23 Million Yemeni are now officially on the brink of starvation as a result of the illegal seige warfare the United States is waging against the poorest nation in the region, not allowing any Iranian or other aid in to many regions with its port blockade among other things.
To add insult to injury Secretary Of State Mike Pompeo makes the twisted statements like the ones he makes at the end of this clip.
Sick. Perverse. Disgusting. Revolting.
Meanwhile as the worlds two richest nations continue their genocide against one of the worlds poorest, one has to wonder: How the hell did they manage to hide a haulocaust in the Middle East so well, starting in 2003 with the Million Iraqis killed and continuing today in Yemen?
This outstanding synopsis was put out by Michael Rivero himself on his radio show a few years back and put to video by Zane Henry Productions for those that require some visual cues that are quite well done. Michaels website comes highly recomended: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/#axzz5hyle9j3Y
If I could make one video compulsary viewing it would be this one.
There are one or two minor points of contention I have factually, but this synopsis is so insightful, grasps the context of which fits into which so well, that it would feel like splitting hairs to bring them up now. I'll go over them on a later post.
Never before have I heard someone explain the true connection between central banks, war, the petrodollar, the national debt and climate change so brilliantly and so succintly before. He does this monumental task in 40 minutes and does it well.
Here bulleted below I quote from the NATO website.
Collective defence means that an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies.
The principle of collective defence is enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.
NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States
Basically, through Article 5 it's the basis of 18 years of military action starting with the occupation of Afghanistan.
It was declassified in 2008 in what I believe was the only oversight by US government conspiritors in their effort to lie to the US people. It appeared on Intel Files in 2009 and only recently has the critical importance of the document has been understood. It was danish Professor Niels Harrit (Associate Professor of Chemistry for Copenhagen University for 37 years) who first made the connection. The esteemed Professor tasted the sting of organised Deep State public smear campaign after doing nothing more than report his expert findings on the use of nanothermite in the demolition World Trade Centre 7. The resulting backlash subsequently caused him to join the 9/11 truth movement. https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Niels_Harrit
Why exactly is it so important? Let's go back to time the decisions were made.
Lord Robertson, NATO's general secretary gives the legal justification required for getting all 19 countries on board for military action, citing the Frank Taylor reports compelling EVIDENCE.
The above clip was taken from NATO'S official YouTube channel.
Here is a great synopsis from the Corbett Report of the events at the time, and why it took so many years for the penny to drop. It all comes down to dates which make the story impossible, and "cut and paste" repetitions being where they shouldn't, and the fact that THE REPORT CONTAINS NO EVIDENCE.
How can this scenario not be a candidate for one of the greatest historical oversights? Of course it is, we just aren't allowed the faculty of critical thought required to think it.
As for all those academics at US institutions still towing the line, all those good dogs barking for their biscuits in internet "skeptics" forums defending the governments official 9/11 conspiracy theory (the most crackpot of all the crackpot theories) and all those MSM presstitute talking heads, just remember this. The time is coming to choose which side of history to be on.
The thin veneer of decency is nearly gone, soon we will all be confronted with the fact that we have no effect on the Orwellian Cabal than lurks behind the curtain.
How will we react? No idea.
All I know is this: To name a thing for what it is, is to take its power.
In a moment of ireverant stupidity and before realising it would be impossible to rig explosive devices in WT7 in under 2 weeks, let alone in under 2 hours following the Chaos of the 9/11 attacks. LS made this stunning attempt at explaining the clear controlled demolition of the tower that fell without being hit by a plane.
We Are Change (https://wearechange.org) some actual Journalism at work here in a time of universal media selling out, with the balls to confront him on his stunning admission above.
Haiti, Yemen, Libya, Honduras, Ukraine, Syria, Israel/Palestine, Iran, Afghanistan. Has there ever been a nation that has actually IMPROVED after Hitlary's meddling? Has there ever been a war she has not backed? Doubtful. When Hillary Clinton goes on about "experience" she should keep her mouth shut rather than bring up her abysmal track record.... Except that's what conventional wisdom would have you believe. Why would the establishment back somebody with such a disastrous past unless what is reported as a failure is not actually the precise result intended? That's right, Hillary meant to destroy all those nations, or at least choose chaos over the previous leadership, that was her true mandate, and that's why her backers want more of same. That's how it works. It can never be openly discussed without fessing up to the real agenda which would never be tolerated in terms of public approval. This is why everything she does is chalked up to being a "blunder". US Uncut does a sterling job of tracking her record as Secretary Of State here: http://usuncut.com/politics/hillary-clinton-foreign-policy-record/
For background and part 1 see the link below for the U.S. Department Of Clowns, including some classic foot in mouth moments from John Kirby & Jen Psaki http://dwahts.blogspot.co.za/2016/01/the-us-department-of-clowns.html. Of course, not much has changed because The US State Department continues to function as a PR Machine for the Pentagon. This apologist department seems to have little function in the public eye concerning matters of State, and is more and more of an excuse generating unit. A great assesment from RPI http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2016/april/25/state-department-jokesman-obama-never-said-no-boots-on-ground-in-syria/
State Dept flatly Rejects claims Obama said "No boots on the ground in Syria"
But riddle me this, how do we reconcile John Kirby's flat out denials with his president? The whole thing is just an enigma, wrapped in a mystery....
"Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground."
"What we’re talking about is not an open-ended intervention. This would not be another Iraq or Afghanistan. There would be no American boots on the ground."
"I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria."
-Obama in a televised national address from the White House
More recently, in 2014, Obama talked less about "no boots on the ground" and more about those hypothetical troops not having a "combat" mission or be actually fighting — a distinction the White House keyed on Friday.
"With respect to the situation on the ground in Syria, we will not be placing U.S. ground troops to try to control the areas that are part of the conflict inside of Syria."
"I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil."
I've come up with a novel way of getting those who don't have a good sense of international policy norms to instantly identify with the plight of those victimized by US foreign policy. Put yourself in their position. Lets do an exercise where we place Bashar Al-Assad in the role of the US and the US in the Role of Syria. We will substitute local elements at play with their equivalents on the opposite side and allow the neighboring countries to assume to relevant roles in reverse.
Turning it around:
If Trump or Clinton, who Assad considers unfit to lead, win the US election, the method requires arming and funding local rebels (In Trumps case I think Mexican Drug Cartels would be the most enthusiastic) but he can find moderates like the Colombians too. All the Leaders of South America will support Assad and the Drug Cartels in their freedom bombing which will be branded a "Civil War". These groups can then bomb US towns and cities and innocent US women and children as well as the US military. The newspapers won't report that, they will report that "Trump Must Go" and brand any attempts made By Canada to intervene for a political solutions as "support for a brutal regime" Canada will be demonized for trying to stabilize the situation across her border. her border with the US.
The elections will be branded illegitimate, and the fleeing US population will flood South American countries, the ones who support Assads bombing, where they will be attacked, insulted and generally not offered any sympathy. The South American countries will be criticized for their handling of the US refugee crises, but will get no heat from the media for supporting Assad bombing the US, the root cause. of the crises. Just as the US is about to fall to the drug cartels, Canada will intervene with its military and defeat the cartels, at which point the media will target Canada for bombing civilians (actually bombed by Assad and the cartels) and their liberation of the US from the external regime change attack will not really get any coverage, but Canada will remain the focus of the ever watchful media due to its territorial aggression.
If you are a Westerner, you will most likely find that situation sound absolutely bonkers in 2016?
It's no exaggeration. This is reality. Same principles in play but perhaps you can now get a better sense of why so many people feel this is completely unacceptable and at odds with our stated global goal of becoming more civilized as a planet. This is exactly what the US is doing in Syria, but this time they failed. Some people still don't see a problem with the scenario I just painted above and want the US and their media using this method around the world for freedom. The people who are against it will only oppose it when it happens to their country.... so they are in the minority every time.
