Sunday, March 13, 2016

US Foreign Policy Gurus Say Souring Relations with Russia Was Washington’s Fault

US Foreign Policy Gurus Say Souring Relations with Russia Was Washington’s Fault

It was quite different in the 1990s — early 2000s. Significant improvements were achieved in the relations between the US and Russia, including in the sphere of military cooperation. Those days there was no doubt the Russia-US relationship had a great future.
The military met each other as friends and allies to discuss what could be done to boost cooperation and prepare for joint actions to counter terrorist threats. Then the process got stalled. The relations deteriorated. All the efforts applied went down the drain. What really caused it to happen? Today US foreign policy old timers and savvies have something to say about it.
Consistent disregard for Russia’s interests by the US, as well as Washington’s dismissive attitude towards Moscow in the post-Cold War era, have led to strained relations between the two, former US Defense Secretary William Perry told The Guardian on March 9.
Perry said that a complete lack of regard for Russia as a power or a dialogue partner from Washington officials played a crucial role in this reversal.
According to the opinion of former US Defense Chief, reckless expanding NATO, making plans to deploy a missile defense system in Eastern Europe, and supporting the so-called «color revolutions» in former Soviet republics were all steps in the wrong direction, which were all taken without ever even considering Russia’s concerns.
Perry also denounced the George W. Bush administration’s decision to station a US missile defense system in eastern European countries – particularly in Poland. He also emphasized that the US support of the so called «color revolutions», was another serious blow to bilateral relations between Moscow and Washington.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., ambassador to the USSR from 1987 to 1991 and the author of the book titled «Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended», has his own views on the matter.
According to him, after the USSR ceased to exist the United States insisted on treating Russia as the loser. The former ambassador writes that Russian President Vladimir Putin was the first foreign leader to call and offer support when terrorists attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001. He cooperated with the United States when it invaded Afghanistan, and he voluntarily removed Russian bases from Cuba and Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam. In return, he got further expansion of NATO in the Baltics and the Balkans, and plans for American bases there; withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; invasion of Iraq without UN Security Council approval; overt participation in the «color revolutions» in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan; and then, probing some of the firmest red lines any Russian leader would draw, talk of taking Georgia and Ukraine into NATO.
Speaking at the meeting of the Committee for the Republic, an organization established by former diplomats and government officials, Mr Matlock went on to lambaste Obama for using the State of the Union to personally attack Russian President Putin.
«His comments were totally out of place», Matlock said. He also attacked Congress for their own interference in passing the Magnitsky Act. «The Russians are reacting to a policy of insufferable arrogance and humiliation», he said. He criticized the whole policy with regard to Ukraine and «regime change». «If you can think that you can solve all problems by removing a leader, you’re wrong. Didn’t we learn the lessons from Iraq?» asked the former ambassador.
Henry Kissinger is clearly still one of America's foremost foreign policy gurus who served as National Security Advisor and later concurrently as United States Secretary of State in the administrations of presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. He believes that instead of trying to break Russia, America’s goal should be to «integrate» it into the international order taking Moscow’s interests into account.
According to the US foreign policy vet, that would begin with recognition of the realities of Russian power and interests, treating Russia like the great power that it is, and on that foundation exploring «whether their concerns can be reconciled with our necessities».
The opportunities to change the relationship for the better are here to stay.
On March 3, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stressed that a policy of confrontation with the West is not something that Moscow wants. «We are not seeking confrontation with the United States, or the European Union, or NATO. On the contrary, Russia is open to the widest possible cooperation with its Western partners. We continue to believe that the best way to ensure the interests of the peoples living in Europe is to form a common economic and humanitarian space from the Atlantic to the Pacific, so that the newly formed Eurasian Economic Union could be an integrating link between Europe and Asia Pacific», the Russian foreign policy chief wrote in an article.
US candidates in the presidential race (except Republican candidate Donald Trump), as well as many in the Obama administration, find the idea of trying to work with Russia appalling when they speak in public. There is a reason to believe they don’t entirely share that view, but at least that’s what they say. No matter who wins in November, a new president will have to shape new policy on Russia. He or she will have to make decisive choices. It presupposes immense responsibility. The Americans are normally reluctant to admit mistakes, but it’s important to understand what is the root of the problem. That’s when the opinion of foreign policy gurus stands one in good stead.

Most Syrians Support Assad, Reject Phony Foreign 'Revolution'

Syria Dispatch: Most Syrians Support Assad, Reject Phony Foreign 'Revolution'
EDITOR'S CHOICE | 13.03.2016

Syria Dispatch: Most Syrians Support Assad, Reject Phony Foreign 'Revolution'

Eva Bartlett
In April 2014 I first visited Syria, going to Homs and Latakia, in addition to Damascus. On each of my three subsequent trips to Syria, speaking moderate colloquial Arabic, I have been able to interact one-on-one with Syrians there, whether in markets, taxis, on the streets or in areas I visited. 

In Latakia, many of the the over 1 million Internally Displaced Persons from Idlib, Aleppo and surrounding areas who are being housed and supported by the Syrian government spoke of the same heinous kidnappings, beheadings, and other crimes that most media currently only associate with Da'esh (ISIS), but which were perpetrated (with Turkish support) by the so-called FSA and other terrorist factions. 

A man from Harem, near the Turkish border, spoke of being kidnapped by FSA terrorists and of the decapitations of Harem residents, with their heads sent home in boxes. 

"The terrorists attacked us, terrorists from Turkey, from Chechnya, and from Arab and other foreign countries. They had tanks and guns, like an army, just like an army. For 73 days we were surrounded in the citadel of Harem. They hit us with all kinds of weapons. We had women and children with us. They showed no mercy. When they caught any of us, they slaughtered him, and then send his head back to us. They killed over 100 people, and kidnapped around 150... children, civilians, soldiers. Until now, we don't know what's happened to them," he said

People from the village of Kassab spoke of the joint Turkish-Nusra attack on their village in March 2014, of escaping with the help of Syrian soldiers, of the over 80 who were slaughtered, including 13 who were beheaded, and of the raping and plunder of their people and homes. "They raped our older women because they couldn't find any girls," one resident told me

In Latakia, I met two Americans living there for the last twenty years. The mother told me of Western reporting (she cited an LA Times article by way of example) which alleged Syrian security were cracking down on people in Latakia one day but that on that particular day she had been to all the named areas of the city and there was no unrest. 

In Homs, I met with local Syrians involved in the Reconciliation process, including religious leaders and community members. The Old City of Homs in April 2014 was still occupied by terrorist factions. When I returned in June, it had just been liberated. I was able tospeak with residents who had stayed during the Farouq Brigades (FSA) and al-Nusra's occupation of the Old City, who denied it was a "revolution" and spoke of terrorists' thieving every last food item from their home. 

A local man spoke of the militants' assassination of 75 year old Dutch priest Father Frans van der Lugt who, while neither pro-government nor pro-"rebel" did write of witnessing armed men among the early protests, "who began to shoot at the police first. Very often the violence of the security forces has been a reaction to the brutal violence of the armed rebels." Others spoke of the sectarian slogans in the early protests in Homs, including the slaughtering of Alawis and the driving out of Christians. 

Many historic churches in the Old City were damaged or destroyed, and looted, by the terrorist factions. 

When I visited Homs again in December 2015, most of the churches were repaired enough to use, and some of the residents had patched up their homes and opened new shops and were preparing to celebrate Christmas for the first time in years. 

In June 2014, I visited the recently-liberated ancient village of Ma'aloula. There, terrorists primarily from Nusra besieged the village for 8 months, plundered from its ancient monasteries, destroyed and desecrated what couldn't be stolen and murdered the daughter of the priest of St. Thekla convent, Konstantin al-Khouri, who explained to me that he himself then took up arms to defend the village. 

In Damascus I met with various leaders of internal opposition, who notably all rallied behind President al-Assad and against the external Riyadh and Turkish-backed "opposition" put forth by the West. The Kurdish representative, Berwine Brahim, stated, "We want you to convey that conspiracy, terrorism and interference from Western countries has united supporters of the government and the opposition, to support President Bashar al-Assad. We opposition members see that President al-Assad is the guarantee of Syria." 

On two occasions I have met Syria's highest Muslim religious authority Grand Mufti, Dr. Ahmad Badreddin, whose own son Saria, 22, was assassinated in October 2011. The following day, Mufti Hassoun publicly called for the pardon of the assassins, who in turn sent a message they would kill him next. Hassoun continues to use his platform to call for Syrians to lay down their weapons and "come back" to their country. He rejects the sectarianism sent to Syria by Saudi Arabia and calls for the rehabilitation of European mosques influenced by Wahhabism. 

In June 2014 I met with Minister of Reconciliation, Dr. Ali Haidar, an eye doctor and leader of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP). In June 2012, Haidar took the position of Minister of Reconciliation in order to further the process of those armed Syrians who wish to reconcile. The movement continues to see Syrians granted amnesty and returning to their normal lives. Haidar's son Ismail was assassinated in May 2012 by terrorists hoping to kill Haidar himself. 

Staying in the Old City of Damascus, I got a taste of the daily mortar terrorism, then primarily from "moderate" "rebels" in their stronghold of Jobar, just east of the city. I visited a hospital where children from the mortared Manar school were being treated for mild to severe injuries. On another visit, in Damascus, I visited the University Hospital, where children, women and men were being treated for injuries from mortars and missiles fired by terrorists in Douma. Many had amputations, many were in intensive care, including those with severe brain injuries. 

In Damascus, IDPs from the Yarmouk district spoke of terrorists taking over their homes, stealing food, sniping at them. Those beinghoused in a governmental school had better circumstances than those sardined in UN housing. Most wanted to go home. In spite of the corporate media and Ken Roth type accusations of the Syrian government being the cause of suffering in Yarmouk, the government continues to send or facilitate entry of aid into the district. As with Madaya, that aid is often stolen by terrorists for their own use or for extortionist re-sale. 

In December 2015, on my second visit to Yarmouk, Palestinian leadership informed me the vast majority of the former 1 million Syrians and around 170,000 Palestinians had left or been evacuated. Around 5-6000 people remained, including fighters and those supporting the militants. I was able to enter roughly 400 metres into the district before Palestinian soldiers accompanying me told me to go any further would be to welcome a sniper's bullet. 

The al-Zahra'a district of Homs has been the site of repeated terror bombings and suicide attacks which get virtually no coverage in the media. I visited in December 2015 just days after a triple-explosion series of terror bombings which state media reported killed at least 16 residents (but which later local updates put over 20 murdered). Since then, al-Zahra'a has been hit three further times by terrorist bombings. The area comprises a variety of faiths, including many IDPs from elsewhere in Syria. One of the recently-murdered victims was a Christian man who had fled Sadad, which faces Da'esh and other terrorists' attacks. Zahra'a is not the only area of Homs to be terror-bombed. In my April 2014 visit I spoke with residents of Karam al-Luz who had survived a double-car bombing which killed at least 25 residents. 

The al-Waer district of Homs in December 2015 saw a deal in which a few hundred of the armed militants and their families were shuttled to Idlib and surrounding areas. Another 2,200 primarily anti-government mercenaries remain within the residential area of al-Waer. The government continues to supply residents with food, medicine, electricity (free) and water (free) and has a bread factory at the last checkpoint before entering al-Waer, which I visited in December 2015. The factory receives wheat from the government and supplies the residents within with bread (in spite of the presence of the anti-government militants). While observing Syrians walking towards the checkpoint to the terrorist-held area, I was cautioned by security to step back: there is a ceasefire, but the militants within could violate that at any time. 
In Sweida, a Druze area southeast of Damascus which has largely fought off the attacks of militants since the beginning of the crisis in 2011, residents told me they had from very early on recognized the 'revolution' as a foreign plot against Syria. Druze leader, Sheikh Hammoud al-Hanawi (known as Sheikh al-Aqel) reiterated what residents had said about this plot, and spoke of how Sweida's young and old men have protected the region and stand with the Syrian Arab Army. 
In Sweida, many residents who had been living abroad returned to open new restaurants, hotels and businesses, in order to support their sanctions-shattered economy. As with Latakia, Tartous, and Damascus, Sweida has also absorbed large numbers of IDPs from other southern areas, including Sunnis from Dara'a. 

In spite of the security within Sweida, on the drive back to Damascus, the driver noted that, just 30 km to the east, Da'esh were present, but unable to break into Sweida. The Sweida-Damascus road was formerly perilous due to land mines, snipings and kidnappings, but now is highly-secured by the Syrian army. The driver, whose own friends disappeared in kidnappings added, "but here we all support the army." 

In addition to hearing the tragic stories of Syrians' suffering these past five years, I've also been party to celebrations, and very movingEaster and Christmas services and music. I've been invited into the homes of Syrians and showered with hospitality, and above all, seen the culture, love and resilience that makes Syrians proud of their country and people. 

Wherever I've gone in Syria (as well as many months in various parts of Lebanon, where I've met Syrians from all over Syria) I've seen wide evidence of broad support for President al-Assad. The pride I've seen in a majority of Syrians in their President surfaces in the posters in homes and shops, in patriotic songs and Syrian flags at celebrations and in discussions with average Syrians of all faiths. Most Syrians request that I tell exactly what I have seen and to transmit the message that it is for Syrians to decide their future, that they support their president and army and that the only way to stop the bloodshed is for Western and Gulf nations to stop sending terrorists to Syria, for Turkey to stop warring on Syria, for the West to stop their nonsense talk about "freedom" and "democracy" and leave Syrians to decide their own future. 

To quote a Syrian I met in Lebanon in April 2015

"We want the Syrian state to return to how it was and most importantly, President Assad will stay. We love Bashar al-Assad very much. Syria was wonderful, the state supported us in many ways (free education & health care, food and oil subsidies...) Syria had security. Our country will win and return to how it was, and better. Souria samideen... Syria remains steadfast."

Eva Bartlett is a freelance journalist and rights activist with extensive experience in the Gaza Strip, where she lived a cumulative three years (from late 2008 to early 2013), arriving by boat as a part of the Free Gaza missions. She documented the 2008/9 and 2012 Israeli war crimes and attacks on Gaza while riding in ambulances and reporting from hospitals. Eva accompanied Palestinian fishers and farmers as they came under intensive fire from the Israeli army. She has been to Syria four times since April 2014 and works to convey the voices of a people suffering under the foreign war on Syria. Her writings can be found on her blog, In Gaza

Briefwechsel mit Außenminister Steinmeier anlässich der Messerangriffe gegen Zivilisten in Israel

12. März 2016
Sehr geehrter Herr Außenminister Steinmeier,
am 9.3.2016, erhielten wir von Ihrem Amt den folgenden Text:
Außenminister Steinmeier anlässich der Messerangriffe gegen Zivilisten in Israel
Zu den jüngsten Messerangriffen gegen Zivilisten in Israel sagte Außenminister Steinmeier heute (09.03.) in Berlin:

Wir verurteilen die abscheulichen Angriffe auf Zivilisten, die sich gestern in Tel Aviv-Jaffa, Petah Tikva und heute Morgen in Jerusalem ereignet haben, auf das Schärfste. Für solche Mordtaten gibt es keine Rechtfertigung. Unsere Gedanken und unser Mitgefühl gelten den Opfern und ihren Angehörigen.

Die seit Mitte September andauernde Gewalt zwischen Israelis und Palästinensern, die nahezu täglich Menschenleben fordert, muss ein Ende finden.

Beide Seiten müssen helfen, zu einer Deeskalation zu kommen. Es reicht nicht, an den Symptomen des Konflikts zu arbeiten, sondern es muss den Ursachen begegnet werden. Hoffnung auf Frieden für Israelis und Palästinenser bietet nur die Wiederaufnahme ernsthafter Bemühungen hin zu einer fairen Zweistaatenlösung.
Sehr geehrter Herr Steinmeier,
selbstverständlich ist es richtig und gut, dass Sie Gewalt, menschenverachtende, tödliche Gewalt verurteilen und sich öffentlich dagegen aussprechen. Aber warum geschieht das so einseitig, so ausschließlich dann, wenn Israelis Opfer von Gewalttaten wurden.  Warum schweigen Sie zu all der alltäglichen Gewalt, die die israelische Besatzungsmacht gegen Palästinenser ausübt. 
Ich zitiere aus dem Wochenbericht des Palestinean Centre for Human Rights (Weekly Report On Israeli Human Rights Violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (25 February – 02 March 2016), dem jüngsten Bericht der uns vorliegt:
… Israeli forces have continued to commit crimes, inflicting civilian casualties. They have also continued to use excessive force against Palestinian civilians participating in peaceful protests in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the majority of whom were youngsters. During the reporting period, Israeli forces killed 4 Palestinian civilians, including 3 children, in the West Bank. One of them was killed in Qalandya refugee camp, north of occupied Jerusalem, another was killed at “Beit Eil”military checkpoint, north of Ramallah, while the 2 others were killed in “Eli” settlement, south of Nablus. Moreover, they wounded 20 civilians, including 3 children. Thirteen of them, including a child, were in the West Bank, and the 7 others, including 2 children, were in the Gaza Strip. Concerning the nature of injuries, 11 civilians were hit with live bullets, 6 were hit with rubber-coated metal bullets and 3 others were hit with sound bombs.
In the West Bank, Israeli forces killed 4 Palestinian civilians, including 3 children, and wounded 13 others, including a child. Seven of them were hit with live bullets and 6 others were hit with a rubber-coated metal bullet.  …
(mehr unter )
 Es ist uns nicht verständlich, warum Sie durch öffentliche Erklärungen den Eindruck von Einseitigkeit verstärken, der seit Jahren das Erscheinungsbild der deutschen Nahostpolitik bestimmt.  Wenn Sie schon nicht umhin konnten, die schlimmen Messerattacken auf Israelis zu kommentieren, warum kommentieren Sie dann nicht auch die Attacken der IDF, einer der bestgerüsteten Armeen der Welt, auf die Bevölkerung des Westjordanlandes und des Gazastreifens.  Sie wissen doch über die Lage der Palästinenser Bescheid, die sich seit 1968 einer arroganten, ihre Menschenrechte mit Füßen tretenden Besatzungsmacht gegenüber sehen, die ihnen ihre Rechte verweigert, auch das Recht auf freie Meinungsäußerung, wie gerade in diesen Tagen wieder geschehen durch die Weigerung des IDF, den palästinensischen Menschenrechtler und Friedensaktivisten Salah Al-Khawaja nach Deutschland zu einer Reihe von Vorträgen (in Hamburg und Berlin) ausreisen zu lassen.  Ein ebenso beredtes Schweigen Ihres Hauses herrscht in Bezug auf die unerträgliche Situation der Menschen im Gazastreifen, denen durch die andauernde Blockade durch Israel jegliche geordnete Wiederherstellung ihrer Lebensgrundlagen verweigert wird.  
Eine der vielen minutiösen Faktensammlungen durch das PCHR, die Übersicht über die Umstände von 135 Tötungen von Palästinensern im vierten Quartal 2015 lässt uns sprachlos.  Ihre Reaktion auf diese Aufstellung interessiert uns sehr!
Herr Steinmeier, Sie sind führendes Mitglied der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands, einer Partei, zu deren Traditionen die Solidarität mit den Schwachen, den Unterdrückten, den Entrechteten gehört.  Wie gelingt es Ihnen, diese Tradition, die ja an manchen Stellen in der SPD noch durchscheint, zu harmonisieren mit Ihrer „Realpolitik“?
Der letzte Absatz Ihrer Verlautbarung lässt uns rätseln, was damit wohl gemeint sei:
Beide Seiten müssen helfen, zu einer Deeskalation zu kommen. Es reicht nicht, an den Symptomen des Konflikts zu arbeiten, sondern es muss den Ursachen begegnet werden. Hoffnung auf Frieden für Israelis und Palästinenser bietet nur die Wiederaufnahme ernsthafter Bemühungen hin zu einer fairen Zweistaatenlösung.
Ist dies die verschlüsselte Aufforderung an die israelische Seite, die Besatzung der seit 1968 okkupierten (und zum Teil widerrechtlich annektierten) Gebiete zu beenden und den Palästinensern ihre Hoffnung auf eine irgendwie geartete Zukunft wiederzugeben?  Und/Oder ist dies die Aufforderung an die Palästinenser, sich jeglichen Widerstandes gegen die Besatzung zu enthalten und sich mit der Situation der fortschreitenden Enteignung und ethnischen Säuberung abzufinden? Was ist Ihrer Meinung nach denn eine „faire Zweistaatenlösung“? Ihre Verlautbarung vom 9.3. lässt uns ratlos. 
In der Hoffnung auf eine klärende Antwort grüßen Sie
Renate Dörfel-Kelletat und Frank Dörfel
P.S.  Wir senden diesen Brief als "Offenen Brief", da wir von mehreren Bekannten auf genau diese Frage angesprochen wurden.
Ihre Antwort, auf die wir hoffen, werden wir selbstverständlich an den selben Adressatenkreis weiterleiten, wenn Sie dies wünschen.
Renate und Frank Dörfel
Breisgauer Str. 7  
14129 Berlin 

Willy Wimmer "unser Land wird uns entzogen"

Uns wird unser Land entzogen

© REUTERS/ Michaela Rehle
Zum Kurzlink
Willy Wimmer

Wer es ehrlich mit den Menschen meint, der trägt nichts auf dem Rücken von Menschen aus. Damit nichts Schändliches geschieht, gibt es die Genfer Flüchtlingskonvention und entsprechende Bestimmungen in der deutschen Verfassung. Das gilt für alle anderen Länder auch.

Unsere Regierung erweckt seit Monaten nicht den Eindruck, genaue Kenntnis von den dort niedergelegten Prinzipien zu haben. Das muss unter allen Umständen vermieden werden, weil das ein ganzes Land in eine Schieflage bringt.
Es wird durcheinandergemischt, was vor dem Hintergrund der eindeutigen Regeln nicht zusammengehört. Die Hunderttausende, die nach Europa drängen, haben sehr unterschiedliche Gründe. Da die Bundesregierung sich nicht darum bemüht, der Öffentlichkeit Aufschluss über die unterschiedlichen Motive und Herkunftsländer zu geben, liegt eine Vermutung nahe. Die Bundesregierung will die von den USA, England und Frankreich im Wesentlichen betriebenen Kriege und die entsprechenden Migrationsbewegungen im Ergebnis für etwas anderes als Hilfe für Menschen in Not nutzen. Wie anders ist es zu erklären, dass sich alles nur auf die Menschen aus Syrien konzentriert?
Nach öffentlichen Berichten nähert sich diese Zahl in etwa einem 30prozentigen Anteil unter all denen, die nach Europa und Deutschland wollen. Die anderen Menschen in der Migrationsbewegung stammen aus dem Ländergürtel zwischen Bangladesch bis ins südliche Afrika.
Die Bundesregierung erweckt den Eindruck, dass alle und alles über einen Kamm zu scheren sei. Nichts ist falscher als das, und deshalb traut kaum noch jemand der Bundesregierung und den Brüsseler Schaumschlägern über den Weg.
Die Ziele dieser Politik werden nicht offen gelegt und die eigenen Bürger werden verbal niedergehalten.
Das Land hat in den letzten gut 15 Jahren seine demokratische Grundsubstanz weitestgehend verloren. Der Staat wurde abgewrackt und als Folge wurde der mündige Bürger nicht mehr gebraucht. Wie der deutsche Sozialstaat offenkundig nur eine Funktion im Kalten Krieg gegen die Sowjetunion zu erfüllen hatte, wurden auch die demokratischen Gepflogenheiten ad acta gelegt, um Ziele, die an anderer Stelle festgelegt werden, in Deutschland umsetzen zu können.
Wenn in der Verfassung postuliert wird, dass die politischen Parteien an der Willensbildung des deutschen Volkes mitzuwirken haben, so haben sie sich in den zurückliegenden Jahren aus dieser Aufgabe verabschiedet. Parteien in der Fläche des Landes sind eine Seltenheit geworden. Sie sind für den Bürger weitgehend unsichtbar, kümmern sich nicht um seine Belange und sind zu reinen auf Berlin ausgerichtete Karriereeinrichtungen verkommen. Die Mittlerfunktion wurde weitestgehend aufgegeben. Die engagierten Bürger wurden sprachlos mit seinen Problemen zurückgelassen.
Die in Berlin, Brüssel und Washington festgelegte politische Zielsetzung kommt nicht mehr auf demokratischem Wege zustande, sondern wird dadurch umgesetzt, dass jeder verbal und mit Hinweis auf die dunkelste Zeit deutscher Geschichte niedergeknüppelt wird, der sich als Bürger äußert. Die Bürger im Lande werden regierungsseitig als "Pack" bezeichnet. Wo sind da die Instanzen, die sich so gerne über andere aufspielen, wie ein Herr Bundespräsident oder die vom Steuerzahler ausgehaltenen Kirchen?
So kann kein Land betrieben werden. Und das ist vielleicht auch die Absicht derjenigen in der Regierung, die sich so äußern? Spaltung des Landes ist angesagt, um eine bestimmte Politik umzusetzen. Das geschieht dadurch, dass keine Rechenschaft mehr gegeben wird und die dagegen aufbegehrende Bevölkerung beleidigt und diskreditiert wird.
Es muss doch zu denken geben, dass viele Bürger einfordern, das geltende Recht einzuhalten und Straftaten, die von wem auch immer begangen werden, des Rechtsfriedens wegen ohne Scheuklappen zu verfolgen und zu ahnden. Ein Land, das gegen die eigene Verfassung Kriege führt und sich an Elend beteiligt, stellt diejenigen in die Ecke, die auf das Angriffsverbot der Verfassung pochen.
Die tatsächliche Lage im Land ist die neue Blütezeit einer mehr und mehr obrigkeitsstaatlichen Verwaltung. Die Bürger werden geknebelt und gegängelt, wo es nur geht, und die einzigen, deren Regellosigkeit uns die größten Sicherheitsprobleme verschafft, können auf staatliche Unfähigkeit und laissez faire hoffen. Die Regierung erweckt nicht den Eindruck, dass sie auf die Stimmung im Lande hören will. Die Stimmung interessiert sie schlichtweg nicht. Das wird noch dadurch auf die Spitze getrieben, dass die Bundeskanzlerin noch nicht einmal interessiert, was unsere Nachbarn denken, auf die wir angewiesen sind.
Die Kriegs-und Umgestaltungsparteien nutzen die Migrationsentwicklung für ihre eigenen Zwecke. Sie wollen ein anderes Land.
Die Migration wird als Waffe gegen unsere Länder und die Bevölkerung benutzt. Die gesellschaftlichen Verluste für den demokratischen Staat werden billigend in Kauf genommen, um andere Gesellschaften zu formen. Dafür spricht alleine schon das Zusammenwirken entsprechender inländischer Parteien und internationaler Netzwerke, die sich die Kontrolle über Europa gegen den Willen der örtlichen Bevölkerung auf die Fahnen geschrieben haben.
Da trifft es sich gut, wenn man nach Lust und Laune die amerikanischen Kriege mitmachen kann, die Clintons bei ihrer Zerstörung des internationalen Rechts bejubelt und diejenigen in die Ecke zu drängen versucht, die sich ihre Rechte partout nicht nehmen lassen wollen. Noch wählen diese Bürger wie sie wollen. Wenn aber zunehmend mehr als die Hälfte der Bürger nicht mehr zur Wahl geht, dann wird sich eine Regierung nur noch auf den Spitzen der willfährigen Presse-Bajonette aufhalten können. Für eine angebliche Demokratie ist das ein verhängnisvoller Platz.


Soros' Clandestine "Non-Violent" Evil Doing Needs to be Counteracted

The Need for «CSO» Teams in Russia, Serbia, China, and Elsewhere

The Need for «CSO» Teams in Russia, Serbia, China, and Elsewhere

When a single multi-billionaire controls not only America’s Radio Free Europe/Radio Free Asia/Radio Liberty operations in Munich and Prague and he virtually owns and operates such non-profit non-governmental organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, national governments targeted by such a menace should take notice and respond aggressively. George Soros will continue to dominate the foreign policy of a Hillary Clinton administration. Soros recently donated $8 million to boost her presidential campaign.
Nation-states that have been and will continue to be targeted by Soros’s «soft power», which has always received more than a «wink and a nod» from the US Central Intelligence Agency, which bequeathed to him operations of the Cold War propaganda radio stations after the end of the Cold War, should establish «Counter-Soros Operations» teams, or «CSOs», within foreign ministries or information services to keep track of Soros’s huge propaganda empire and its own destabilization operations.
Many nations have information ministries that serve to disseminate their own views on various subjects and events – the generally accepted term being «propaganda». However, Soros’s operations are so intricately woven into the fabric of so many national governments, international organizations, NGOs, political parties, universities, media outlets, and labor and social movements, it actually takes a full-time effort to track these entities and their activities. Soros operatives have even penetrated Wikipedia in its English and various other language formats to spread disinformation and one-sided propaganda.
There is clearly a requirement for a restricted access interactive database for national governments agreeing to contribute intelligence on Soros and all his related and linked activities to share in its fruits. There is little doubt that Soros takes much of his marching orders from the US Central Intelligence Agency – with which he has enjoyed a long association – and the influence operations elements of the US State Department and National Security Council. All of Soros’s interwoven links through his varied business, intelligence, and social networks would be a main focus of a Counter-Soros Operation, whether a national undertaking or a cooperative measure taken by interested governments.
The leaked US State Department classified cables provides examples of how Soros’s operations are part and parcel of the US foreign policy and intelligence apparatuses. Many are unaware that before George Soros became so involved with crafting US foreign policy, his older brother Paul Soros was involved in fronting for port facility projects around the world that were clearly in the interest of senior US officials, most notably, Henry Kissinger. Kissinger served as Secretary of State and National Security Adviser, and for a time held both posts simultaneously, during the Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford administrations.
Declassified US State Department cables show that Paul Soros’s company, Soros Associates Consulting Engineers, was negotiating a new international airport deal – Aero Isla – with the Argentine government on August 9, 1974, the day Nixon resigned from office and when Kissinger took full command of American intelligence operations and foreign policy. Although Argentina’s president was Isabel Peron, the civilian successor to the previous military junta regime, the military complex still wielded tremendous control over the nation’s affairs, including control of seaport operations.
In 1976, the State Department, still commanded by Kissinger, helped arrange a deal for Paul Soros to bid on a Libyan port project. As Kissinger stated in a cable to the US embassy in Tripoli, «No US company has won major prime contract outside of Libya's hydrocarbon sector since 1969». It was in 1969 that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi overthrew the corrupt King and established the «people’s» republic. Ironically, George Soros was involved in fostering the «Arab Spring» revolution that ultimately led to Gaddafi's overthrow and assassination, celebrated by Mrs Clinton with the response«We came, we saw, he died», followed by her trademark cackling and sociopathic laughter.
Any Counter-Soros Operation must take into account the close links between Soros’s Open Society Institute/Foundation and quasi-official entities and NGOs, those based in the United States and abroad. Soros operations represent a multi-headed hydra with tentacles extending into the United Nations, the European Union, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the International Criminal Court, the Munich Security and Bilderberg conferences, Refugees International; the New School for Social Research in New York; the World Economic Forum at Davos; and private foundations like the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie Foundations and the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung in Germany; and even the Eurovision contest.
Soros operations around the world must come under even closer scrutiny if Mrs Clinton is elected the next US president. As of February 2016, Soros donated $6 million to Clinton’s super-Political Action Committee (Super PAC) called Priorities USA Action. Under a Clinton administration, Soros will yield even greater power over American foreign policy than he did during the Barack Obama administration.
Soros closely coordinates his destabilization efforts with the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), both ciphers for the CIA. Soros pretends to combat the right-wing and conservative elements around the world by financing leftist and «social democratic» parties and movements. This merely a clever smokescreen which is engineered not to promote the «left» but to control it. The long-serving president of the CIA-linked NED, Carl Gershman, began his anti-Communist activities on behalf of the CIA as the executive director for Social Democrats USA (SDUSA), an ostensibly left-of-center party. However, SDUSA was a front for the CIA to control moderate leftists in order to derail the influence of Marxists and Communists in the Democratic Party and among the labor unions. The same Soros tactic was used to promote the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) that endorsed pro-business and neo-conservative and neo-liberal Democratic politicians like Bill and Hillary Clinton at the expense of pro-labor and anti-Wall Street Democratic politicians. Today, this Soros contrivance is known as the Third Way.
Soros has managed to infiltrate and neutralize a number of leftist political parties around the world and particularly those in Europe that have questioned the framework and future of the European Union. The governing SYRIZA party of Greece, Podemos in Spain, and Five Star in Italy have all been infiltrated by Soros operatives, now known as «Sorosites» (akin to «parasites»), who, like their collegial Trotskyist counterparts from the last century, are only interested in circumventing leftist movements not advancing their basic doctrines. SYRIZA, which ran on a platform of rejecting EU-dictated austerity measures, quickly decided to warmly embrace them. Podemos in Spain will do the same if it joins a future government. Soros, like a fatal cancer, infiltrates a body politic, infects it, and ultimately kills it.
The muscle behind the «Bulldozer Revolution» that overthrew Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic, OTPOR! and the Center for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies (CANVAS), as well as their leader Srdja Popovic, a so-called pro-democracy agitator, were all unmasked as US intelligence assets. Their textbook themed revolution operations were later fully utilized on the streets of Tbilisi, Kiev, Chisinau, Moscow, Skopje, Bucharest, Sofia, Budapest, Podgorica, and farther afield in Damascus, Benghazi, Tunis, Cairo, Bangkok, Beirut, Hong Kong, Caracas, Quito, and Tehran.
To combat Soros International and its American and Western European and Israeli sponsors, the answer is to create units that will 1) identify the threats; 2) employ active measures, including raids on Soros-financed offices and arrests of troublemaking ringleaders; 3) widely publicize the nature of the Soros operations and the organizations and individuals who are behind them; 4) permanently neutralize the threats under the guise of national security, anti-racketeering and anti-money laundering laws currently on the books, and conspiracy to commit street violence. Any measures that are less daunting will turn out to be quite useless.

Democracy ended in Turkey on March 4th- But US Media Won't Know Eric Zeusse

America’s Laughable ‘News’ Media
ERIC ZUESSE | 13.03.2016 | WORLD

America’s Laughable ‘News’ Media

As of Friday March 4thdemocracy ended in Turkey, but you’d hardly have known it by reading the international ‘news’ at the major (and at most of the minor) US-based ‘news’ sites, as of around 4PM Eastern time in the US, nearly a day after the event.
The New York Times World News section online buried nearly a third of the way down the main page, "Turkey Seizes Newspaper, Zaman, as Press Crackdown Continues», immediately below «Gunmen Kill 16 at Nursing Home in Yemen». The news report didn’t even mention that the government-seizure of Turkey’s largest newspaper and its associated equivalent of America’s AP news-service constitutes the signal event in Turkish President Erdogan’s ending of his country’s democracy. It’s like: when did the NYT ever report that George W. Bush had lied about the evidence he had regarding «Saddam’s WMD»? Never.
Nonetheless, that page’s box which was headlined «Most Emailed» showed: «1. Turkey Seizes Newspaper Zaman, as Press Crackdown Continues». No matter how much the Times’ management wanted to downplay the event and its significance, readers still were emailing it more than any other story in the entire section. Apparently, reader-interest is one thing, but what the management want the readers to be informed about is something quite different (and that’s not even talking about accuracy, but deception is rampant in America’s mainstream and almost all of its non-mainstream ‘news’ reporting). Perhaps the corporation makes up for it in advertising-income from their major advertisers, who don’t want the public to have their eyes focused on certain things (such as that NATO, and Turkey’s being in NATO, aren’t about ‘American values’ nor ‘US national security’, but about ultimately conquering Russia). And people still subscribe to it? Yes, they do; they pay their good money for that bad ‘journalism’; after all, that’s ‘journalism’ which wins lots of US national awards (not that that’s any authentic indication of the newspaper’s quality – it’s not.)
By contrast: Britain’s Independent came closer to the mark of reality, placing the story front and large on its homepage as the top news-story of all, which it actually is: «Seizure of Newspaper Could Cost Turkey Its Place in Europe, Warns EU Official». (But, maybe not its place in the American-run NATO – after all, the US aristocracy needs Turkey for things like shooting down Russian bombers that are killing jihadists who want to replace Russia’s ally Bashar al-Assad’s secular, non-sectarian, government, which the US has long been trying to overthrow.)
The Huffington Post’s homepage had as its lead headline, «155 Delegates at Stake», and 20% down the page headlined «Turkish Police Fire Tear Gas At Newspaper As EU Officials Lament Press Record». That news-report was from Reuters, not HuffPo, and the headline was rather ho-hum and certainly ignored the real story here, but having to go 20% down the homepage to find it isn’t quite so terrible, even if that’s not where it belongs – it belongs at the very top of the homepage (and with a headline like «Democracy Ends in Turkey», which fairly represents both the event and its significance.)
Meanwhile, HuffPost’s Worldpost section itself also didn’t lead with this story, but instead with, «A Dangerous Country for Women: The Shocking Reality Of The Sexual Violence In Papua New Guinea» – a tragic cultural reality there, but no actual news-story, much less a news-story that will possibly affect the future history of the entire world. Then, was shown as only an AP headline, down below all of the featured stories (the ones that had pictures there), down in the lower portion of HuffPost's Worldpost section, was this: «Protestors Met With Tear Gas After Turkey Seizes Control Of Newspaper». That’s even worse than the NYT. However, unlike the NYT, a reader’s access to all of HP is free; so, readers’ pocketbooks aren’t being charged to read whatever it is.
Why one would pay for any ‘news’ medium, in the US, is a problematic question, given the almost uniformly low quality of the news-service they’re all providing to their readers.
Has the US aristocracy’s manipulation of its ‘news’ ‘reporting’ ever been more blatant than is the case today? Not only does the ‘news’ lack the important relevant historical, cultural, and political, context, in order for it to be able to be at all accurately interpreted and understood by readers, but the news-placement is obviously driven by other considerations than to serve the readers’ needs – such as the readers’ needs for the most-significant stories to be in the most-prominent positions.
Ulterior motives drive America’s ‘news’ media. To call that a ‘free’ press is to beg the question: Who owns the press, and whose interests are the employees of ‘news’ organizations (the reporters and the editors) actually being hired to serve? The advertisers’? The owners’? Surely not the subscribers.
If America’s ‘news’ media aren’t trusted, there’s very sound reason for that: they shouldn’t be; and that’s because there’s no intelligent reason for the public to trust them. None.