Fascist USA

[Artashes]

Re: Fascist USA

They are two very different things. One was slavery (much of Europe was in slavery for a large period of time) the other was a cruel Genocide and extermination of a race. Yes they are very different from each other, and just because you great great grandfather was a slave, doesn't give you excuse to think that all of society owes you.

Your worthless argument is meritless and truly feeble.
You diminish the incredible suffering of black man and elevate the suffering of our family.
How utterly god damned disgusting.
Your one dimensional view point reminds me of a flatliner.
Mos, your unfortunately an Armenian bigot. Guys like you give our family a bad name.
Your comments thus far on the topic of slavery and the plight of disperse community of the originally abducteds offspring is devoid of both understanding and compassion.
While I uphold the black man you degrade him.
While I easilily see the shared path of horror and grief between my family and theirs,
You differentiate and only acknowledge one as truly horrendous.
You worthless fkn bigot.

[Artashes]

Re: Fascist USA

Let's get this straight you fkn jerk (mos)

Your talking about my friends. I'm an Armenian and I have lots of black friends. I would never compare who suffered most you worthless fool. I would share (emmediately) the common incredible grief.

So there is two different takes on reality ... One by mos and the other by me.

LOL

[Haykakan]

Re: Fascist USA

US COMPLAINS AS RUSSIA BOMBS ITS TERRORISTS

01.10.2015 Author: Tony Cartalucci

Column: Politics
Region: Middle East
Country: Syria

The New York Times in its recent article, "Russians Strike Targets in
Syria, but Not ISIS Areas," attempts to frame Russia's recent actions
in Syria as dishonest and dangerous. It reports:

Russian aircraft carried out a bombing attack against Syrian opposition
fighters on Wednesday, including at least one group trained by the
C.I.A., eliciting angry protests from American officials and plunging
the complex sectarian war there into dangerous new territory.

This of course would only make Russia's actions dishonest or dangerous
if groups trained by the US CIA were in fact the "moderates" the US
claims they are. However, they are not, and thus Russia's actions
are duly justified as is the expansion of their current policy.

There Are no Moderates, and There Never Were

For months now, after years of headlines confirming the US has been
covertly arming militants in Syria for the purpose of overthrowing
the government in Damascus, a narrative revolving around tens of
thousands of these militants "defecting" to Al Nusra and the so-called
"Islamic State" (ISIS/ISIL) has been peddled to the public by the
Western media and US politicians to account for the apparent failure
of America's alleged policy of creating an army of "moderates" to
both fight ISIS/Al Qaeda and the Syrian government.

In reality, from the beginning, there were never any moderates.

Starting as early as 2007, years before the war in Syria began,
the US as a matter of policy had long since decided to intentionally
fund and support the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood - for all intents and
purposes the political wing of Al Qaeda - and begin arming militants
affiliated with Al Qaeda itself.

This was revealed in Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour
Hersh's 2007 New Yorker article titled, "The Redirection Is the
Administration's new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on
terrorism?," which stated explicitly (emphasis added):

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush
Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in
the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with
Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations
that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is
backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations
aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has
been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant
vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

Hersh's prophetic 9-page report would also reveal that even then, the
extremist Syrian Muslim Brotherhood was already receiving funding and
support from the United States via Saudi Arabia. His report revealed
(emphasis added):

There is evidence that the Administration's redirection strategy has
already benefitted the Brotherhood. The Syrian National Salvation
Front is a coalition of opposition groups whose principal members are
a faction led by Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian Vice-President
who defected in 2005, and the Brotherhood. A former high-ranking
C.I.A. officer told me, "The Americans have provided both political
and financial support. The Saudis are taking the lead with financial
support, but there is American involvement." He said that Khaddam,
who now lives in Paris, was getting money from Saudi Arabia, with
the knowledge of the White House. (In 2005, a delegation of the
Front's members met with officials from the National Security Council,
according to press reports.) A former White House official told me that
the Saudis had provided members of the Front with travel documents.

By 2011, Al Qaeda's affiliates in Syria, most notably the Al Nusra
Front, began operating nation-wide, taking the lead in the US-backed
fight against Damascus. By 2012, when the US State Department listed
Al Nusra as a foreign terrorist organization, it was clear even
then, that the largest contingent of anti-government forces on the
battlefield was Al Qaeda.

The US State Department's official statement regarding Al Nusra
reported that:

Since November 2011, al-Nusrah Front has claimed nearly 600 attacks -
ranging from more than 40 suicide attacks to small arms and improvised
explosive device operations - in major city centers including Damascus,
Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr. During these
attacks numerous innocent Syrians have been killed.

It is clear that Al Qaeda was not only involved in the conflict since
its beginning, but also led it. This betrays current US rhetoric that
Al Qaeda had only entered the fight later on, seizing on the chaos
created by "moderates" and their fight with Damascus. It is clear
that it was Al Qaeda itself that drove that chaos from the beginning,
and is still driving this chaos to this day.

The Rhetorical Pipeline

To explain how America's fictional "moderate" army has been displaced
on the battlefield in Syria by Al Qaeda and ISIS, the US claims that
its multi-billion dollar nearly 5-year operation has suffered from
massive defections.

The Guardian would report in its article, "Free Syrian Army rebels
defect to Islamist group Jabhat al-Nusra," that:

Syria's main armed opposition group, the Free Syrian Army
(FSA), is losing fighters and capabilities to Jabhat al-Nusra,
an Islamist organisation with links to al-Qaida that is emerging
as the best-equipped, financed and motivated force fighting Bashar
al-Assad's regime.

The International Business Times would report in its article, "Four
Years Later, The Free Syrian Army Has Collapsed," that:

The Nusra Front, aka Jabhat al-Nusra, has picked up thousands of men
who once fought under the umbrella of the FSA during the past three
years. It offers its soldiers hundreds of dollars a month in salary
and food installments. The soldiers in the FSA did not receive any
monthly stipend. When extremist groups such as the Nusra Front gained
ground in Syria and received millions of dollars in cash and weapons
from wealthy businessmen in the Gulf states and Libya, the moderate
rebels "had no other choice," Jarrah said. "They feel like they are
cheated, so they join ISIS."

The Daily Beast would report in its article, "Main U.S.-Backed Syrian
Rebel Group Disbanding, Joining Islamists," that:

The Syrian rebel group Harakat al-Hazm, one of the White House's
most trusted militias fighting President Bashar al-Assad, collapsed
Sunday, with activists posting a statement online from frontline
commanders saying they are disbanding their units and folding them
into brigades aligned with a larger Islamist insurgent alliance
distrusted by Washington.

Harakat al-Hazm would take with them to Al Qaeda and ISIS, millions of
dollars worth of sophisticated US weapons, including US-made anti-tank
TOW missiles.

The most recent US supported group, the fabled "Division 30,"
has also allegedly defected to Al Qaeda - assuming they weren't Al
Qaeda militants from the beginning. The Telegraph in its article,
"US-trained Division 30 rebels 'betray US and hand weapons over to
al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria'," reported that:

Pentagon-trained rebels in Syria are reported to have betrayed their
American backers and handed their weapons over to al-Qaeda in Syria
immediately after re-entering the country.

Fighters with Division 30, the "moderate" rebel division favoured
by the United States, surrendered to the al-Qaeda-affiliated Jabhat
al-Nusra, a raft of sources claimed on Monday night.

What this news, admitted to by the West itself, of these US-backed
"moderates" joining Al Qaeda's ranks by the thousands proves is that
at the very least America's policy of building up a moderate opposition
has failed entirely. What documented evidence stretching back as far as
2007 proves is that the US had no intention of building up a moderate
opposition in the first place, and news of "defections" are simply
cover for the direct funding and arming of Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria.

At the very least, Russia bombing these groups either having already
defected to Al Qaeda, or inevitably going to defect to Al Qaeda,
is doing the Pentagon a favor.

Russia is Bombing Al Qaeda

This leads back to the most recent New York Times article. Russia is
not arbitrarily bombing "moderates" backed by the US in Syria to stave
off allegedly "legitimate" opposition to the government in Damascus
- Russia is bombing terrorists who are either operating under the
banner of Al Qaeda but are portrayed as otherwise by the US, or will
inevitably end up turning their fighters and weapons over to Al Qaeda.

Russia is bombing Al Qaeda.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJlB4BAcKTs

The New York Times article would also claim:

"By supporting Assad and seemingly taking on everybody fighting Assad,"
Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter said Wednesday, Russia is "taking
on the whole rest of the country that's fighting Assad." Some of
those groups, he added, are supported by the United States and need
to be part of a political resolution in Syria.

Indeed, Russia is undoubtedly bombing militants supported by the United
States, but that is only because the United States has intentionally
supported Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria. At any time if the United States
truly wanted to strike an irreparable blow at ISIS forces, it could
simply seal off the Turkish border across which the summation of
ISIS' supplies, fighters, weapons, and vehicles flow. By securing the
Turkish-Syrian border to the north, and the Jordanian-Syrian border
in the south, the United States could strangle ISIS out of existence
in a month, if not sooner.

That it has intentionally allowed ISIS supplies to flow out from under
the nose of its allies and its own military forces stationed both in
Jordan and in Turkey, indicates the the US at the very least is tacitly
perpetuating the existence of ISIS - but most likely is actively
involved in filling the trucks bound for ISIS in Syria as well.

US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter claims that the Russian position
is "doomed," in what appears to be a pledge by the United States to
resist Moscow's attempts to stamp out Al Qaeda groups in addition to
taking on and eliminating ISIS.

Some might consider doubling down on a policy of backing terrorists
that will inevitably be revealed to the world, and a policy that
has thus far failed to topple the Syrian government which is now
being bolstered by Russian, Iranian, and possibly Chinese forces,
is a policy that is ultimately doomed.

And finally, it must be noted, for those still doubting ISIS is in
fact an intentional creation of US foreign policy, that ISIS is now
fighting the combined military forces of Syria, Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq,
and now Russia. One must ask themselves who has the material resources,
finances, and operational capacity to support a single army capable
of taking on a multinational coalition of this size. Where, if not
from the US and its regional allies, is ISIS deriving the source of
its fighting capacity?

Claiming to fight ISIS, while so transparently supporting them, is
indeed a doomed position, one doomed to fail today, and one doomed
to eternal condemnation in the future.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer,
especially for the online magazine"New Eastern Outlook".

First
appeared:http://journal-neo.org/2015/10/01/us...ts-terrorists/

[Haykakan]

Re: Fascist USA

Afghan conflict: MSF 'disgust' at government hospital claims

News | 05.10.2015 | 11:33




BBC - Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) has said it is "disgusted" by Afghan government statements justifying an air strike on its hospital in Kunduz, calling it an "admission of a war crime".

MSF said the statement implies US and Afghan forces decided to bomb the hospital because of claims Taliban members were inside.

The charity blames US-led Nato forces for Saturday's attack which killed at least 22 people, including MSF staff.

The US is investigating the incident.

Afghan government forces, backed by the US-led coalition, have been engaged in a battle to retake the northern city from Taliban fighters who seized it last month.

'Raze to the ground'

On Saturday the Afghan defence ministry said "armed terrorists" were using the hospital "as a position to target Afghan forces and civilians".

MSF said in a statement: "These statements imply that Afghan and US forces working together decided to raze to the ground a fully functioning hospital - with more than 180 staff and patients inside - because they claim that members of the Taliban were present.

"This amounts to an admission of a war crime. This utterly contradicts the initial attempts of the US government to minimise the attack as 'collateral damage.'"

US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter said on Sunday that a full, transparent investigation would be conducted into whether the US military could be linked to the attack.

MSF reiterated its demand for an independent investigation by an international body.

Twelve MSF staff members and 10 patients were killed when the hospital was hit.

Dozens were injured and the hospital severely damaged by a series of air strikes lasting more than an hour from 02:00 local time on Saturday morning.

On its Twitter feed, MSF said: "The hospital was repeatedly and precisely hit during each aerial raid, while the rest of the compound was left mostly untouched.

"Not a single member of our staff reported any fighting inside the hospital compound prior to the US air strike on Saturday morning."

[Haykakan]

Re: Fascist USA

O look USA defense secretary has his panties in bunches as Russia kills the western backed terrorists.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/08/russia-pay-price-syrian-airstrikes-ashton-carter-us-defence-secretary

[Haykakan]

Re: Fascist USA

Russia has named the U.S. as one of the threats to its national security in a new assessment signed by President Vladimir Putin on Thursday, according to a published report.

Reuters reported the document, “About the Strategy of National Security of Russian Federation,” replaces the 2009 version endorsed by former President Dmitry Medvedev, which didn’t mention the U.S. or NATO. Russia continues to increase its role in solving global conflicts, which has caused some reaction from the West, according to the document.






ADVERTISEMENT

It is the first time Russia has officially named the U.S. a national security threat, according to Reuters.

Russia claims its heightened global reach has caused “counteraction from the USA and its allies, which are striving to retain their dominance in global affairs.” The document claims that Western pressures will likely lead to increased “political, economical, military and informational pressure” on Russia.

Relations between Moscow and the West became to deteriorate stemming from Russia’s annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. Western nations have repeatedly accused Russia of funding insurgents in Ukraine despite Moscow’s denials.

Russia’s security document accuses the U.S. and EU of supporting an “anti-constitutional coup d’etat in Ukraine,” which has deepened the rift between Moscow and the West.

The U.S. and European Union have imposed sanctions against Russian companies and businessmen. Russia, in turn, clamped down on food imported from EU countries.

The expansion of NATO also concerns Russia. The document also said the U.S. has expanded its military biological labs in neighboring countries.

According to Reuters, the document fails to mention anything on Russia’s ongoing airstrikes in Syria, which has aided the Bashar al-Assad regime in the embattled nation. Assad, a Russian ally, has received military support from Russia in its civil war against U.S.-backed rebels and the Islamic State.

[Haykakan]

Re: Fascist USA

17.03.2016 Author: F. William Engdahl



Hillary Emails, Gold Dinars and Arab Springs


Column: Society

Region: Middle East

Country: Libya



45645645Buried amid tens of thousands of pages of former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s secret emails, now being made public by the US Government, is a devastating email exchange between Clinton and her confidential adviser, Sid Blumenthal. It’s about Qaddafi and the US-coordinated intervention in 2011 to topple the Libyan ruler. It’s about gold and a potentially existential threat to the future of the US dollar as world reserve currency. It’s about Qaddafi’s plans then for the gold-based Dinar for Africa and the Arab oil world.

Two paragraphs in a recently declassified email from the illegal private server used by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the US-orchestrated war to destroy Libya’s Qaddafi in 2011 reveal a tightly-held secret agenda behind the Obama Administration’s war against Qaddafi, cynically named “Responsibility to Protect.”

Barack Obama, an indecisive and weak President, delegated all presidential responsibility for the Libya war to his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Clinton, who was an early backer of an Arab “regime change,” using the secret Muslim Brotherhood, invoked the new, bizarre principle of “responsibility to protect” (R2P) to justify the Libyan war, which she quickly turned into a NATO-led war. Under R2P, a silly notion promoted by the networks of George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, Clinton claimed, with no verifiable proof, that Qaddafi was bombing innocent Libyan civilians in the Benghazi region.

According to a New York Times report at the time, citing Obama Administration senior sources, it was Hillary Clinton, backed by Samantha Power, then a senior aide at the National Security Council and today Obama’s UN Ambassador; and Susan Rice, then Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, and now National Security Adviser. That triad pushed Obama into military action against Libya’s Qaddafi. Clinton, flanked by Powers and Rice, was so powerful that Clinton managed to overrule Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Tom Donilon, Obama’s national security adviser, and John Brennan, Obama’s counterterrorism chief, today CIA head.

Secretary of State Clinton was also knee-deep in the conspiracy to unleash what came to be dubbed the “Arab Spring,” the wave of US-financed regime changes across the Arab Middle East, part of the Greater Middle East project unveiled in 2003 by the Bush Administration after occupation of Iraq. The first three target countries of that 2011 US “Arab Spring”–an action in which Washington used its “human rights” NGOs such as Freedom House and National Endowment for Democracy, in cahoots as usual, with the Open Society Foundations of billionaire speculator, George Soros, along with US State Department and CIA operatives–were Ben Ali’s Tunisia, Mubarak’s Egypt and Qaddafi’s Libya.

Now the timing and targeting of Washington’s 2011 “Arab Spring” destabilizations of select Middle East states assume a new light in relation to just-released declassified Clinton emails to her private Libya “adviser” and friend, Sid Blumenthal. Blumenthal is the slick lawyer who defended then-President Bill Clinton in the Monika Lewinsky and other sex scandal affairs when Bill was President and facing impeachment.

Qaddafi’s gold dinar

For many it remains a mystery just why Washington decided that Qaddafi personally must be destroyed, murdered, not just sent into exile like Mubarak. Clinton, when informed of Qaddafi’s brutal murder by US-financed Al Qaeda “democratic opposition” terrorists, told CBS news, in a sick, joking paraphrase of Julius Caesar, “We came, we saw, he died,” words spoken by her with a hearty, macabre laugh.

Little is known in the West about what Muammar Qaddafi did in Libya or, for that matter, in Africa and in the Arab world. Now, release of a new portion of Hillary Clinton’s emails as Secretary of State, at the time she was running Obama Administration war on Qaddafi, sheds dramatic new light on the background.

It was not a personal decision of Hillary Clinton to eliminate Qaddafi and destroy his entire state infrastructure. The decision, it’s now clear, came from circles very high in the US money oligarchy. She was merely another Washington political tool implementing the mandate of those oligarchs. The intervention was about killing Qaddafi’s well-laid plans to create a gold-based African and Arabic currency to replace the dollar in oil trades. Since the US dollar abandoned gold exchange for dollars in 1971 the dollar in terms of gold has dramatically lost value. Arab and African OPEC oil states have long objected to the vanishing purchasing power of their oil sales, mandated since the 1970’s by Washington to be solely in US dollars, as dollar inflation soared more than 2000% to 2001.

In a newly declassified Clinton email from Sid Blumenthal to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dated April 2, 2011, Blumenthal reveals the reason that Qaddafi must be eliminated. Using the pretext of citing an unidentified “high source” Blumenthal writes to Clinton, “According to sensitive information available to this source, Qaddafi’s government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver… This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).” That French aspect was only the tip of the Qaddafi gold dinar iceberg.

Golden Dinar and more

During the first decade of this century, Gulf Arab OPEC countries, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others, began seriously diverting a significant portion of the revenues from their vast oil and gas sales into state sovereign wealth funds, many based on the success of Norway’s Oil Fund.

Growing discontent with the US War on Terror, with the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and with overall US Middle East policies after September 2001, led most OPEC Arab states to divert a growing share of oil revenues into state-controlled funds rather than trusting it to the sticky fingers of New York and London bankers as had been the custom since the 1970’s when oil prices went through the roof, creating what Henry Kissinger fondly called the “petro-dollar” to replace the gold-backed dollar Washington walked away from on August 15, 1971. The present Sunni-Shi’ite war or clash of civilizations is in fact a result of the US manipulations after 2003 in the region— “divide and rule.”

By 2008 the prospect of sovereign control by a growing number of African and Arab oil states of their state oil and gas revenues was causing serious concern in Wall Street as well as the City of London. It was huge liquidity, in the trillions, they potentially no longer controlled.

The timing of the Arab Spring, in retrospect, increasingly looks tied to Washington and Wall Street efforts to control not only the huge Arab Middle East oil flows. It is now clear it was equally aimed at controlling their money, their trillions of dollars accumulating in their new sovereign wealth funds.

However, as is now confirmed in the latest Clinton-Blumenthal April 2, 2011 email exchange, there was a qualitatively new threat emerging for Wall Street and the City of London “gods of money,” from the African and Arab oil world. Libya’s Qaddafi, Tunisia’s Ben Ali and Mubarak’s Egypt were about to launch a gold-backed Islamic currency independent of the US dollar. I was first told of this plan in early 2012, at a Swiss financial and geopolitical conference, by an Algerian with extensive knowledge of the project. Documentation was scarce at the time and the story remained in my mental back-burner. Now a far more interesting picture emerges that puts the ferocity of Washington’s Arab Spring and its urgency in the case of Libya into perspective.

‘United States of Africa’

In 2009, Qaddafi, who was at the time the President of the African Union, had proposed that the economically depressed continent adopt the “Gold Dinar.”

In the months prior to the US decision, with British and French backing, to get a UN Security Council resolution that would give them the legal fig-leaf for a NATO destruction of the Qaddafi regime, Muammar Qaddafi had been organizing the creation of a gold-backed dinar that would be used by African oil states as well as Arab OPEC countries in their sales of oil on the world market.

Had that happened at the time Wall Street and the City of London were deep into the financial crisis of 2007-2008, the challenge to the reserve currency role of the dollar would have been more than serious. It would be a death knell to American financial hegemony, and to the Dollar System. Africa is one of the world’s richest continents, with vast unexplored gold and mineral wealth, had been intentionally kept for centuries underdeveloped or in wars to prevent their development. The International Monetary Fund and World Bank for the recent decades have been the Washington instruments to suppress African real development.

Gaddafi had called upon African oil producers in the African Union and in Muslim nations to join an alliance that would make the gold dinar their primary form of money and foreign exchange. They would sell oil and other resources to the US and the rest of the world only for gold dinars. As President of the African Union in 2009, Qaddafi introduced for discussion to African Union member states Qaddafi’s proposal to use the Libyan dinar and the silver dirham as the only possible money for the rest of the world to buy African oil.

Along with the Arab OPEC sovereign wealth funds for their oil, other African oil nations, specifically Angola and Nigeria, were moving to create their own national oil wealth funds at the time of the 2011 NATO bombing of Libya. Those sovereign national wealth funds, tied to Qaddafi’s concept of the gold dinar, would make Africa’s long-held dream of independence from colonial monetary control, whether of the British Pound, the French Franc, the euro or the US dollar, a reality.

Qaddafi was moving forward, as head of the African Union, at the time of his assassination, with a plan to unify the sovereign States of Africa with one gold currency, a United States of Africa. In 2004, a Pan-African Parliament of 53 nations had laid plans for an African Economic Community – with a single gold currency by 2023.

African oil-producing nations were planning to abandon the petro-dollar, and demand gold payment for their oil and gas. The list included Egypt, Sudan, South Sudan, Equatorial Guinea, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Tunisia, Gabon, South Africa, Uganda, Chad, Suriname, Cameroon, Mauritania, Morocco, Zambia, Somalia, Ghana, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, Cote d’Ivoire, plus Yemen which had just made significant new oil discoveries. The four African member-states of OPEC–Algeria, Angola, Nigeria, a giant oil producer and the largest natural gas producer in Africa with huge natural gas reserves, and Libya with the largest reserves–would be in the new gold dinar system.

Little wonder that French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who was given the up-front role in the war on Qaddafi by Washington, went so far as to call Libya a “threat” to the financial security of the world.

Hillary’s ‘rebels’ create a central bank

One of the most bizarre features of Hillary Clinton’s war to destroy Qaddafi was the fact that the US-backed “rebels” in Benghazi, in the oil-rich eastern part of Libya, in the midst of battle, well before it was at all clear if they would topple the Qaddafi regime, declared they had created a Western-style central bank, “in exile.”

In the very first weeks of the rebellion, the rebel leaders declared that they had created a central bank to replace Gadhafi’s state-owned monetary authority. The rebel council, in addition to creating their own oil company to sell the oil they captured announced: “Designation of the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and appointment of a Governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi.”

Commenting on the odd decision, before the outcome of battle was even decided, to create a western-style central bank to replace Qaddafi’s sovereign national bank that was issuing gold-backed dinars, Robert Wenzel in the Economic Policy Journal, remarked, “I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising. This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences.”

It becomes clear now in light of the Clinton-Blumenthal emails that those “pretty sophisticated influences” were tied to Wall Street and the City of London. The person brought in by Washington to lead the rebels in March 2011, Khalifa Hifter, had spent the previous twenty years of his life in suburban Virginia, not far from CIA headquarters, after a break with Libya as a leading military commander of Qaddafi.

The risk to the future of the US dollar as world reserve currency, if Qaddafi had been allowed to proceed–together with Egypt, Tunisia and other Arab OPEC and African Union members– to introduce oil sales for gold not dollars, would clearly have been the financial equivalent of a Tsunami.

New Gold Silk Road

[Haykakan]

Re: Fascist USA

The Qaddafi dream of an Arabic and African gold system independent of the dollar, unfortunately, died with him. Libya, after Hillary Clinton’s cynical “responsibility to protect” destruction of the country, today is a shambles, torn by tribal warfare, economic chaos, al-Qaeda and DAESH or ISIS terrorists. The monetary sovereignty held by Qaddafi’s 100% state-owned national monetary agency and its issuance of gold dinars is gone, replaced by an “independent” central bank tied to the dollar.

Despite that setback, it’s more than notable that now an entirely new grouping of nations is coming together to build a similar gold-backed monetary system. This is the group led by Russia and China, the world’s number three and number one gold producing countries, respectively.

This group is tied to the construction of China’s One Belt, One Road New Silk Road Eurasian infrastructure great project. It involves China’s $16 billion Gold Development Fund, and very firm steps by China to replace the City of London and New York as the center of world gold trade. The Eurasian gold system emerging now poses an entirely new quality of challenge to American financial hegemony. This Eurasian challenge, its success or failure, could well determine whether we allow our civilization to survive and prosper under entirely different conditions, or whether we decide to sink along with the bankrupt dollar system.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

17

http://journal-neo.org/2016/03/17/hillary-emails-gold-dinars-and-arab-springs/

[Haykakan]

Re: Fascist USA

Wayne MADSEN | 15.03.2016 | OPINION

America: Promoter Royalty and Monarchy

The United States, which was founded upon winning a revolutionary war for independence against a decrepit and insane King George III of England, has become the world’s chief promoter of restoring monarchies in nations it has invaded. The latest attempt of monarchy restoration has come in the failed nation of Libya, which saw its legitimate government overthrown in 2011 as a result of NATO intervention in a civil war.

The civil strife in Libya was initiated by the US Central Intelligence Agency and non-state actors financed by non-governmental organizations that included George Soros’s various front groups, the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and the Turkish government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The Obama administration is now advancing a proposal to restore the Libyan monarchy that was overthrown by Muammar Gaddafi in 1969. When Gaddafi ousted the aging and extremely corrupt King Idris in 1969, his revolution was hailed by the Libyan people. Gaddafi was able to use Libya’s oil wealth to bring one of the poorest nations in Africa into the 20th century.

The United States fancifully believes that if it places the relatively unknown Libyan crown prince, Mohammed al-Sanusi, on a restored Libyan throne, the Islamic State, which controls large coastal regions from central to eastern Libya, and other factions, including those led by a CIA-inserted Libyan warlord, General Khalifa Hifter, will all swear fealty to an American-inserted monarch. There is also the problem that Mohammed al-Sanusi is not the only pretender to the Libyan throne. He faces competition from his cousin, Prince Idris al-Sanusi, who has also laid a claim to the throne.

Libya is not the only case of the United States attempting to restore a monarchy in a Muslim nation it has invaded. After CIA-backed Afghan mujahideen defeated the Afghan socialist government of Najibullah in 1989, there was an attempt by US-backed Pashtun mujahideen forces to restore former King Mohammed Zahir Shah, overthrown in a republican coup in 1973, to the Afghan throne. After the US routed the Taliban in 2002, Zahir Shah returned to Afghanistan from exile in Italy to open the Loya Jirga, the traditional grand assembly of tribal and clan leaders.

Although the US initially supported Zahir Shah’s return to the throne, Washington double-crossed him by favoring longtime CIA asset Hamid Karzai as head of state. Zahir Shah could only settle for some of his family members being appointed to major posts in Karzai’s transitional government. Zahir Shah died in 2007 within the presidential palace compound in Kabul. Only because the CIA favored the corrupt Karzai in power in Afghanistan did Afghanistan remain an Islamic republic under a president rather than a kingdom under Zahir Shah and his heirs.

The CIA pulled a similar double-cross in Vietnam. After backing Vietnamese emperor Bao Dai, was «State of Vietnam» chief of state from 1949 to 1955, when the US puppet Ngo Dinh Diem ousted him after a fraudulent referendum on establishing a republic in South Vietnam. In 1955, the CIA discovered that the French government was urging Bao Dai to return to South Vietnam from exile in Cannes. The CIA, believing that Bao Dai might accommodate the Communist Viet Minh forces and thus pose a threat to Diem, scuttled the move.

Although it fought a bloody war for independence from the English monarchy of George III, the United States in its infancy retained a love affair for monarchies. In 1782, US Continental Army Colonel Lewis Nicola wrote a letter to General George Washington. Nicola floated the idea of the independent colonies becoming a monarchy under a king. His letter stated:

«Some people have so connected the ideas of tyranny and monarchy as to find it very difficult to separate them, it may therefore be requisite to give the head of such a constitution as I propose, some title apparently more moderate, but if all other things were once adjusted I believe strong argument might be produced for admitting the title of king, which I conceive would be attended with some material advantages».

Some historians have suggested that Washington was offered the kingship of the United States but turned down the offer. Others argue that no such offer was ever made to Washington. However, Washington’s successor as president John Adams favored the establishment of a «republican monarchy» with the president having absolute powers, including the right to veto without an override, congressional legislation.

America has certainly seen its share of hereditary presidents: John Adams and his son, John Quincy Adams; William Henry Harrison and his grandson, Benjamin Harrison; Theodore Roosevelt and his fifth cousin Franklin D. Roosevelt; and George H. W. Bush and his son, George W. Bush. The quasi-monarchist trend continues with Bill Clinton’s wife Hillary Clinton hoping to be elected president this year.

Americans also have an odd affectation for as much news as they can consume about every facet of the lives of the British royal family, from deaths like that of Princess Diana and the Queen Mother Elizabeth, to births like those of the children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and every malady and bowel affliction suffered by Queen Elizabeth and the Duke of Windsor. The true revolutionary founders of the United States, people like Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison would be aghast not only at the devotion of America to royalty abroad but in supporting the restoration of monarchies in countries like Libya and Afghanistan. To be a royalist is, in fact, the very definition of being «un-American».

Perhaps part of the reason for American infatuation with monarchies like that of Britain is the number of US political and business leaders who have been sheep-dipped as Rhodes scholars at Oxford University in England. The scholarship program was endowed by one of the most rabid colonialists of the British Empire, mining magnate and arch-imperialist Cecil Rhodes. Rhodes’s dream was to unite all Anglo-Saxon nations, including the United States, under a single British-led empire. US political leaders who were indoctrinated as Rhodes scholars in Rhodes’s imperialist philosophy include former US House Speaker Carl Albert; Secretary of State Dean Rusk; Walt Rostow, assistant national security adviser to President Kennedy; US Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach; CIA directors Stansfield Turner and James Woolsey; Senators Richard Lugar of Indiana, Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, Larry Pressler of South Dakota, Bill Bradley of New Jersey, David Vitter of Louisiana; Russ Feingold of Wisconsin; Cory Booker of New Jersey; and David Boren of Oklahoma; Chairman of the US National Intelligence Council Joseph Nye, Sr.; Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig; NATO Supreme Commander General Wesley Clark; Director of National Intelligence Admiral Dennis Blair; Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbot; Council on Foreign Relations president Richard Haass; national security adviser Susan Rice; US ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul; Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter; and Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana.

America’s biggest pro-royalist folly was the 1953 CIA and British MI-6 coup that overthrew the democratically-elected prime minister of Iran Mohammad Mossadeq. The coup, code named Operation AJAX, installed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as Shah of Iran. America has also stood idly by as autocratic monarchs in Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Brunei, Lesotho, Swaziland, and Tonga have cracked down on internal dissent. The CIA has also waged covert activities to stifle pro-republican sentiment in Australia, New Zealand, Scotland, Canada, Jamaica, Tonga, Barbados, Belize, Spain, Thailand, Papua New Guinea, and Grenada.

America’s affinity for monarchs and its desire to restore the Libyan monarchy illustrate to the entire world the fact that the United States has become a «tired old man» of international politics whose time has come and gone.

[Haykakan]

Re: Fascist USA

Gaddafi, Assad Warned of Terror Epidemic in Europe, But No One Listened




1210

260

13:16 25.03.2016(updated 14:35 25.03.2016)

Libya's late leader Muammar Gaddafi and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad warned that terrorism would be on the rise in Europe if Western leaders help to destabilize the two countries, but no one listened. As a result, Libya and Syria have been plunged into chaos and now Europe has to grapple with a string of gruesome terrorist attacks.



Broken windows of the terminal at Brussels national airport are seen during a ceremony following bomb attacks in Brussels metro and Belgium's National airport of Zaventem, Belgium, March 23, 2016

© REUTERS/ Yorick Jansens

Brussels Attacks Again Confirm That Terror, Not Russia, is Real ‘Existential Threat’ to West
The latest assault took place on Tuesday as three coordinated bombings rocked the Belgian capital of Brussels, which hosts the headquarters of several international institutions, including the European Union, NATO and the Benelux.

Daesh took responsibility for the attack that claimed 31 lives. The brutal terrorist group was also behind the night of terror in Paris on November 13, a series of coordinated terrorist acts that left 130 people killed.



Broken windows of the terminal at Brussels national airport are seen during a ceremony following bomb attacks in Brussels metro and Belgium's National airport of Zaventem, Belgium, March 23, 2016

© REUTERS/ Yorick Jansens

Broken windows of the terminal at Brussels national airport are seen during a ceremony following bomb attacks in Brussels metro and Belgium's National airport of Zaventem, Belgium, March 23, 2016

Evidently, Gaddafi, Assad and others, who shared their concerns, could not predict specific attacks, but they understood regional trends and their implications.

Several months before his death, Colonel Gaddafi warned that unified and stable Libya was the only thing that prevented hundreds of thousands of migrants and terrorists posing as refugees from flooding Europe. "Libya plays a role in security in the Mediterranean," he told the Paris-based France 24 television channel.


A rubber boat loaded of migrants is seen during a search and rescue mission in the Mediterranean Sea off the Libyan coasts, Italy, Tuesday, June 23, 2015

© AP Photo/ Gregorio Borgia

A rubber boat loaded of migrants is seen during a search and rescue mission in the Mediterranean Sea off the Libyan coasts, Italy, Tuesday, June 23, 2015



A general view shows destroyed buildings in Libya's eastern coastal city of Benghazi on October 20, 2015

© AFP 2016/ ABDULLAH DOMA

Doom and Gloom: Libya Imploding Into Chaos Five Years After NATO Bombings
Nevertheless, France, several other NATO members and other countries went ahead with the military intervention. The country has been plagued by deadly violence ever since. One of the latest developments has seen Daesh gain a foothold in the divided nation.

In 2013, when Western leaders were contemplating sending weapons to Syrian rebels, Bashar al-Assad warned that it was a dangerous scenario to explore. Access to additional weapons would not only strengthen terrorists in Syria, but also result in "the direct export of terrorism to Europe," he argued.

"If the Europeans deliver weapons, the backyard of Europe will become terrorist and Europe will pay the price for it," he said.

In early 2015, Ahmed Gaddaf al-Dam, Gaddafi's cousin and former intelligence official, predicted that a terrorist act, comparable to the 9/11 attacks in the US, would take place in Europe "within one or two years."


Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/2016...#ixzz43ukcLqDQ