WMD America: Inside The Pentagon’s Global Bioweapons Industry

09-02-18 09:27:00,

Source: 21st Century Wire

By Dilyana Gaytandzhieva

21st Century WireSPECIAL REPORT

The US Army regularly produces deadly viruses, bacteria and toxins in direct violation of the UN Convention on the prohibition of Biological Weapons.

As a result, many hundreds of thousands of unwitting people are systematically exposed to dangerous pathogens, and other potentially incurable diseases. This highly classified network of R &D and production facilities includes an array of US government private contracts, which raises additional concerns about privatised chains of command and public accountability.

While much of the mainstream discourse of this subject centres around the asymmetric threat posed by non-state actors procuring and using biological agents in ‘bioterrorism’ attacks, very little if any investigation is done into the very real threat posed by states and private companies who are involved in this highly opaque industry.

Part One: US Overseas Bio-Laboratories Network

Bio warfare scientists using diplomatic cover test man-made viruses at Pentagon bio laboratories in 25 countries across the world.

These US bio-laboratories are funded by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) under a $ 2.1 billion military program – Cooperative Biological Engagement Program (CBEP), and are located in former Soviet Union countries such as Georgia and Ukraine, the Middle East, South East Asia and Africa.


PHOTO: The Lugar Center, Republic of Georgia


The US Army has been deployed to Vaziani Military Air Base, 17 km away from the Pentagon bio-laboratory at The Lugar Center.

Georgia is a testing ground for bioweapons

The Lugar Center is the Pentagon bio laboratory in Georgia. It is located just 17 km away from the US Vaziani military airbase in the capital Tbilisi. Tasked with the military program are biologists from the US Army Medical Research Unit-Georgia (USAMRU-G) along with private contractors. The Bio-safety Level 3 Laboratory is accessible only to US citizens with security clearance. They are accorded diplomatic immunity under the 2002 US-Georgia Agreement on defense cooperation.


The USA-Georgia agreement accords diplomatic status to the US military and civilian personnel (including diplomatic vehicles),

 » Lees verder

America’s “Humanitarian War” against the World | Global Research – Centre for Research on Globalization

09-02-18 11:18:00,

First published by Global Research in September 2016

The following  text is a point by point thematic summary of Prof. Michel Chossudovsky‘s presentation at the Science for Peace Conference, Academy of Sciences, Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur, 15-16 August 2016

Introduction

Historically, science has supported the development of the weapons industry and the war economy. “Science for Peace” indelibly requires reversing the logic whereby commissioned  scientific endeavors are directed towards supporting what President Eisenhower called “The Military Industrial Complex”.

What is consequently required is a massive redirection of science and technology towards the pursuit of broad societal objectives. In turn, this requires a major shift in what is euphemistically called “US Foreign Policy”, namely America’s global military agenda.

Military Affairs: The Current Global Context 

Under a global military agenda, the actions undertaken by the Western military alliance (U.S.-NATO-Israel) in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Palestine, Ukraine, Syria and Iraq are coordinated at the highest levels of the military hierarchy. We are not dealing with piecemeal military and intelligence operations. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Asia Pacific region.

The current situation is all the more critical inasmuch as a US-NATO war on Russia, China and Iran is part of the US presidential election debate. It is presented as a political and military option to Western public opinion.

The US-NATO military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states. America’s hegemonic project is to destabilize and destroy countries through acts of war, support of terrorist organizations, regime change and economic warfare.

U.S. and NATO forces have been deployed in Eastern Europe including Poland and Ukraine. In turn, military maneuvers are being conducted at Russia’s doorstep which could potentially lead to confrontation with the Russian Federation.

The U.S. and its allies are also threatening China under President Obama’s “Pivot to Asia”.

The U.S. led airstrikes initiated in August 2014 directed against Iraq and Syria under the pretext of going after the Islamic State are part of a scenario of military escalation extending from North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean to Central and South Asia.

 » Lees verder

Man Who Sold America The Iraq War Just Warned Iran Is Next… But Is Anyone Listening?

08-02-18 12:37:00,

Authored by Carey Wedler via TheAntiMedia.org,

Fifteen years after the calamitous U.S. invasion of Iraq, an architect of the propaganda used to drum up support for the war is warning that it’s happening again — this time with Iran.

Lawrence Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, helped the then-secretary “paint a clear picture that war was the only choice” in his infamous 2003 speech to the U.N. This week, writing for the New York Times — an outlet that, at the time, parroted misleading narratives in support of the war — Wilkerson accused the Trump administration of manipulating evidence and fear-mongering in the same way the Bush administration did to cultivate public support for ousting Saddam Hussein.

In his Monday op-ed, titled “ I Helped Sell the False Choice of War Once. It’s Happening Again,” he wrote:

As his chief of staff, I helped Secretary Powell paint a clear picture that war was the only choice, that when ‘we confront a regime that harbors ambitions for regional domination, hides weapons of mass destruction and provides haven and active support for terrorists, we are not confronting the past, we are confronting the present. And unless we act, we are confronting an even more frightening future.’”

Though the U.N. and much of the world didn’t buy it, Wilkerson says Americans did, and it amounted to the culmination of a two-year effort by the Bush administration to initiate the war, which he now condemns.

That effort led to a war of choice with Iraq — one that resulted in catastrophic losses for the region and the United States-led coalition, and that destabilized the entire Middle East,” he wrote, going on to call out the Trump administration for pushing the United States down the same path in Iran.

This should not be forgotten,” he urged, “since the Trump administration is using much the same playbook to create a false impression that war is the only way to address the threats posed by Iran.”

Wilkerson singled out Nikki Haley,

 » Lees verder

Will America Propose First Use of Nuclear Weapons in Response to a Disabling Cyber Attack? | Global Research – Centre for Research on Globalization

04-02-18 09:31:00,

Featured image: A missile launch facility in North Dakota

A very dangerous narrative is unfolding within US military and intelligence circles.

It pertains to the use of nuclear weapons on a first strike basis as a means of “self-defense” in the case of a cyberattack by an enemy nation.

Cyberattacks cause disruptions in communications systems, transport, government services, financial transactions. They do not result in mass killings of civilians as in the case of  an outright bombing campaign directed against an enemy nation. 

What is contemplated in the 2017 NPR is the use of tactical nuclear weapons on a first strike basis against both nuclear and non-nuclear states, allegedly as a means of “self defense”.

This is nothing new. The preemptive nuclear weapons doctrine was first contemplated in George W. Bush’s 2001 Nuclear Posture Review in which a first strike pre-emptive use of tactical nuclear weapons was first formulated. B61 and B62 mini-nukes (bunker buster bombs with nuclear warheads) with an explosive capacity (yield) of up to 12 times a Hiroshima bomb were described as “harmless to civilians because the explosion is underground”. 

Below are relevant excerpts of the Nuclear Industries article

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, February 2, 2018

***

According to the the Financial Times quoted by Nuclear Industries:

“The world has been living with the threat of a nuclear apocalypse since the 1950s. Over the past decade, intelligence experts have increasingly warned about the threat of a catastrophic cyber attack.

“Now the two fears appear to have merged, with the US on the point of revising its defence policy — to allow the use of nuclear weapons, in retaliation for a devastating cyber attack”.

According to Nuclear Industries commenting on Trump’s 2017 Nuclear Posture Review, 

The [NPR 2017] “proposes to change US policy to allow the first use of nuclear weapons, in response to “attempts to destroy wide-reaching infrastructure, like a country’s power grid or communications, that would be most vulnerable to cyberweapons”.

Developed nations are now reliant on  functioning computer systems.

 » Lees verder

America’s War Economy: Trump Increases ‘Defense’ Budget 37% Above Obama’s. | Global Research – Centre for Research on Globalization

27-01-18 05:26:00,

The Washington Post headlined on January 26th, “Trump plans to ask for $716 billion for national defense in 2019 — a major increase”, and reported that when President Trump had entered the White House in January 2017, the ‘Defense’ budget was $521 billion, but that President Trump will propose in his upcoming State-of-the-Union speech, a 2019 ‘Defense’ budget of $716 billion, which, if it becomes law, would mean a 37% increase, above Obama’s last Pentagon budget (for 2017).

This is in line with President Trump’s recently announced strategic change, away from Obama’s military budget, which was focused mainly against radical Islamic terrorism, now to target, instead, mainly Russia and China, and, secondarily, Iran and North Korea. As CBS News summarized on January 20th, 

“There is a major change in U.S. military strategy. On Friday [January 19th], more than 16 years after the 9/11 attacks, U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said terrorism is no longer the No. 1 priority. … Maintaining a military advantage over China and Russia is now Defense Secretary Mattis’ top priority.”

Mattis said, in introducing Trump’s January 18th document, National Defense Strategy 2018,

“China is leveraging military modernization, influence operations, and predatory economics to coerce neighboring countries to reorder the Indo-Pacific region to their advantage. … Concurrently, Russia seeks veto authority over nations on its periphery in terms of their governmental, economic, and diplomatic decisions, to shatter the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and change European and Middle East security and economic structures to its favor. … Rogue regimes such as North Korea and Iran are destabilizing regions through their pursuit of nuclear weapons or sponsorship of terrorism.”

Trump’s National Defense Strategy 2018 document says,

“We will continue to prosecute the campaign against terrorists that we are engaged in today, but Great Power competition, not terrorism, is now the primary focus of U.S. national security.”

The candidate, Trump, who ran for office criticizing his predecessor, Barack Obama, for not doing enough against “radical Islamic terrorism,” is soaring the ‘Defense’ budget in order to refocus away from that threat, to “Great Power competition,” especially against China and Russia.

Whereas even many Republicans had attacked candidate Trump during his campaign,

 » Lees verder