Antroposofisch tijdschrift voor politieke en maatschappelijke vraagstukken van deze tijd
We are sorry, but the page you are looking for does not exist. Maybe try a search?
Zoeken naar: » Lees verder
Big Lies and deception about what happened in Srebrenica a generation ago were part of the 1990s rape of Yugoslavia by the Clinton co-presidency and NATO killing machine.
Events of that time were and remain one of history’s great crimes — killing a nation to advance America’s imperial aims, a scorched earth policy to transform all countries into US vassal states, along with gaining control of their resources and populations.
The official narrative of what happened in Srebrenica reinvented reality — a longstanding US-led Western specialty.
Big Lies and deception suppressed truth and full disclosure. Repeated by establishment media, most people to this day are none the wiser.
Events of the 90s culminated in all-out preemptive war on Yugoslavia from March 24 – June 10, 1999 — 78 days of US-led terror-bombing.
Like all wars, what happened was based on Big Lies and deception.
So-called Operation Noble Anvil was an act of infamy against the former Yugoslavia and its people.
Claims about wanting to counter Slobodan Milosevic’s aim for a “Greater Serbia” were falsified.
US aims were and remain all about wanting the country balkanized for easier control, its legitimate leadership replaced by pro-Western puppet rule.
Milosevic wanted Yugoslavia’s disintegration prevented. He wanted minority Serbs protected. He wanted peace, stability, and cooperative relations with the West, not war.
US-led aggression replaced Yugoslavia’s market socialism with pro-Western neoliberal harshness, its people exploited, not served.
In February 1999, the so-called Rambouillet Agreement was prelude to war — an ultimatum no responsible leader could accept.
Designed for rejection, it was an unacceptable take-it-or-leave-it demand.
It effectively ordered Milosevic to surrender Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) sovereignty to a NATO occupation force.
It demanded unimpeded access to its land, airspace and territorial waters, as well as any area or facility therein.
It required the FRY to let NATO freely operate outside federal law. Demanding it was outrageous. Milosevic’s justifiable refusal became a pretext for US-led aggression.
At the time, nobel laureate Harold Pinter denounced the rape of Yugoslavia.
Mincing no words, he called US-led terror-bombing and dismemberment of the state “barbaric (and despicable),
The People’s Republic of China is in no way a military threat to the rest of the world: it does not see itself as a conquering power, but as resilient. It is in this sense that the ceremonies of its 70th anniversary must be understood. It has recovered politically and economically from the aggression it suffered in the 19th century, but its culture today exerts no attraction over others.
Seventy years ago, on October 1, 1949, Mao Zedong proclaimed the birth of the People’s Republic of China from the Tien An Men gate. The anniversary is being celebrated today with a military parade in front of the historic gate in Beijing. From Europe to Japan and the United States, the mainstream media present it as an ostentation of forces by a threatening power. Virtually no one remembers the dramatic historical episodes that led to the birth of New China.
Thus disappeared China, reduced to a colonial and semi-colonial state, subdued, exploited and dismembered since the middle of the 19th century by the European powers (Great Britain, Germany, France, Belgium, Austria and Italy), by tsarist Russia, by Japan and by the United States. Thus, the bloody coup d’état carried out in 1927 by Chiang Kai-shek – later supported by the Anglo-United States – was erased, exterminating a large part of the Communist Party (born in 1921) and killing hundreds of thousands of workers and peasants. There is no mention of the Red Army’s “Long March”, which, begun in 1934 as a disastrous retreat, was transformed by Mao Zedong into one of the greatest political and military achievements in history. We forget the war of aggression against China unleashed by Japan in 1937: Japanese troops occupy Beijing, Shanghai and Nanjing, killing more than 300,000 civilians in the latter, while more than ten cities are attacked with biological weapons. The history of the anti-Japanese United Front, which the Communist Party forms with the Kuomintang: the Kuomintang troops, armed by the United States, on the one hand fight the Japanese invaders, on the other hand impose an embargo on the areas liberated by the Red Army and concentrate the Japanese offensive against them; the Communist Party, which went from 40,000 to 1.2 million members, guides the popular forces from 1937 to 1945 in a war that increasingly wears out the Japanese army.
On the eve of the 18-year anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks and the illegal U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the United States and the Taliban completed nine rounds of peace talks with no deal.
Although they had reportedly reached an agreement in principle, Donald Trump insisted on a secret meeting at Camp David with the Taliban and the puppet Afghan government so he could take credit as dealmaker-in-chief. The idea of finalizing the negotiations at Camp David was “a prospect that appealed to the president’s penchant for dramatic spectacle,” The New York Times reported.
Trump, however, abruptly canceled the meeting, slated to occur last weekend, citing a Taliban car bombing that killed an American.
There are “questions about the accuracy of [Trump’s] assertion that the Taliban had accepted his invitation to Camp David on Sunday, and that he was the one calling off the meeting,” according to The New York Times.
“Taliban negotiators said Sunday that they had agreed to come to the United States only after a deal was announced and only to meet with the American side, suggesting that Mr. Trump may have canceled a meeting that the key participants were not planning to attend.”
Trump’s excuse for calling off the Camp David meeting is also belied by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s claim that the United States was responsible for “over a thousand Taliban killed in just the last 10 days alone.”
Two days after cancelling the meeting, Trump told reporters the peace talks with the Taliban are “dead as far as I’m concerned.”
The Tentative Peace Deal Would Leave Thousands of U.S. Troops in Afghanistan
There are currently 14,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Under the Trump administration’s tentative agreement with the Taliban, the U.S. would pull 5,400 troops out of Afghanistan within 135 days of signing, reducing the number to 8,600. This would still leave more U.S. troops in Afghanistan than the 8,400 who were there when Barack Obama left office. The remaining troops would be withdrawn gradually over a 16-month period.
In return, the Taliban would agree to not support international terrorist groups and would prevent terrorists from using Afghanistan to mount attacks.
“The power of the communists, wherever that power flourishes, depends upon their ability to suppress and destroy the free institutions that stand against them. They pick them off one by one: the political parties, the trade unions, the churches, the schools, the universities, the trade associations, even the sporting clubs and the kindergartens. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is meant to be a declaration to the world that this kind of conquest from within will not in the future take place amongst us.” – March 28, 1949, Lester Pearson, External Affairs Minister, House of Commons
First in a four-part series on the 70th anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
With NATO turning 70 next week it’s a good occasion to revisit the creation of a military alliance operating under the stated principle that an “attack against one ally is considered as an attack against all allies.” Now encompassing 29 member states, the north Atlantic alliance was instigated by US, British and Canadian officials.
Formally, NATO was the West’s response to an aggressive Soviet Union, but the notion that the US, or even Western Europe, was threatened by the Soviet Union after World War II is laughable. Twenty-five million people in the Soviet Union lost their lives in the war while the US came out of WWII much stronger than when they entered it. After the destruction of WWII, the Soviets were not interested in fighting the US and its allies, which Canadian and US officials admitted privately. In April 1945 Canada’s ambassador to Russia, Dana Wilgress, concluded that “the interests of the Soviet privileged class are bound up with the maintenance of a long period of peace.” The Soviet elite, the ambassador continued in an internal memo, was “fearful of the possibility of attack from abroad” and “obsessed with problems of security.” Wilgress believed the Soviets wanted a post-war alliance with the UK to guarantee peace in Europe (with a Soviet sphere in the East and a UK-led West.) Internally, US officials came to similar conclusions.
Rather than a defence against possible Russian attack, NATO was partly conceived as a reaction to growing socialist sentiment in Western Europe.