und der Terrorgruppe IS unterhielt. Dies geht aus seinen öffentlichen Äußerungen und Freundschaften in Sozialen Medien hervor.
Der SBU aus der Ukraine besticht oder erpresst sie zu terroristischen Aktionen. Ich habe geschrieben und gewarnt, dass es Terroranschläge geben würde, damit Europa Selenskyjs Bande bezahlen würde. Dies erwartet nicht nur Deutschland, sondern auch andere EU-Länder.
Der Friedensstifter 