Wednesday, October 12, 2016

The US, France and Britain Scrap United Nations Diplomacy, OPENLY EMBRACE Terrorism AGAINST the People of Syria…

Post Categories: Europe 
Felicity Arbuthnot | Monday, October 3, 2016, 21:20 Beijing
The original source of this article is Global Research
“An ambassador is a … gentleman sent to lie abroad for the good of his country.” (Attributed to Sir Henry Wotton, 1568-1639.)
France Germany
When Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations (“We the people of the United Nations, determined to save succeeding generations form the scourge of war …”) rose to speak at the UN to address Syria’s ongoing tragedy, on Sunday 25th September, US Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, François Delattre, Permanent Representative for France and British Permanent Representative, Matthew Rycroft,metaphorically threw their toys out of the pram and walked out.
Anything more infantile and further away from the UN’s founding aspirations would be hard to find.
They would have done well to hear Mr Churkin’s full address (1) it lays out home truths and the reality of international State sponsored terrorism – resulting in Syria’s living nightmare – in succinct detail. He began:
“It is the sixth year that the Syrian people have been suffering a grave tragedy. In 2011, Washington and some other Western capitals decided to continue the reshaping of the geopolitical space of the Middle East and North Africa, which started with the US and UK criminal invasion in Iraq in 2003. Besides, both in Libya and Syria they continued to ‘use an axe’ without any disdain for the support of terrorist groups … consequences of countries’ break-ups and flows of millions of refugees were qualified as an unforeseen ‘irritant’.”
Samantha Power, however, has never seemingly found a conflict she would not embrace (safely, from afar, of course.) The Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Syria, “liberation” by annihilation seemingly ever her preferred option. The UN welcomes some unlikely Representatives to uphold its founding aspirations.
“What Russia is sponsoring and doing in Aleppo is not counter terrorism, it is barbarism”, railed Ms Power. Clearly she has forgotten the US led, multi-country barbarisms above and further that Russia has been invited to work with Syria to attempt to resolve the country’s terrorist crisis. The US and their “allies” – in the air and on the ground – are illegals, in contravention of a swathe of international law.
She appears to also have forgotten the numerous substantiations of the US (and allies) funding and arming the head chopping, organ eating, child murdering other illegal immigrants from over one hundred foreign countries, according to varying analysts. Another irony is America appointing itself the “world’s policeman” – as the world is seeing what its policemen are doing at home.
Also dropped through Ms Powell and her fellow UN absconders memory hole seems to be General Wesley Clark’s near immediate post 9/11 revelation from a Pentagon colleague that:
“ … 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.” Moreover, not to be forgotten is that the plans for Syria’s destruction were plotted in detail from within the then US Embassy in Damascus. (2)
Interesting is also the UK walkout Representative’s background, recalling that the UK is ever willing killer-in-arms with the US. Matthew Rycroft has trailed around varying war zones or war enablers in a “diplomatic” capacity since graduation from Oxford University in 1989.
An early placement was at the NATO desk in the British government’s bailiwick, Whitehall. After various Foreign Office placements he joined the British Embassy in Washington in 1998, from where he was seconded to both the US State Department and US Congress. On returning to the UK he became, in February 2002, Private Secretary Foreign Affairs, to the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, according to his evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry on Iraq. (3 pdf.)
February 2002 was of course the time the planning in the Foreign Office was concentrating on Tony Blair’s now infamous meeting with George W. Bush in Crawford Texas in the coming April. Rycroft denied having any involvement in those plans, however he had integral involvement in the infamous Downing Street memo of 23rd July 2002. (4)
The memo related to the plans to overthrow Saddam Hussein, discussed at a meeting held by Tony Blair at which Rycroft was one of the attendees. His memo began:
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
“cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
“Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
“John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest (Joint Intelligence Committee) assessment. Saddam’s regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action …
“C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.” (Emphasis added.)
In the memo’s “Conclusions” Rycroft’s first is:
“(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action … “
The rest is Nuremberg’s “supreme international crime …” and bloody, genocidal history. Ongoing.
Rycroft has now turned his attentions to Syria. On walk out day, the 25th September in a speech to the UN (5) which includes too many inaccurate and misleading statements (many might say mistruths) to address here, he includes:
“ … the death and destruction that the sectarian Assad regime has unleashed upon them. Nor will they forget that Russia aided and abetted this ruthless sectarian dictator in waging war against his own people.”

Goodness, word for word out of the US-UK Saddam Hussein hand book – “waging a war against his own people”, “sectarian dictator.” As Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Syria is secular and the government is fighting a war to rid the country of the terrorists who flooded in as a result of the fruition of the US plans formulated in 2006
Rycroft also alleged the use by the government of chlorine bombs – he had clearly not read, or chosen to ignore the various Reports, including by the UN, categorically disproving this.
Iraq had the US inspired “Iraq Liberation Act” of 1998 held over the nation’s head until destroyed by the US and UK in 2003. Syria has the “Syria Accountability and Liberation Act” (6) of July 2009. Apart from imposing draconian sanctions of the sort that resulted in the deaths of half a million children between 6th August 1990 and 12th May 1996 in Iraq, the Act:
“Sets forth diplomatic measures intended to isolate the government of Syria.”
“Authorizes the (US) President to provide assistance to support a democratic transition in Syria.”
In another re-run of the Iraq lies, Rycroft adapts the “Saddam starves his own people” line– when in fact the US-UK driven embargo even denied baby formula – and accuses President Assad of “failing to stop starvation.”
Incidentally, in 2003, after the invasion of Iraq, Matthew Rycroft was awarded the CBE: “ … an honour awarded to an individual by the Queen for a leading role at a regional level or a prominent … role at a national level in any activity. The definition of CBE is Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire.” The cynic might speculate that his part in “Empire’s” Iraq slaughter might have been a contributory factor.
But he has not lost talent for plotting and economy with the truth, it would seem. But then, between experience in the Foreign Office, the State Department and Congress would be a peerless education. An example:
On 12 September, the eve of the ill-fated ceasefire: “President Dr. Bashar Al-Assad vowed to regain every inch of Syria from the terrorist forces.
“The Syrian President made this promise during his visit to the rural Damascus town of Darayya on Monday.
“In addition to his promise to recover every inch of the country, the Syrian President stated that his government will rebuild Darayya after the four year long battle left the town in ruins.” (7)
On 15th September, Matthew Rycroft translated this statement in a address to the UN as: “Earlier this week, Assad said it was his objective to regain the entire country by force …” (8) He surely learned well from his part in Iraq plotting.
Meanwhile, on 25th September (clearly a very busy plotting day) the UK’s new Foreign Secretary (it is hard to think of anyone less suitable to be a diplomat) was in Turkey. He tweeted:
Boris Johnson
 #Turkey is a vital partner to the UK. Pleased to visit for first time as Foreign Sec for talks with Govt, civil society & #SyrianOpposition
9:34 AM – 25 Sep 2016
Meeting “opposition” head choppers, eh?
Another shocking international conspiracy against a small, proud nation, which threatens no one. The onslaught against Syria, the betrayal of a fellow Member of the United Nations will be added to the list of crimes of enormity laid at the feet of the “Special relationship” – the barbarism of the US-UK alliance.
Incidentally, diplomacy: “The art of dealing with people in a sensitive and tactful way.”

By Felicity Arbuthnot, Global Research


Engage In Sex, Not War by Paul Craig Roberts

Engage In Sex, Not War
EDITOR'S CHOICE | 12.10.2016

During the sexual scandals of Bill Clinton — the “bimbo eruptions” as Hillary called them — the Democrats and progressive opinion ruled out a person’s sex life as a political factor. Now suddenly nothing more than juvenile locker room banter without the actual sex has become the determinant of political unfitness.

Where did the 11-year old recording of locker room talk between Donald Trump and Billy Bush come from? Who recorded it and kept it for 11 years for what purpose? Why was it released the day prior to the second debate between Trump and Hillary? Was the recording an illegal violation of privacy? What became of the woman who recorded Monica Lewinsky’s confession to her of sex with Bill Clinton? Wasn’t she prosecuted for wiretaping or some such offense? Why was Billy Bush, the relative of two US presidents, suspended from his TV show because of a private conversation with Trump?
You have to take men’s sexual banter with a grain of salt, just as you do their fish stories. President or candidate Bill Clinton himself publicly engaged in sexual banter. If memory serves, in a speech to blue collar workers, Bill said that the bed of his pickup truck was covered in artificial turf and “you know what that was for.” In the Clinton White House according to reports there were a number of female interns seeking Bill’s sexual attention. The scantily clad young women came to work sans underwear until Hillary put her foot down. One wonders if the Secret Service was told to inspect compliance with the dress code.
The One Percent masquerading as prudes want to remove Trump as the Republican candidate. Just how the people’s choice of presidential candidate is removed in a democracy prior to election, the prudes do not say. No one wanted to remove Clinton from the presidency despite the sexual use of the Oval Office, called at the time the “Oral Orifice”. The House Republicans wanted to remove Clinton not for sex but for lying about it, but the Senate would not go along with it. As senators all lied about their sexual liaisons, they saw no harm in it.
What disturbs me about the importance attributed to Trump’s sexual banter is that we have in front of us the dangerous situation of the neoconservatives pushing for Washington to attack Syrian and Russian forces in Syria and the chief Washington propagandist, neocon Carl Gershman, calling publicly for the US to “summon the will” to bring regime change to Russia. The tensions between the two nuclear powers are currently at all time highs, and this dangerous situation is not a factor in the US presidential election! And some people wonder why I call Americans insouciant.
The US media, 90% owned by the One Percent, have teamed up with their owners against the American people — the 99 Percent. As Trump observed during the second presidential “debate,” ABC’s Martha Raddatz and CNN’s Anderson Cooper teamed up with Hillary against him: “Nice, three on one,” Trump said.
Do the 99 Percent understand that the anti-Trump hysteria fanned by the presstitutes is intended to keep the people in economic bondage and at war?
We all know that the hysteria over the Trump-Billy Bush locker room banter is orchestrated for political purposes. But consider the absurdity of it all. Trump’s private expression of sexual interest in an attractive member of the opposite sex has been declared by the presstitutes to be “extremely lewd comments about women.”
Is what is going on here the criminalization of heterosexual sex?
Feminist say that women do not want to be regarded as sex objects, but much of womankind disagrees, judging by the provocative way some of them dress. Clothes designers, assuming they are good judges of the apparal market for women, also disagree. At the latest Paris fashion show (October 1) Vivienne Westwood displayed a dress on which the female sexual organs are displayed on the dress.
Vivienne Westwood is a woman, a British fashion designer. She has twice earned the award for British Designer of the Year. The Queen of England awarded her the aristocratic title of Dame Commander of the British Empire (DBE) “for services to fashion.”
At a ceremony honoring her at Buckingham Palace, Westwood appeared without panties and twirled her skirt in the courtyard of the palace. Photographers caught the event, and in Vivienne’s words, “ the result was more glamourous than I expected.”
As recently as 2012, Vivienne was chosen by a panel of academics, historians, and journalists as one of The New Elizabethans who have had a major impact on the UK and given this age its character.
In 18th century England, if historians are correct, young women would appear at evening social functions in wet gowns that clung to their bodies the better to indicate their charms. Some of them died of pneumonia as a consequence. They did this on their own accord to attract the attention of the opposite sex.
According to reports, robotic sexual partners are being created for men and women that are superior to the real thing. Other news reports are that young Japanese men go on vacation with their sex apps, not with girlfriends. There are indications that as the advancement in social approval of homosexual, lesbian, and transgendered sex progresses, heterosexual sex is acquiring the designation of queer. If Trump had expressed sexual interest in a male or a transgendered person, it would be politically incorrect to mention it. Only heterosexual sexual impulses are a political target.
We have reached that point in which women can appear in high heels with skirts that barely cover their nether parts and their braless breasts exposed, and men are lewd if they notice.
Do women really want it this way?
Is Hillary really going to win the election because Trump is sexually interested in women?

Experten: Militärische Konflikte Russland-USA möglich – „Globaler Krieg“ kaum

15:11 10.10.2016(aktualisiert 15:18 10.10.2016)  Das US-Verteidigungsministerium hält einen Krieg gegen Russland für ein hypothetisches Szenario. Allerdings sind die von der Zeitung "Iswestija" befragten Experten überzeugt, dass so etwas kaum möglich wäre, heißt es in der Montagausgabe der Zeitung. Der amerikanische Politologe von der New York University und Ex-Berater des Afghanistan- und Pakistan-Beauftragten des US-Außenministeriums Barnett Rubin sagte, die Pentagon-Generäle propagieren keinen Krieg gegen Russland, sondern planen Handlungen für den Fall unvorhersehbarer Umstände. „Die US-Generäle wollten vor allem sagen, dass ein neuer Weltkrieg dermaßen zerstörend wäre, dass wir uns so etwas nicht einmal vorstellen können. Deshalb besteht der einzige Ausweg darin, dass die USA und Russland jegliche Probleme gemeinsam lösen müssen“, betonte Rubin. 
Lawrow zu „aggressiven Schritten“ der USA: Russlands Sicherheit wird bedroht Auf einer Konferenz im Pentagon am 4. Oktober hatten mehrere amerikanische Generäle vermutet, dass ein Krieg zwischen Moskau und Washington „schnell und tödlich“ wäre. So sagte der Stabschef des US-Heeres, General Mark Milley, ein Konflikt zwischen Washington und Moskau sei „fast garantiert“. Generalmajor William Hix unterstrich sogar, ein Krieg könnte „schon in der nächsten Zeit“ ausbrechen, so dass sich das Pentagon auf solch umfassende Kriegshandlungen gefasst mache, wie es sie seit dem Korea-Krieg nicht mehr gegeben habe. US-Top-General: Nur Russland kann die USA vernichten Russische Militärs denken jedoch nicht, dass ihre US-Kollegen tatsächlich an die Möglichkeit eines russisch-amerikanischen Krieges glauben. „Die USA  verstehen, dass sie im Falle eines globalen Krieges einen Schlag gegen ihr Territorium nicht verhindern könnten“, sagte der Präsident der Akademie für geopolitische Probleme, Generaloberst Leonid Iwaschow. „Das ist nichts als die Meinung einer Gruppe von Militärs. Das Pentagon sagt etwas, das US-Außenministerium sagt etwas anderes. Klar ist nur, dass diese Aussage das Ziel hatte, Russland einzuschüchtern und ihm die Hände in Syrien zu binden“, so der General.  Was die USA nach Bruch mit Russland zu befürchten haben Auch der Abgeordnete der Staatsduma (Parlamentsunterhaus) Viktor Wodolazki sagte, er könne sich eine direkte militärische Konfrontation zwischen Russland und den USA unmöglich vorstellen, und stimmte der Meinung zu, dass es sich um die private Meinung mehrerer US-Generäle handele. Die Kontroversen zwischen Moskau und Washington sind vor allem in Syrien spürbar, wo es tatsächlich zu gegenseitigen Konfrontationen kommen könnte. Allerdings habe ein realer Krieg zwischen den beiden Großmächten keine Perspektiven, zeigte sich Yezid Sayigh vom Carnegie-Center in Beirut überzeugt. „Die USA zeigten mit ihren Handlungen in Syrien, dass sie keinen direkten militärischen Konflikt mit Russland wollen. Auch Moskau ist nicht an einem ‚heißen‘ Krieg gegen Washington interessiert. Möglich wäre nur eine indirekte Konfrontation in Syrien.“  Der Syrien-Krieg als Probe für den Dritten Weltkrieg Der Experte des Washingtoner Zentrums Gulf State Analytics Theodore Karasik erklärte seinerseits, die Äußerungen der US-Generäle seien „die Meinung einiger Hitzköpfe von der Generation des Kalten Krieges“. „Sie sind immer noch überzeugt, dass ein neuer Weltkrieg unvermeidlich ist, und verstehen nicht, dass wir schon längst in einer ganz anderen geopolitischen Realität leben. Es besteht eine große Wahrscheinlichkeit einer Konfrontation zwischen amerikanischen Kampfjets fünfter Generation und russischen S-300-Systemen in Syrien. Aber Perspektiven eines neuen globalen Krieges gibt es keine. Eine Eskalation der russisch-amerikanischen Beziehungen würde zur weiteren Destabilisierung der Situation nicht nur im Nahen Osten, sondern auch in Osteuropa und in der Arktis führen“, so der Experte. © AFP 2016/ STAFF US-Verteidigungsamt verspricht „Antwort“ auf S-300-Stationierung in Syrien Richard Weitz vom Hudson Institute stimmte zu, dass ein direkter russisch-amerikanischer Krieg so gut wie unmöglich sei, denn auf dem Spiel würde dann die Zukunft der ganzen Welt stehen. „In Washington hält man ein solches Szenario nicht für realistisch, auch wenn die Gefahr von spontanen Zwischenfällen besteht, bei denen russische oder amerikanische Militärs ums Leben kommen könnten, wie das mit dem von der Türkei im vorigen Jahr abgeschossenen russischen Kampfjet passierte“, so Weitz. Nach seinen Worten bereiten sich die US-Militärs auf „mögliche“ Kriege gegen Gegner wie Russland oder China vor, oder auch auf den Kampf gegen Terroristen. „Die größte Gefahr wäre, wenn diese Länder Angriffen von Terroristen ausgesetzt würden, die Atomwaffen in ihre Hände bekämen. (…) Gegen solche Gefahren kämpfen Moskau und Washington traditionell gemeinsam. Trotz der jüngsten Kontroversen um das Plutonium und das Abkommen über Nuklearforschungen hoffe ich immer noch, dass das Zusammenwirken auf diesem Gebiet künftig intensiviert wird.“


Russischer Botschafter beruhigt Gemüter: Russland und USA lassen keinen Atomkrieg zu

09:52 12.10.2016(aktualisiert 09:54 12.10.2016)  Moskau und Washington werden keine Eskalation der Beziehungen zwischen den beiden Ländern zulassen, die zu einem möglichen Einsatz von Kernwaffen führen könnte, wie der russische Botschafter in den USA, Sergej Kisljak, bei einer Rede in der Johns Hopkins University in Washington sagte.  Militärische Konflikte Russland-USA möglich – „Globaler Krieg“ kaum „Ich teile nicht die Ansicht, die Risiken eines Atomkrieges seien heute hoch. Ungeachtet unserer Meinungsverschiedenheiten denke ich, dass wir genug kluge Leute haben, die dies nicht zulassen werden“, so der Botschafter. Ferner teilte er mit, dass Russland und die USA ein erneutes Treffen ihrer Außenminister, Sergej Lawrow und John Kerry, vorbereiten würden. „Vorerst kann ich nichts bestätigen. Die Arbeit läuft“, so Kisljak. Der russische Präsident Wladimir Putin hatte zuvor die Möglichkeit eines solchen Treffens am Samstag erwähnt. Putin: Niemand will neue „Kuba-Krise“ Am 3. Oktober hatten die USA die Einstellung der Zusammenarbeit mit Russland zur Waffenruhe in Syrien erklärt und lediglich militärische Kanäle zur Verhinderung von Konflikten im syrischen Luftraum zwischen der Luftwaffe beider Länder offen gelassen. Der russische Präsident Wladimir Putin hatte daraufhin „wegen nicht freundschaftlicher Handlungen“ das im Jahr 2000 mit den USA geschlossene Abkommen über die Entsorgung von überschüssigem waffenfähigem Plutonium auf Eis gelegt.