Archive | November 27th, 2017

Protests in Pakistan Turn Violent, Emerging Role of “Other Forces”

Featured image: Zahid Amid (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

In Pakistan Street protests have affected cities like Imamabad, and is spreading in other cities as well. About six persons have died and more than two hundred have been injured. PTI has reported that the police aided by paramilitary Rangers and Frontier Constabulary yesterday launched a massive operation against activists of Tehreek-i-Khatm-i-Nabuwwat, Tehreek-i-Labaik Ya Rasool Allah and Sunni Tehreek Pakistan religious groups who had blocked a key highway to Islamabad for nearly three weeks. The protesters have been laying siege to the capital for about three weeks demanding removal of Law Minister Zahid Hamid for changes in a law related to the Khatm-i-Nabuwwat (finality of prophethood) oath in the Elections Act 2017.They alleged the action undermined Islamic beliefs and linked it to blasphemy. The government has already amended the law and restored the original oath but the hard line clerics refused to call of the protests until the minister is sacked.

The real power holder former PM Nawaz Sharif is believed to have given a thought to remove the Minister in order to pacify the protests; present government is under much pressure due to political problems which emerged since the revelations of Panama Papers, and strict actions taken by Judiciary have made the government weak and in all likelihood in next elections it may find itself in troubles in electoral battles. The present protest is a continuation of the politically unstable Pakistan since the revelations of Panama Papers.

The root cause of the political problems started when on right grounds Judiciary removed PM Sharif on misdeeds in Panama Papers. The new PM is not capable to manage the affairs of the state. He is transitory PM knowing well that he has been on the position just due to grace of Nawaz family.

Elections in Pakistan are due to take place in 2018 and the prospects of Nawaz’s party are not very strong at the moment. Moreover the external pressures from world on the containment of terrorism has placed stress on the political leaders of country.

In these backgrounds the protest assumes importance. As the elected political leadership has proved unsuccessful to control the developments in the country. Now they have asked for the help from army which is already eyeing for increased role in the political space in the country particularly after the departure of Nawaz Sharif.

Army has taken a recommendatory view so far by advising government to take steps with cautions. The Army chief Gen. Bajwa are in touch with Prime Minister Shahid Abbasi and has asked to deal the protest peacefully, and violence should be avoided from both sides.

Source: Countercurrents

There is also alternative analysis that army may come in direct conflict with the conservative elements and Pakistan may find itself more into trouble. The release of Hafiz Saeed is also not good for the political system of the country as these are major destabilizing elements of the country. Their activities if supported more by army and establishment of more hardliners in the socio-politico milieu of the country do not suggest good things to come.

The recent developments in Pakistan are result of the non nation building in the country. Several countries are passing through this phase but Pakistan has emerged as a classical case where army, terrorists and conservative elements have come to stay in the political world of the country and have prevented genuine development of democratic elements in the country.

In next few days the developments will take a new path and it is hoped that Pakistan is able to control the situation but major question remains unanswered which forces are in real terms responsible for such developments? And why Pakistan is getting into fragmentation? Role of army will be observed in the days to come. Terrorists and fundamentalist have engulfed the society. Can governance manage these or army is about to enter more aggressively in the governance?

Posted in Pakistan & KashmirComments Off on Protests in Pakistan Turn Violent, Emerging Role of “Other Forces”

Combating Terrorism and the Barbaric Egypt Rawda Mosque Attack

NOVANEWS
 

The barbaric attack that killed 305 worshippers including 27 children during Friday prayers (24 November 2017) at the Rawda mosque in North Sinai, Egypt is a tragic reminder to the entire human family that the threat of terrorism is as deadly as ever.

Though no one has formally claimed responsibility, it is reported that some of the terrorists carried Daesh flags. It is estimated that some 25 to 30 persons were involved in the heinous act.

Terrorist attacks have a long history in Egypt. They have become worse since the overthrow of Egypt’s first democratically elected president, Dr. Mohammed Morsi, in 2013. Daesh or groups affiliated to it have been targeting local tribes and Christian churches.

Egyptian president Abdel Fattah el-Sissi has chosen to respond to the Rawda carnage, the worst in modern Egyptian history, by ordering air strikes on militant strongholds. While they serve a purpose, they are not the solution. More attention to, and emphasis upon, constant and comprehensive intelligence gathering may help to prevent acts of terror from occurring. In a number of terrorist episodes in different parts of the world, the absence or lack of prior intelligence appears to have been the real problem. In this regard, Malaysia has evolved an effective intelligence gathering system that has played a significant role in thwarting potential terrorist attacks.

Equally important in this battle against terrorism is education, especially in relation to certain key motivating concepts that seem to spur potential terrorists to act in an utterly irrational manner. Their notion of the justification for violence for instance is totally misconceived. They operate under the erroneous belief that it is perfectly legitimate to use violence to advance the Islamic cause as they and their religious teachers interpret it. It is forgotten that it is only if one is a victim of direct, overt aggression that one is permitted to defend oneself by whatever means possible including the use of force.  The pursuit of justice which is paramount in Islam has to be through peaceful means. This is why the avenues for articulating issues pertaining to justice — even if they are anathema to the powers-that-be — should be available in any society. The ruling elite in Egypt should address this obvious flaw in its political system as a matter of urgency.

Education or awareness building should also aim to nurture a willingness to accept diversity within the Muslim family. Differences within the ummah should be seen as legitimate and integral to the faith as long as it does not subvert the fundamental principle of the Oneness of God (Tawhid). Since the Rawda mosque is viewed as a Sufi mosque and Sufis in Egypt and other countries are regarded as heretics by Daesh and other Wahabi oriented extremist groups, it is crucial to re-assert that the Sufis have made a monumental contribution to Islamic civilisation. Their emphasis upon the quintessence of Islam and their gentle character and conduct played a major role in the spread of the religion in Southeast Asia, South India, Central Asia and East and West Africa. Sufi movements were also critical in the resistance to Western colonial rule in North Africa. Some questionable practices among some Sufi orders should not diminish their overall worth and value.

Their acceptance by mainstream Muslims just as the acceptance of the Shia minority — another significant sect that Daesh types and Wahabis reject — underscores the inclusive spirit of Islam which today is threatened by the bigotry and fanaticism of fringe elements.  It is that inclusive spirit that the Amman Message of 2005 seeks to capture, a Message endorsed by Muslim leaders and religious scholars from all over the world that should be brought to the fore at a crucial time like this. And indeed, the Amman Message embodies that precious Quranic truth, “Unto every one of you have We appointed a (different) law and way of life. And if God had so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community: but (He willed it otherwise) in order to test you by means of what He has vouchsafed unto you. Vie, then, with one another in doing good works!  Unto God you all must return; and then He will make you truly understand all that on which you were wont to differ.” (Chapter 5, Verse 48)

However, education and awareness, on the one hand, and effective intelligence, on the other, will not be able to root out terrorism if we do not take into account the vital role of global geopolitical forces. Since I have discussed these forces in other articles in the last 10 years, I will merely pose a number of questions on this occasion. Is it a coincidence that the US elite and its allies began to focus upon ‘Islamic terrorism’ after the end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991? Was it motivated by the need for a new enemy that would justify the pursuit of global hegemony and the sale of weapons in tandem with the tightening of the state security apparatus? Was conflating Islam with terrorism which incidentally has historical antecedents in the interface between Islam and the West an attempt to denigrate the legitimacy of the Palestinian struggle for self-determination?  Is this an indication of how Israeli interests have shaped the US agenda on ‘Islamic terrorism’? Was the 9-11 tragedy part of that hegemonic agenda? Has the manipulation of terrorism as part of that agenda become even more obvious now with the recent revelations of who actually finances certain terrorist outfits, trains the militants and provides them with intelligence?

These are questions that need to be asked because even in the case of Rawda, analysts are wondering why the attack took place when it did. Is it because the Egyptian government has played a pivotal role in trying to bring the two adversarial factions in Palestine — Fatah and Hamas — together in order to solidify the Palestinian struggle?  Perhaps some people are not comfortable with this development?

Posted in EgyptComments Off on Combating Terrorism and the Barbaric Egypt Rawda Mosque Attack

Is the Islamic State a “Geopolitical Tool”? US Looks to Southeast Asia to Unleash Its ISIS-Daesh Hordes

NOVANEWS
 

Western think tanks have been increasingly busy cultivating a narrative to explain the sudden and spreading presence of militants linked or fighting under the banner of the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” (ISIS) across Southeast Asia.

This narrative – these think tanks would have audiences believe – entails militants fleeing Syria and Iraq, and entrenching themselves amid supposedly sectarian conflicts in Southeast Asia. The think tanks conveniently never mention how tens of thousands of militants are funding the logistical feat required to move them to Southeast Asia or sustain their militant operations in the region once they arrive.

Among these think tanks is the so-called International Crisis Group (ICG). In its report, “Jihadism in southern Thailand – A phantom menace,” it claims:

The decline of the Islamic State (ISIS) and the advent of ISIS-linked violence in South East Asia evince the possibility of a new era of transnational jihadist terrorism in the region. 

Recurring, albeit unsubstantiated, reports about ISIS activity in Thailand have prompted questions about the vulnerability of the country’s Muslim-majority deep south and, in particular, its longstanding Malay-Muslim insurgency to jihadist influence.

While ICG claims that “to date” there is no evidence that ISIS has made inroads in southern Thailand, it warns:

But the conflict and a series of ISIS scares in Thailand are fanning fears of a new terrorist threat. Such fears are not irrational, though they are largely misplaced and should not obscure the calamity of the insurgency and the need to end it. 

Direct talks between insurgent leaders and the government are a priority; a decentralised political system could help address the principal grievances in the south while preserving the unitary Thai state.

In essence, ICG is warning of a crisis it itself admits is unlikely, then recommends that Bangkok pursue a course of action it already is taking – talking with militant leaders in its southern most provinces.

The lengthy ICG report – in reality – is just one of many reoccurring and premeditated attempts to place the notion of ISIS militancy taking root in Thailand into the realm of possibility. Just as the US and its allies have used ISIS as a geopolitical tool elsewhere in the world, and more recently, in Southeast Asia itself – particularly in the Philippines – a longstanding US goal in Thailand is to find and exploit sociopolitical and sectarian fault lines across which to divide, destroy, and control the Thai state.

It was in a 2012 leaded memo drafted by the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) that admitted the US and its allies sought the creation of what it called at the time a “Salafist” (Islamic) “principality” (State), specifically in eastern Syria where eventually ISIS would base itself before joint Russian-Iranian-Syrian operations uprooted and expelled them.

The 2012 report (.pdf) states specifically (emphasis added):

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).

Thus, if ISIS is a geopolitical tool first designed and deployed by the US and its allies to subvert, isolate, and overthrow the government of Syria, it follows that ISIS’ expansion into other regions of the world US foreign policy is facing increasingly insurmountable challenges is also very much planned and fueled by US policymakers and the special interests that sponsor them.

Who is the ICG and Why are They Promoting ISIS Fear? 

ICG is a corporate-funded and directed policy think tank and network that creates and leverages conflicts under the guise of “preventing” them.

It claims on its website that:

Crisis Group aspires to be the preeminent organisation providing independent analysis and advice on how to prevent, resolve or better manage deadly conflict. We combine expert field research, analysis and engagement with policymakers across the world in order to effect change in the crisis situations on which we work. We endeavour to talk to all sides and in doing so to build on our role as a trusted source of field-centred information, fresh perspectives and advice for conflict parties and external actors.

Yet a look at its sponsors and membership reveals a Westerners-only club of corporate-financier special interests, lobbying groups, lawyers, and politicians linked directly to the US State Department, the UK Foreign Office, or governments beholden to either or both.

These sponsors include oil giants Chevron, Eni, Noble Energy, Shell, Statoil, and British Petroleum (BP). It also includes financiers such as HSBC Holdings, MetLife, and RBC Capital Markets.

There is also the matter of law firms and lobbyists which fund and are directly involved in ICG’s agenda including Sherman & Sterling, White & Chase, APCO Worldwide, and Edelman.

APCO Worldwide is notorious for fabricating news articles to manipulate inner corporate governance, while Edelman is notorious specifically regarding Thailand for providing lobbying services (PDF) to ousted dictator Thaksin Shinawatra, removed from power in 2006 via a military coup ICG itself vehemently opposed, condemned, and to this day protests.

Edelman’s lobbying for Thaksin Shinawatra was headed by Kenneth Adelman, who joined Edelman as a senior adviser in 2001. Not only is Edelman a corporate sponsor of ICG, but Kenneth Adelman himself is listed in the appendixes of ICG’s Thailand report as a senior ICG adviser. Adelman also chairs the US State Department’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED) subsidiary, Freedom House – another front alongside Washington and London-based lobbyists that have pressured Thailand since the ousting of Shinawatra in 2006.

Listed along with Adelman is George Soros who sits on ICG’s board of trustees. Soros’ Open Society Foundation is listed by ICG as one of its sponsors.

Soros and his Open Society Foundation’s involvement is essential to note. Virtually all of Thailand’s “opposition” groups – from supposed student and academic fronts to media platforms and activists – are funded by both NED and George Soros’ Open Society Foundation. These include Prachatai, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR), Thai Netizens, the New Democracy Movement (NDM), Human Rights Watch Thailand, Amnesty International Thailand, iLaw, the Isaan Record, and many more.

The concerted efforts by ICG, its corporate sponsors through lobbying, and among its memberships various other associations like Freedom House and Open Society to attack and undermine Thailand in favor of the West’s proxy of choice – Thaksin Shinawatra and the large and growing opposition front the West is building inside Thailand – already raises suspicions about ICG’s motivation in publishing its most recent report regarding ISIS in Thailand.

Observing Western efforts against Thailand’s Southeast Asian neighbors, particularly Myanmar and the Philippines, raises suspicions even further.

The United States has expertly cultivated a deadly sectarian divide in Myanmar – turning nationalist extremists against the nation’s Rohingya minority and using the resulting violence to undermine the nation’s military while propelling Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD) into power. The violence also compromises constructive economic and diplomatic ties between Myanmar and China.

In the Philippines, ISIS-linked militants managed to seize an entire city in the nation’s southern region. The money, weapons, and militants required for this feat clearly required state sponsorship. Just as in Syria, ISIS in the Philippines is linked to Saudi Arabia which serves as an intermediary for US money, weapons, supplies, and directives.

The conflicts in both Myanmar and the Philippines has given the US the initiative in serving as “mediator” in Myanmar, and providing “military assistance” in the Philippines. Both moves serve to give Washington a tighter grip over both nations at a time when the whole of Southeast Asia moves further out from under the shadow of US hegemony and into a more constructive and mutually beneficial embrace with Beijing.

Thailand – because of its large economy, population, and geostrategic location at the center of continental Southeast Asia – would serve US interests well in reasserting hegemony over Asia Pacific and creating a untied front against Beijing. However, Thailand – because of its independent institutions, particularly its military and monarchy – enjoys a level of unity its neighbors do not.

Under Thaksin Shinawatra, the US sought to exploit sociopolitical and class fault lines. As this fails, it appears the US is trying to use the very same networks of “reds” to stoke the same sort of nationalist fervor that has consumed neighboring Myanmar. “Reds,” referring to Shinawatra’s ultra-violent United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) street front, have already begun shifting activity toward temples to cultivate a previously nonexistent  Buddhist-Muslim divide.

Soros-funded fronts like Prachatai posing as “rights advocates” have decried swift and decisive moves by the Thai military to detain and defrock “monks” attempting to promote sectarian violence.

To bookend US efforts to engineer a sectarian divide in Thailand, it appears that organizations like ICG are creating a narrative to explain soon-to-be ISIS activity in Thailand. The abhorrent nature of ISIS operations will play well into the anti-Islam propaganda promoted by US-backed networks in Thailand’s northeast. Somewhere in the middle – US policymakers hope – a self-sustaining “clash of civilizations” can be sparked, and consume Thailand’s historically impressive national unity.

Once divided, Thailand will be more easily coerced toward US objectives in Thailand and across the wider region.

What Thailand Should Really Do

The militancy in southern Thailand is contained. The Thai government must continue existing efforts to bring socioeconomic progress to the region to drain the swamps of poverty and perceived injustice that drives recruitment into militant organizations. But beyond that, Bangkok must identify and deal with the logistical nature of the conflict, particularly those involved in arming, training, and funding the militancy.

To preemptively stop efforts by the US to expand the conflict, the government would benefit from Singapore-style hate speech legislation which makes attempts by groups to promote sectarian violence impossible without receiving immediate and severe jail sentences.

Simultaneously, efforts to further promote interfaith understanding, mutual respect, and activism would enhance Thailand’s already renowned values of tolerance and diversity. Many Thais are already aware of the constructive role members of the Thai Muslim community have played in Thailand’s history. There is already positive cross-cultural exchanges that happen accidentally everyday in Thailand’s markets and among its many street vendors. Highlighting and enhancing this will help further inoculate the public from attempts to divide and destroy the nation along sectarian lines.

Also, the government must expose and hinder efforts by US NED and Open Society-funded fronts. Citing the US’ own precedent in forcing Russia’s RT to register as “foreign agents,” the Thai government could legislate mandatory disclosures in all social media profiles and at the beginning and end of every publication in print or online – including social media posts – by fronts like Prachatai indicating who funds them and why.

Finally, understanding that ISIS’ source of strength came from networks propped up by the US and its allies means that fighting an ISIS militancy in Thailand begins with understanding that the US Embassy represents the very source of the militancy’s strength. Rather than fostering a direct confrontation with the United States, alternative Thai media could link ISIS activity directly and repeatedly with the US embassy – ensuring any terrorist act is immediately linked to suspicion of the US Embassy.

The more covert US-sponsored terrorism that unfolds, the more US credibility in Thailand and in the region will suffer.

Finally, when seeking allies in a true “War on Terror,” Bangkok should cultivate ties with nations that are truly waging war on terror. This includes China, Russia, and Iran.

When the US begins losing and being excluded permanently everywhere it brings its “War on Terror,” policymakers in Washington will either be held accountable and the tactic abandoned, or the US itself will find itself as isolated and irrelevant as it has tried to make nations like Syria and Iraq upon which it first unleashed its ISIS menace.

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on Is the Islamic State a “Geopolitical Tool”? US Looks to Southeast Asia to Unleash Its ISIS-Daesh Hordes

Saudi Zio-Wahhabi- Nazi Friendship Is Driving the Rest of the Middle East Together

NOVANEWS
Saudi-Israeli Friendship Is Driving the Rest of the Middle East Together

Through its top official, Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS), Saudi Arabia continues a wave of internal arrests, having seized nearly $800 billion in assets and bank accounts. A few days later, MBS attempted to demonstrate his authority by summoning Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri to Saudi Arabia, where he was forced to resign on Saudi state TV. Trump tweeted support for Bin Salman’s accusations against Iran and Hezbollah, and the future Saudi king even obtained Israel’s secret support. Iran, meanwhile, denies any involvement in Lebanon’s domestic affairs or involvement with the ballistic missile launched by Houthi rebels towards Riyadh’s King Khalid International Airport a few days ago. Meanwhile, Trump, Putin and Xi met recently and seem to have decided the fate of the region in an exercise of realism and pragmatism.

News that upends the course of events has now become commonplace over the last few months. However, even by Middle East standards, this story is something new. The affair surrounding Lebanon’s Prime Minister Hariri generated quite a bit of commotion. Hariri had apparently been obliged to announce his resignation on Saudi Arabia’s Al Arabiya news channel while being detained in Riyadh. His most recent interview seemed to betray some nervousness and fatigue, as one would expect from a person under enormous stress from forced imprisonment. In his televised resignation statement, Hariri specified that he was unable to return to Lebanon due to some sort of a threat to his person and his family by operatives in Lebanon of Iran and Hezbollah. The Lebanese security authorities, however, have stated that they are not aware of any danger faced by Hariri.

In an endless attempt to regain influence in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia has once again brought about results directly opposite to those intended. Immediately after receiving confirmation that the resignation had taken place in Saudi Arabia, the entire Lebanese political class demanded that Hariri return home to clarify his position, meet with the president and submit his resignation in person. Saudi actions have served to consolidate a united front of opposition factions and paved the way for the collapse of Saudi influence in the country, leaving a vacuum to be conveniently filled by Iran. Once again, as with Yemen and in Syria, the intentions of the Saudis have dramatically backfired.

This Saudi interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign country has stirred up unpredictable scenarios in the Middle East, just at the time that tensions were cooling in Syria.

Hariri’s detention comes from far away and is inextricably linked to what has been happening over the past few months in Saudi Arabia. Mohammed bin Salman, son of King Salman, began his internal purge of the Kingdom’s elite by removing from the line of succession Bin Nayef, a great friend of the US intelligence establishment (Brennan and Clapper). Bin Nayef was a firm partner of the US deep state. Saudi Arabia has for years worked for the CIA, advancing US strategic goals in the region and beyond. Thanks to the cooperation between Bandar bin Sultan Al Saud, Bin Nayef, and US intelligence agencies, Washington has for years given the impression of fighting against Islamist terrorist while actually weaponizing jihadism since the 1980s by deploying it against rival countries like the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, the Iraqi government in 2014, the Syrian state in 2012, and Libya’s Gaddafi in 2011.

MBS has even detained numerous family-related princes, continuing to consolidate power around himself. Even Alwaleed bin Talal, one of the richest men in the world, ended up caught in MBS’s net, rightly accused of being one of the most corrupt people in the Kingdom. It is speculated that family members and billionaires are detained at the Ritz Carlton in Riyadh, with guests and tourists promptly ejected days before the arrests began. Mohammed bin Salman’s actions are not slowing down, even after seizing $800 billion in accounts, properties and assets.

MBS is intensifying his efforts to end the conflict in Yemen, which is a drain on Saudi finances, lifting the naval blockade of the Port of Aden. Not only that, the two main Syrian opposition leaders, Ahmad Jarba and Riyadh Hijab, have been arrested by Riyadh in an effort to demonstrate to Putin the good will of MBS in seeking to resolve the Syrian conflict. Not surprisingly, King Salman, in a frantic search for a solution to the two conflicts that have lashed his reputation as well as the wealth and alliances of the Saudi kingdom, flew to Moscow to seek mediation with Putin, the new master of the Middle East.

MBS has undertaken an anti-corruption campaign for international as well as domestic purposes. At the national level, the collapse of oil prices, coupled with huge military spending, forced the royal family to seek alternatives for the future of the Kingdom in terms of sustainability, earnings and profits. MBS’s Vision 2030 aims to diversify revenue in order to free Saudi Arabia from its dependence on oil. This is a huge ask for a nation that has been thriving for seventy years from an abundance of resources simply found under its ground. This delicate balance of power between the royal family and its subjects is maintained by the subsidies granted to the local population that has allowed the Kingdom to flourish in relative peace, even during the most delicate periods of the Arab Spring in 2011. There is an underlying understanding in Saudi Arabia that so long as the welfare of the population is guaranteed, there should be no threat to the stability of the royal family. It is no wonder that after losing two wars, and with oil prices at their lowest, MBS has started to worry about his future, seeking to purge the elites opposed to him.

The Kingdom’s reality is quickly changing under MBS, the next Saudi king, who is trying to anticipate harder times by consolidating power around himself and correcting his errors brought on by incompetence and his excessive confidence in the Saudi military as well as in American backing. The ballistic missile that hit Riyadh was launched by the Houthis in Yemen after 30 months of indiscriminate bombing by the Saudi air force. This act has shown how vulnerable the Kingdom is to external attack, even at the hand of the poorest Arab country in the world.

In this context, Donald Trump seems to be capitalizing on Saudi weakness, fear, and the need to tighten the anti-Iranian alliance. What the American president wants in return for support of MBS is as simple as it comes: huge investments in the US economy together with the purchase of US arms. MBS obliged a few months ago, investing into the US economy to the tune of more than $380 billion over ten years. Trump’s goal is to create new jobs at home, increase GDP, and boost the economy, crucial elements for his re-election in 2020. Rich allies like Saudi Arabia, finding themselves in a tight fix, are a perfect means of achieving this end.

Another important aspect of MBS’s strategy involves the listing of Aramco on the NYSE together with the switch to selling oil for yuan payments. Both decisions are fundamental to the United States and China, and both bring with them a lot of friction. MBS is at this moment weak and needs all the allies and support he can get. For this reason, a decision on Aramco or the petroyuan would probably create big problems with Beijing and Washington respectively. The reason why MBS is willing to sell a small stock of Aramco relates to his efforts to gin up some money. For this reason, thanks to the raids on the accounts and assets of the people arrested by MBS, Saudi Arabia has raised over $800 billion, certainly a higher figure than any sale of Aramco shares would have brought.

This move allows MBS to postpone a decision on listing Aramco on the NYSE as well as on whether to start accepting yuan for payment of oil. Holding back on the petroyuan and Aramco’s initial public offering is a way of holding off both Beijing and Washington but without at the same time favouring one over the other. Economically, Riyadh cannot choose between selling oil for dollars on the one hand and accepting payment in another currency on the other. It is a nightmare scenario; but some day down the road, the Saudi royals will have to make a choice.

The third party to this situation is Israel in the figure of Netanyahu, Donald Trump’s great friend and supporter right from the beginning of his electoral campaign. Trump’s victory brought positive returns to the investment the Israeli leader had made in him. Ever since Trump won the election, the US has employed harsh words against Iran, turning away from the positive approach adopted by Obama that managed to achieve the Iran nuclear deal framework. Nevertheless, the Israeli prime minister has had to deal with numerous problems at home, with a narrow parliamentary majority and several members of his government under investigation for corruption.

Donald Trump pursued a very aggressive policy against Tehran during the election campaign, then went on to annul the Iran nuclear deal a few weeks ago. The decision is now for Congress to certify, with a difficult mediation between European allies (other than China and Russia), who are opposed to ending the deal, and the Israelis, who can count on the support of many senators thanks to their lobbying efforts. Israel, for its part, sees in Saudi Arabia and MBS the missing link between Saudi Wahhabism and Israeli Zionism. Various private cablegrams leaked to the press have shown how Israeli diplomats around the world were instructed to support Saudi  accusations of Iran interfering in Lebanon’s internal affairs.

The interests of MBS and Netanyahu seem to dovetail quite nicely in Syria and Yemen as well as with regard to Iran and Hezbollah. The two countries have a common destiny by virtue of the fact that neither alone can deal decisively with Hezbollah in Syria or Lebanon, let alone Iran. Rouhani himself has said that Iran fears American strength and power alone, knowing that Saudi Arabia and Israel are incapable of defeating Tehran.

Trump’s approval of the arrests carried out by MBS is based on a number of factors. The first involves the investments in the economy that will be coming America’s way. The other, certainly less known, concerns the subterranean battle that has been occurring between the Western elites for months. Many of Clinton’s top money sources are billionaires arrested by MBS, with stock options in various major banks, insurance companies, publishing groups, and American television groups, all openly anti-Trump. In this sense, the continuation of Trump’s fight with a portion of the elite can be seen with the halting of the merger of AT&T and Time Warner involving CNN.

Trump seems to be accompanying Saudi and Israeli urgings for war with multiple intentions, potentially having a plan for a broader, regional and global agreement between the parties.

At a regional level, Trump first supported the Saudi crusade against Qatar, resolved with Riyadh not getting Qatar to accede to any of its advanced demands. During the crisis, Doha approached Tehran and Moscow, who immediately took advantage of the situation to establish trade relations and commence negotiations with Qatar to tame its terrorist influence in the region, especially in the Syrian conflict. Turkey and Qatar have practically announced a military alliance, cementing a new front that includes China, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Qatar, now potentially all on the same side of the barricades, opposed to Saudi dictates and Israel’s efforts to foment war with Iran.

With the US withdrawal from the region, as is increasingly evident from Trump’s reluctance to embark on a Middle East conflict, Israel and Saudi Arabia are increasing their desperate cries against Iran, observing how the gains of the resistance axis have led Tehran to dominate the region with its allies. The visit of King Salman to Russia, and the four meetings between Putin and Netanyahu, give the idea of which capital is in charge in the region. This all represents an epochal change that further isolates Riyadh and Tel Aviv, two countries that represent the heart of chaos and terror.

The Saudi attempt to isolate Qatar has failed miserably, and the continuous effort to paint Iran as the main cause of tension in the region seems to have reached a point of no return, with the latest stunt involving Hariri. Sunnis, Christians and Shiites agree on one point only: that the premier must return home. Riyadh hopes to light the fuse of a new civil war in the region, with Israel hoping to take advantage of the chaos brought about by an attack on Hezbollah. This is not going to happen, and the disappointment of the House of Saud and the Israeli prime minister will not change anything. Without a green light from Washington and a promise from Uncle Sam to intervene alongside his Middle East allies, the Israelis and Saudis are aware that they have neither the means nor strength to attack Iran or Hezbollah.

Trump is playing a dangerous game; but there seems to be some degree of coordination with the other giants on the international scene. The main point is it is impossible for Washington to be an active part in any conflict in the region, or to change the course of events in a meaningful way. The “End of history” ended years ago. US influence is on the decline, and Xi Jinping and Putin have shown great interest in the future of the region. In recent months, the Russian and Iranian militaries, together with the Chinese economic grip on the region, have shown a collective intention to replace years of war, death and chaos with peace, prosperity and wealth.

MBS and Netanyahu are having a hard time dealing with this new environment that will inevitably proclaim Iran the hegemon in the region. Time is running out for Israel and Saudi Arabia, and both countries are faced with enormous internal problems while being unable to change the course of events in the region without the full intervention of their American ally, something practically impossible nowadays.

The new course of the multipolar world, together with Trump’s America First policy, seems to have hit hardest those countries that placed all their bets on the continuing economic and military dominance of the United States in the region. Other countries like Qatar, Lebanon and Turkey have started to understand the historical change that is going on, and have slowly been making the switch, realizing in the process the benefits of a multipolar world order, which is more conducive to mutually beneficial cooperation between countries. The more Saudi Arabia and Israel push for war against Iran, the more they will isolate themselves. This will serve to push their own existence to the brink of extinction.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, Saudi ArabiaComments Off on Saudi Zio-Wahhabi- Nazi Friendship Is Driving the Rest of the Middle East Together

Zionist George Monbiot anti-Syria propaganda

Syrian collects samples from the site of the chemical weapons attack on Khan Shaykhun in April
 A Syrian collects samples from the site of the chemical weapons attack on Khan Shaykhun in April. Photograph: Omar Haj Kadour/AFP/Getty Images

What do we believe? This is the crucial democratic question. Without informed choice, democracy is meaningless. This is why dictators and billionaires invest so heavily in fake news. Our only defence is constant vigilance, rigour and scepticism. But when some of the world’s most famous crusaders against propaganda appear to give credence to conspiracy theories, you wonder where to turn.

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) last month published its investigation into the chemical weapons attack on the Syrian town of Khan Shaykhun, which killed almost 100 people on 4 April and injured around 200. After examining the competing theories and conducting wide-ranging interviews, laboratory tests and forensic analysis of videos and photos, it concluded that the atrocity was caused by a bomb filled with sarin, dropped by the government of Syria.

There is nothing surprising about this. The Syrian government has a long history of chemical weapons use, and the OPCW’s conclusions concur with a wealth of witness testimony. But a major propaganda effort has sought to discredit such testimony, and characterise the atrocity as a “false-flag attack”.

This effort began with an article published on the website Al-Masdar news, run by the Syrian government loyalist Leith Abou Fadel. It suggested that either the attack had been staged by “terrorist forces”, or chemicals stored in a missile factory had inadvertently been released when the Syrian government bombed it.

The story was then embellished on Infowars – the notorious far-right conspiracy forum. The Infowars article claimed that the attack was staged by the Syrian first responder group, the White Helmets. This is a reiteration of a repeatedly discredited conspiracy theory, casting these rescuers in the role of perpetrators. It suggested that the victims were people who had been kidnapped by al-Qaida from a nearby city, brought to Khan Shaykhun and murdered, perhaps with the help of the UK and French governments, “to lay blame on the Syrian government”. The author of this article was Mimi Al-Laham, also known as Maram SusliPartisanGirl, Syrian Girl and Syrian Sister. She is a loyalist of the Assad government who has appeared on podcasts hosted by David Duke, the former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. She has another role: as an “expert” used by a retired professor from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology called Theodore Postol. He has produced a wide range of claims casting doubt on the Syrian government’s complicity in chemical weapons attacks.

In correspondence with the chemical weapons expert Dan Kaszeta, Postol revealed that the “solid scientific source” he used to support his theory about the origin of sarin used in Syria was “Syrian Sister”. When Postol and Susli both appeared on a podcast run by the Holocaust “revisionist” Ryan Dawson, Postol explained why he had chosen to work with her: “I was watching her on Twitter. I could see from her voice … that she was a trained chemist.” First, Postol claimedthat the crater from which the sarin in Khan Shaykhun had emanated was most probably caused not by a bomb dropped from the air but by an explosive device laid on the ground (a hypothesis examined and thoroughly debunked by the OPCW report). Then he claimed that there was “no evidence to support” the notion that sarin had been released from the air, and proposed there was strong evidence to suggest that the mass poisoning had been caused by a bomb that hit a rebel weapons depot.

He further claimed that a French intelligence report contradicted the story that sarin had been dropped from a plane, as it suggested that sarin had been dropped by helicopters in a different place. (In reality, he had confused the attack in April 2017 with one in April 2013). Each of these contradictory hypotheses was patiently explored and demolished at the time by bloggers and analysts.

The Guardian visited Khan Shaykhun (also known as Khan Sheikhun) in the aftermath of the attack – the only news organisation in the world to do so. It established that there had been no weapons depot near the scene of the contamination. Surrounding warehouses were abandoned. Birdseed and a volleyball net were all that existed inside. None had been attacked in recent months. The contamination came from a hole in the road from where the remains of a projectile protruded.

But eight days after the Khan Shaykhun attack John Pilger, famous for exposing propaganda and lies, was interviewed on the website Consortium News. He praised Postol as “the distinguished MIT professor”, suggested that the Syrian government could not have carried out the attack – as he claimed it had destroyed its chemical arsenal in 2014 – and maintained that jihadists in Khan Shaykhun “have been playing with nerve gases and sarin … for some years now. There’s no doubt about that.” Despite many claims to the contrary, I have found no credible evidence that Syrian jihadists have access to sarin.

On 26 April Noam Chomsky, interviewed on Democracy Now, claimed that Postol, whom Chomsky called “a highly regarded strategic analyst and intelligence analyst”, had produced a “pretty devastating critique” of a White House reportthat maintained the Syrian government was responsible. Although Chomsky accepted that a chemical attack had taken place and said it was plausible that the Syrian government could have carried it out, this interview helped trigger a frenzy of online commentary endorsing Postol’s hypotheses and dismissing the possibility that the Assad government could have been responsible. The atmosphere became toxic: when I challenged Postol’s claims, people accused me of being an Isis sympathiser, a paedophile being blackmailed by the government, and a Mossad agent. But the madness had only just begun.

In June the investigative journalist Seymour Hersh published an article in the German paper Die Welt, based on information from a “senior adviser to the US intelligence community” who maintained that there had been no sarin strike on Khan Shaykhun. Instead, a meeting of jihadist leaders in “a two-storey cinder-block building” had been bombed by the Syrian air force with the support of the Russians and with Washington’s full knowledge. Fertilisers and disinfectants in the basement, Hersh claimed, could have caused the mass poisoning. (Again, this possibility was examined and discredited by the OPCW).

So which building was he talking about? I asked Hersh to give me its coordinates: the most basic evidence you would expect to support a claim of this nature. The Terraserver website provides satellite imagery that makes it possible to check for any changes to the buildings in Khan Shaykhun, from one day to the next. But when I challenged him to provide them, first he sent me links to claims made by Postol, then he told me that the images are not sufficiently “precise and reliable”. As every building is clearly visible, I find this claim is hard to understand.

Scepticism of all official claims is essential, especially when they involve weapons of mass destruction, and especially when they are used as a pretext for military action – in this case Tomahawk missiles fired on the orders of Donald Trump from a US destroyer on 7 AprilWe know from Iraq not to take any such claims on trust. But I also believe there is a difference between scepticism and denial. While in the fog of war, there will always be some doubt, as the OPCW’s report acknowledges,there is no evidence to support the competing theories of what happened at Khan Shaykhun. Propaganda by one side does not justify propaganda by another.

In Vox earlier this month, the writer David Roberts suggested that America is facing “an epistemic crisis” caused by the conservative rejection of all forms of expertise and knowledge. Politics in the US and elsewhere is now dominated by wild conspiracy theories and paranoia – the narrative platform from which fascism arises. This, as Roberts proposes, presents an urgent threat to democracy. If the scourges of establishment propaganda promote, even unwittingly, groundless stories developed by the “alt right”, we are in deeper trouble than he suggests.

 

Posted in Media, Syria, UKComments Off on Zionist George Monbiot anti-Syria propaganda

Monbiot Still Burying his Head in Sands of Syria

NOVANEWS
Image result for George Monbiot CARTOON
By Jonathan Cook | Dissident Voice 

Investigative journalist Gareth Porter has published two exclusives whose import is far greater than may be immediately apparent. They concern Israel’s bombing in 2007 of a supposed nuclear plant secretly built, according to a self-serving US and Israeli narrative, by Syrian leader Bashar Assad.

Although the attack on the “nuclear reactor” occurred a decade ago, there are pressing lessons to be learnt for those analysing current events in Syria.

Porter’s research indicates very strongly that the building that was bombed could not have been a nuclear reactor – and that was clear to experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) even as the story was being promoted uncritically across the western media.

But – and this is the critical information Porter conveys – the IAEA failed to disclose the fact that it was certain the building was not a nuclear plant, allowing the fabricated narrative to be spread unchallenged. It abandoned science to bow instead to political expediency.

The promotion of the bogus story of a nuclear reactor by Israel and key figures in the Bush administration was designed to provide the pretext for an attack on Assad. That, it was hoped, would bring an end to his presidency and drag into the fray the main target – Iran. The Syrian “nuclear reactor” was supposed to be a re-run of the WMD deception, used in 2003 to oust another enemy of the US and Israel’s – Saddam Hussein of Iraq.

It is noteworthy that the fabricated evidence for a nuclear reactor occurred in 2007, a year after Israel’s failure to defeat Hizbullah in Lebanon. The 2006 Lebanon war was itself intended to spread to Syria and lead to Assad’s overthrow, as I explained in my book Israel and the Clash of Civilisations.

It is important to remember that this Israeli-neocon plot against Syria long predated – in fact, in many ways prefigured – the civil war in 2011 that quickly morphed into a proxy war in which the US became a key, if mostly covert, actor.

The left’s Witchfinder General

The relevance of the nuclear reactor deception can be understood in relation to the latest efforts by Guardian columnist George Monbiot (and many others) to discredit prominent figures on the left, including Noam Chomsky and John Pilger, for their caution in making assessments of much more recent events in Syria. Monbiot has attacked them for not joining him in simply assuming that Assad was responsible for a sarin gas attack last April on Khan Sheikhoun, an al-Qaeda stronghold in Idlib province.

Understandably, many on the left have been instinctively wary of rushing to judgment about individual incidents in the Syrian war, and the narratives presented in the western media. The claim that Assad’s government used chemical weapons in Khan Sheikhoun, and earlier in Ghouta, was an obvious boon to those who have spent more than a decade trying to achieve regime change in Syria.

In what has become an ugly habit with Monbiot, and one I have noted before, he has enthusiastically adopted the role of Witchfinder General. Any questioning of evidence, scepticism or simply signs of open-mindedness are enough apparently to justify accusations that one is an Assadist or conspiracy theorist. Giving house room to the doubts of a ballistics expert like Ted Postol of MIT, or an experienced international arms expert like Scott Ritter, or a famous investigative journalist like Seymour Hersh, or a former CIA analyst like Ray McGovern, is apparently proof that one is an atrocity denier or worse.

Inconvenient facts buried

Monbiot’s latest attack was launched at a moment when he obviously felt he was on solid ground. A UN agency, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), issued a report last month concluding that the 100 people killed and 200 injured in Khan Sheikhoun last April were exposed to sarin. Monbiot argues that the proof is now incontrovertible that Assad was responsible – a position that he, of course, adopted at the outset – and that all other theories have now been decisively discounted by the OPCW.

There are reasons to think that Monbiot is seriously misrepresenting the strength of the OPCW’s findings, as several commentators have observed. Most notably, Robert Parry, another leading investigative journalist, points out that evidence in the report’s annex – the place where inconvenient facts are often buried – appears to blow a large hole in the official story.

Parry notes that the time recorded by the UN of the photo of the chemical weapons attack is more than half an hour *after* some 100 victims had already been admitted to five different hospitals, some of them lengthy drives from the alleged impact site.

But potentially more significant than such troubling inconsistencies are the conclusions of Gareth Porter’s separate investigation into Israel’s bombing of the non-existent Syrian nuclear reactor. That gets to the heart of where Monbiot and many others have gone badly wrong in their certainty about events in Syria.

Extreme naivety

Monbiot has been only too willing to promote as indisputable fact claims made both by highly compromised and unreliable western sources and by supposedly reputable and independent organisations, such as international human rights groups and UN agencies. He, like many others, assumes that the latter can always be relied upon to stand apart from western interests and can therefore be implicitly trusted.

That indicates an extreme naivety or possibly the lack of any experience covering on the ground highly charged conflicts in which western interests are paramount.

I have been based in Israel for nearly two decades and have on several occasions taken to task Human Rights Watch (HRW), one of the world’s most esteemed human rights organisations. I have shown that assessments it has made were patently not rooted in evidence or even credible interpretations of international law but in geopolitical considerations. That was especially true in the case of the month-long fighting between Israel and Hizbullah in 2006. (See here and here.) My concerns about HRW’s work, I later learnt from insiders, were shared in its New York head office, but were silenced by the organisation’s most senior staff.

Nuclear plant deception

But Porter helps shine a light on how even the most reputable international agencies can end up similarly following a script written in Washington and one that rides roughshod over evidence, especially when the interests of the world’s only superpower are at stake. In this case, the deceptions were perpetuated by one of the world’s leading scientific organisations: the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors states’ nuclear activities.

Porter reveals that Yousry Abushady, the IAEA’s foremost expert on North Korean nuclear reactors, was able immediately to discount the aerial photographic evidence that the building Israel bombed in 2007 was a nuclear reactor. (Most likely it was a disused missile storage depot.)

The Syrian “nuclear plant”, he noted, could not have been built using North Korean know-how, as was claimed by the US. It lacked all the main features of a North Korean gas-cooled reactor. The photos produced by the Israelis showed a building that, among other things, covered too small an area and was not anywhere near high enough, it had none of the necessary supporting structures, and there was no cooling tower.

Abushady’s assessment was buried by the IAEA, which preferred to let the CIA and the Israelis promote their narrative unchallenged.

Atomic agency’s silence

This was not a one-off failure. In summer 2008, the IAEA visited the area to collect samples. Had the site been a nuclear plant, they could have expected to find nuclear-grade graphite particles everywhere. They found none.

Nonetheless, the IAEA again perpetrated a deception to try to prop up the fictitious US-Israeli narrative.

As was routine, they sent the samples to a variety of laboratories for analysis. None found evidence of any nuclear contamination – apart from one. It identified particles of man-made uranium. The IAEA issued a report giving prominence to this anomalous sample, even though in doing so it violated its own protocols, reports Parry. It could draw such a conclusion only if the results of all the samples matched.

In fact, as one of the three IAEA inspectors who had been present at the site later reported, the sample of uranium did not come from the plant itself, which was clean, but from a changing room nearby. A former IAEA senior inspector, Robert Kelley, told Parry that a “very likely explanation” was that the uranium particles derived from “cross contamination” from clothing worn by the inspectors. This is a problem that had been previously noted by the IAEA in other contexts.

Meanwhile, the IAEA remained silent about its failure to find nuclear-grade graphite in a further nine reports over two years. It referred to this critical issue for the first time in 2011.

Chance for war with Iran

In other words, the IAEA knowingly conspired in a fictitious, entirely non-scientific assessment of the Syrian “nuclear reactor” story, one that neatly served US-Israeli geopolitical interests.

Porter notes that vice-president Dick Cheney “hoped to use the alleged reactor to get President George W Bush to initiate US airstrikes in Syria in the hope of shaking the Syrian-Iranian alliance”.

In fact, Cheney wanted far more sites in Syria hit than the bogus nuclear plant. In his memoirs, the then-secretary of defence, Robert Gates, observed that Cheney was “looking for an opportunity to provoke a war with Iran”.

The Bush administration wanted to find a way to unseat Assad, crush Hizbullah in Lebanon, and isolate and weaken Iran as a way to destroy the so-called “Shia crescent”.

That goal is being actively pursued again by the US today, with Israel and Saudi Arabia leading the way. A former US ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, recently warned that, after their failure to bring down Assad, the Saudis have been trying to switch battlefields to Lebanon, hoping to foment a confrontation between Israel and Hizbullah that would drag in Iran.

Abandoning science

Back in 2007, the IAEA, an agency of scientists, did its bit to assist – or at least not obstruct – US efforts to foster a political case, an entirely unjustified one, for military action against Syria and, very possibly by extension, Iran.

If the IAEA could so abandon its remit and the cause of science to help play politics on behalf of the US, what leads Monbiot to assume that the OPCW, an even more politicised body, is doing any better today?

That is not to say Assad, or at least sections of the Syrian government, could not have carried out the attack on Khan Sheikhoun. But it is to argue that in a matter like this one, where so much is at stake, the evidence must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny, and that critics, especially experts who offer counter-evidence, must be given a fair hearing by the left. It is to argue that, when the case against Assad fits so neatly a long-standing and self-serving western narrative, a default position of scepticism is fully justified. It is to argue that facts, strong as they may seem, can be manipulated even by expert bodies, and therefore due weight needs also to be given to context – including an assessment of motives.

This is not “denialism”, as Monbiot claims. It is a rational strategy adopted by those who object to being railroaded once again – as they were in Iraq and Libya – into catastrophic regime change operations.

Meanwhile, the decision by Monbiot and others to bury their heads in the sands of an official narrative, all the while denouncing anyone who seeks to lift theirs out for a better view, should be understood for what it is: an abnegation of intellectual and moral responsibility for those around the globe who continue to be the victims of western military supremacism.

Posted in Media, Syria, UKComments Off on Monbiot Still Burying his Head in Sands of Syria

Why Does the U.S. Support Saudi Arabia ?

NOVANEWS

Why Does the U.S. Support Saudi Arabia, A Country Which Hosts and Finances Islamic Terrorism? On Behalf of Washington?

 

First published in August 2014, this essay brings to the forefront Washington’s relentless support for Saudi Arabia, a State sponsor of terror, which has been waging since 2015 a war on the people of Yemen, tantamount to genocide.   

America Has Sold Its Soul for Oil

Why Does the U.S. Support a Country which was FOUNDED With Terrorism

A U.S. congressman for 6 years,  who is now a talking head on MSNBC (Joe Scarborough) says that – even if the Saudi government backed the 9/11 attacks – Saudi oil is too important to do anything about it:

This is not an isolated incident. It is a microcosm of U.S.-Saudi relations.http://my2bucks.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/bush-saudi-hand-holding-1.jpghttp://i.huffpost.com/gen/7992/thumbs/s-BUSHANDSAUDIS-large.jpghttp://www.usnews.com/dbimages/master/10457/FE_DA_090409publicopinion.jpg

 

By way of background, former MI6 agent Alastair Crooke notes that Saudi Arabia was founded with terrorism:

One dominant strand to the Saudi identity pertains directly to Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab (the founder of Wahhabism), and the use to which his radical, exclusionist puritanism was put by Ibn Saud. (The latter was then no more than a minor leader — amongst many — of continually sparring and raiding Bedouin tribes in the baking and desperately poor deserts of the Nejd.)

***

Abd al-Wahhab demanded conformity — a conformity that was to be demonstrated in physical and tangible ways. He argued that all Muslims must individually pledge their allegiance to a single Muslim leader (a Caliph, if there were one). Those who would not conform to this view should be killed, their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated, he wrote. The list of apostates meriting death included the Shiite, Sufis and other Muslim denominations, whom Abd al-Wahhab did not consider to be Muslim at all.

***

Abd al-Wahhab’s advocacy of these ultra radical views inevitably led to his expulsion from his own town — and in 1741, after some wanderings, he found refuge under the protection of Ibn Saud and his tribe. What Ibn Saud perceived in Abd al-Wahhab’s novel teaching was the means to overturn Arab tradition and convention. It was a path to seizing power.

Ibn Saud’s clan, seizing on Abd al-Wahhab’s doctrine, now could do what they always did, which was raiding neighboring villages and robbing them of their possessions. Only now they were doing it not within the ambit of Arab tradition, but rather under the banner of jihad. Ibn Saud and Abd al-Wahhab also reintroduced the idea of martyrdom in the name of jihad, as it granted those martyred immediate entry into paradise.

***

Their strategy — like that of ISIS today — was to bring the peoples whom they conquered into submission. They aimed to instill fear. In 1801, the Allies attacked the Holy City of Karbala in Iraq. They massacred thousands of Shiites, including women and children. Many Shiite shrines were destroyed, including the shrine of Imam Hussein, the murdered grandson of Prophet Muhammad.

A British official, Lieutenant Francis Warden, observing the situation at the time, wrote: “They pillaged the whole of it [Karbala], and plundered the Tomb of Hussein… slaying in the course of the day, with circumstances of peculiar cruelty, above five thousand of the inhabitants …”

Osman Ibn Bishr Najdi, the historian of the first Saudi state, wrote that Ibn Saud committed a massacre in Karbala in 1801. He proudly documented that massacre saying, “we took Karbala and slaughtered and took its people (as slaves), then praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and we do not apologize for that and say: ‘And to the unbelievers: the same treatment.’”

In 1803, Abdul Aziz then entered the Holy City of Mecca, which surrendered under the impact of terror and panic (the same fate was to befall Medina, too). Abd al-Wahhab’s followers demolished historical monuments and all the tombs and shrines in their midst. By the end, they had destroyed centuries of Islamic architecture near the Grand Mosque.

***

With the advent of the oil bonanza — as the French scholar, Giles Kepel writes, Saudi goals were to “reach out and spread Wahhabism across the Muslim world … to “Wahhabise” Islam, thereby reducing the “multitude of voices within the religion” to a “single creed” — a movement which would transcend national divisions. Billions of dollars were — and continue to be — invested in this manifestation of soft power.

***

It was this heady mix of billion dollar soft power projection — and the Saudi willingness to manage Sunni Islam both to further America’s interests, as it concomitantly embedded Wahhabism educationally, socially and culturally throughout the lands of Islam — that brought into being a western policy dependency on Saudi Arabia, a dependency that has endured since Abd-al Aziz’s meeting with Roosevelt on a U.S. warship (returning the president from the Yalta Conference) until today.

***

The more radical Islamist movements were perceived by Western intelligence services as being more effective in toppling the USSR in Afghanistan — and in combatting out-of-favor Middle Eastern leaders and states.Why should we be surprised then, that from Prince Bandar’s Saudi-Western mandate to manage the insurgency in Syria against President Assad should have emerged a neo-Ikhwan type of violent, fear-inducing vanguard movement: ISIS?

Frontline notes:

Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, founder of “Wahhabism,” an austere form of Islam, arrives in the central Arabian state of Najd in 1744 preaching a return to “pure” Islam. He seeks protection from the local emir, Muhammad ibn Saud, head of the Al Saud tribal family, and they cut a deal. The Al Saud will endorse al-Wahhab’s austere form of Islam and in return, the Al Saud will get political legitimacy and regular tithes from al-Wahhab’s followers. The religious-political alliance that al-Wahhab and Saud forge endures to this day in Saudi Arabia.

By the 19th century, the Al Saud has spread its influence across the Arabian Peninsula, stretching from the Red Sea to the Persian Gulf and including the Two Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina.

***

By 1945, the U.S. urgently needs oil facilities to help supply forces fighting in the Second World War. Meanwhile, security is at the forefront of King Abd al-Aziz’s concerns. President Franklin Roosevelt invites the king to meet him aboard the U.S.S. Quincy, docked in the Suez Canal. The two leaders cement a secret oil-for-security pact: The king guarantees to give the U.S. secure access to Saudi oil and in exchange the U.S. will provide military assistance and training to Saudi Arabia and build the Dhahran military base.

U.S. presidents have been extremely close to the Saudi monarchs ever since.

The Progressive notes:

The ideology of the Saudi regime is that of ISIS even if the foreign policies differ,” California State University-Stanislaus Professor Asad AbuKhalil tells The Progressive.

***

Wahhabi Islam [the official ideology of the Saudi monarchy] is fully in sync with ISIS.”

But instead of isolating the Saudi regime from the global mainstream, President Obama paid a visit there earlier this year, meeting with King Abdullah. He reportedly did not discuss the regime’s dubious conduct.

“I can’t think of a more pernicious actor in the region,” British-Pakistani author Mohsin Hamid told me in an interview last year. “The House of Saud has exported this very pernicious form of militant Islam under U.S. watch. Then the United States comes in repeatedly to attack symptoms of this problem without ever addressing the basic issue: Where does it all come from? Who’s at the heart of this thing? It would be like saying that if you have skin rash because of cancer, the best option is to cut off your skin. It doesn’t make any sense.”

Yet, the United States continues with this approach.

Even establishment opinion is recognizing the dimensions of the Saudi problem.

“It can’t be exporting extremism and at the same time ask the United States to protect it,” Retired General (and onetime presidential contender) Wesley Clark recently told CNN.

“Al Qaeda, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Boko Haram, the Shabab and others are all violent Sunni Salafi groupings,” Ed Husain of the Council on Foreign Relations recently wrote in the New York Times. “For five decades, Saudi Arabia has been the official sponsor of Sunni Salafism [another term for Wahhabism] across the globe.”

Such entities “have been lavishly supported by the Saudi government, which has appointed emissaries to its embassies in Muslim countries who proselytize for Salafism,” he adds.

***

Then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in a December 2009 leaked diplomatic cable that entities in Saudi Arabia were the “most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”

***

Yet the United States keeps mum because the Saudi monarchy serves U.S. interests. Due to its pivotal role in OPEC, it makes sure that crude oil prices don’t rise above a certain level. It is a key purchaser of American weapons. It invests in U.S. government bonds. And it has acted in the past as proxy for covert U.S. actions, such as funneling arms and funding to the Nicaraguan contras.

***

Until Saudi Arabia stops sponsoring the most reactionary brands of Sunni Islam, this U.S. ally will remain responsible for much of the mayhem in the Muslim world.

The Independent headlines “Iraq crisis: How Saudi Arabia helped Isis take over the north of the country”:

Some time before 9/11, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, once the powerful Saudi ambassador in Washington and head of Saudi intelligence until a few months ago, had a revealing and ominous conversation with the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove. Prince Bandar told him: “The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally ‘God help the Shia’. More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them.”

***

There is no doubt about the accuracy of the quote by Prince Bandar, secretary-general of the Saudi National Security Council from 2005 and head of General Intelligence between 2012 and 2014, the crucial two years when al-Qa’ida-type jihadis took over the Sunni-armed opposition in Iraq and Syria. Speaking at the Royal United Services Institute last week, Dearlove, who headed MI6 from 1999 to 2004, emphasised the significance of Prince Bandar’s words, saying that they constituted “a chilling comment that I remember very well indeed”.

He does not doubt that substantial and sustained funding from private donors in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to which the authorities may have turned a blind eye, has played a central role in the Isis surge into Sunni areas of Iraq. He said: “Such things simply do not happen spontaneously.” This sounds realistic since the tribal and communal leadership in Sunni majority provinces is much beholden to Saudi and Gulf paymasters, and would be unlikely to cooperate with Isis without their consent.

***

Unfortunately, Christians in areas captured by Isis are finding this is not true, as their churches are desecrated and they are forced to flee. A difference between al-Qa’ida and Isis is that the latter is much better organised; if it does attack Western targets the results are likely to be devastating.

***

Dearlove … sees Saudi strategic thinking as being shaped by two deep-seated beliefs or attitudes. First, they are convinced that there “can be no legitimate or admissible challenge to the Islamic purity of their Wahhabi credentials as guardians of Islam’s holiest shrines”. But, perhaps more significantly given the deepening Sunni-Shia confrontation, the Saudi belief that they possess a monopoly of Islamic truth leads them to be “deeply attracted towards any militancy which can effectively challenge Shia-dom”.

Western governments traditionally play down the connection between Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabist faith, on the one hand, and jihadism, whether of the variety espoused by Osama bin Laden and al-Qa’ida or by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s Isis. There is nothing conspiratorial or secret about these links: 15 out of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, as was Bin Laden and most of the private donors who funded the operation.

***

But there has always been a second theme to Saudi policy towards al-Qa’ida type jihadis, contradicting Prince Bandar’s approach and seeing jihadis as a mortal threat to the Kingdom. Dearlove illustrates this attitude by relating how, soon after 9/11, he visited the Saudi capital Riyadh with Tony Blair.

He remembers the then head of Saudi General Intelligence “literally shouting at me across his office: ’9/11 is a mere pinprick on the West. In the medium term, it is nothing more than a series of personal tragedies. What these terrorists want is to destroy the House of Saud and remake the Middle East.’” In the event, Saudi Arabia adopted both policies, encouraging the jihadis as a useful tool of Saudi anti-Shia influence abroad but suppressing them at home as a threat to the status quo. It is this dual policy that has fallen apart over the last year.

Saudi sympathy for anti-Shia “militancy” is identified in leaked US official documents. The then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in December 2009 in a cable released by Wikileaks that “Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qa’ida, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan] and other terrorist groups.”

***

Saudi Arabia and its allies are in practice playing into the hands of Isis which is swiftly gaining full control of the Sunni opposition in Syria and Iraq.

***

For all his gargantuan mistakes, Maliki’s failings are not the reason why the Iraqi state is disintegrating. What destabilised Iraq from 2011 on was the revolt of the Sunni in Syria and the takeover of that revolt by jihadis, who were often sponsored by donors in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates. Again and again Iraqi politicians warned that by not seeking to close down the civil war in Syria, Western leaders were making it inevitable that the conflict in Iraq would restart. “I guess they just didn’t believe us and were fixated on getting rid of [President Bashar al-] Assad,” said an Iraqi leader in Baghdad last week.

***

Saudi Arabia has created a Frankenstein’s monster over which it is rapidly losing control. The same is true of its allies such as Turkey which has been a vital back-base for Isis and Jabhat al-Nusra by keeping the 510-mile-long Turkish-Syrian border open.

As we’ve extensively documented, the Saudis and the U.S. backed the radical “madrassas” in which Islamic radicalism was spread.

Indeed, the U.S. is backing the most radical Muslim terrorists in the world: the Salafis, who are heavily concentrated in Saudi Arabia, while overthrowing the more moderate Arabs.

Posted in USA, Saudi ArabiaComments Off on Why Does the U.S. Support Saudi Arabia ?

Earth as Weapon, Geo-engineering as War

NOVANEWS

Book presentation and interpretation: “Planet Earth, the Latest Weapon of War” by Rosalie Bertell and its updated German version “Kriegswaffe Planet Erde” (3rd ed. 2016)

 

This book is a globally unique documentation by Dr. Rosalie Bertell. I think it is one of the most important books of the 21st century. In addition to the author’s original text from the year 2000 there are various updates by herself until 2011 and additional articles written by international experts. As the founder of the “Planetary Movement for Mother Earth” which was organized after having known Bertell’s work (2010) in order to distribute it always more, I have contributed to the book in various ways as well. We translated it and organized its publication. Rosalie has named me her representative in the German speaking part of the world.

When Rosalie Bertell passed, she was 83 years old. We learn from her that free expression of opinions and thoughts about the topic in question, as well as a whole collection of detailed scientific facts, as presented by her, have been suppressed to be discussed for decades. For me there needs to be a public discussion and a theoretical clarification asking the question: In which of the academic traditions, sciences, worldviews, in what logics, politics, and motivation does the literally inconceivable fit that Rosalie Bertell is describing? What are the consequences to be drawn?

Who was Rosalie Bertell?

Dr. Rosalie Bertell was born in 1929 in the United States. She earned a PhD in Biometry at the Catholic University of America, Washington DC, in 1966. She holds nine honorary doctor’s degrees, and she won numerous prizes, among them the “Right Livelihood Award”, RLA (1986); she co-founded multiple organizations including the “International Institute of Concern for Public Health” (IICPH) in Toronto, Canada (1984) and the “International Physicians for Humanitarian Medicine” in Geneva, Switzerland (1999). She has worked as an appraiser for the UN, worked in more than 60 countries for this institution, and was a life-long member of the Roman Catholic Congregation “Grey Nuns of the Sacred Heart”, Pennsylvania, USA. Rosalie Bertell is concerned about human health, the environment and the planet as a whole respectively, and about a warning referring to the dangers we face. Her very first book dealt with nuclear dangers: “No Immediate Danger? Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth”. She was awarded the RLA for this very publication in the year of the MCA in Chernobyl 1986. Due to the several hundreds or even more times greater ultimate MCA in Fukushima in 2011 this book is now more relevant than ever.

“If the public were to discover the real health costs of nuclear contamination, a cry would arise from every part of the world and the people would refuse to continue to passively contribute with their own death!“ (Bertell, 1985, p. xiii)

For today she states:

 What is planned now are climate and weather wars, wars in which earthquakes and volcanoes, floods and droughts, hurricanes and monsoon rains will play a role.“ (Bertell 2013, p. 57)

The dangers that we people and the planet are facing today are far more developed in the post-nuclear era without that the dangers of the nuclear one would have diminished.

Rosalie Bertell is an ethicist of the same magnitude as before her Rachel Carson with her book “Silent Spring” about the fifties and sixties of the 20th century, who was the first to create awareness about the spreading chemical contamination in nature, and its ramifications with regards to steadily growing cancer rates (Carson 1962).

Bertell, too, wants to deliver a wakeup call for people to become active from below. Her hope is that a peaceful, cooperative and wiser world will emerge. The earth is still a wonderful planet, so she believes at the end of her book, as she calls upon us all “to respect it, to love it and to save it!” (Bertell 2013, p. 439)

Bertell is an ecofeminist and a pacifist in the best sense of the word. She stands for respect of the rights of Mother Earth as a “cosmic being”, and of all beings upon, beneath, and above her. She argues for the abolition of the military and of war, for the end of patriarchy as the attempt to dominate all life and meanwhile the earth itself, and for the end of capitalism as the raving and reckless looting of the whole planet.

She stands for the peaceful resolution of conflicts through international courts, and for the necessary foundation of an environmental court that will preserve the interests of the Earth and its safety and integrity, as well as rule over compensation for inflicted damage. Bertell is a most sensible thinker, crystal-clear and keen; she had a sixth sense for the uncovering of hidden information, she was committed and courageous, and she never gave up even though she has been threatened by several attacks on her life.

As a Catholic nun she was backed by her Congregation “Grey Nuns of the Sacred Heart” in the US and had therefore not been dependent on funding by individuals or institutions.

Why is this book so important?

  1. It is a history of the ongoing destruction of planet Earth through the development and employment of new military technologies
  2. It shows the reaction of the public and of social movements
  3. It should be the end of the “conspiracy theory” accusations
  4. It shows the overall damages to the planet
  5. It needs more of a theoretical explanation
  6. It shows the legal situation

This book discusses the history of an ongoing destruction of our Planet, caused by applied natural science, corporate capital, and the military.

Since World War II the development and employment of new military technologies in the East and the West have been the basis of destructions in the very “life systems”, as Bertell calls them, of our planet. The book presents us with a unique historical documentation, which reads like a breathtaking thriller. Its scope ranges from chemical, biological, and nuclear technological development and warfare to the post nuclear, especially in the field of electromagnetic “plasma” weapons, not only threatening to wipe out all life on earth using technologies that are able to produce huge catastrophes, but also threatening to destroy the planet itself. The essence of the thriller Rosalie Bertell has written lies precisely in this escalation. For, it is literally this planetary dimension, which connected to warfare that has been taking action for a long time already, is completely new and unimagined. The beginning of this development started with the use of detrimental substances in industrial agriculture, and in the medical field – such as herbicides, pesticides, detergents, chlorine, and anesthetics – which were used during both world wars. It was Rachel Carson (Carson 1962), the first “eco-feminist” who protested against this development.

In this handout picture released by the U.S. Army, a mushroom cloud billows about one hour after a nuclear bomb was detonated above Hiroshima, Japan on Aug. 6, 1945. Japanese officials say a 93-year-old Japanese man has become the first person certified as a survivor of both U.S. atomic bombings at the end of World War II.

The story continues with rocket technology and the atmospheric, surface, and underground nuclear and hydrogen bomb tests that have been ongoing since the end of World War II. There have been around 2.300 tests between 1945 and 1998 (s. Bertell 2013, p. 323) beginning with Hiroshima/Nagasaki up to the many tests in the western parts of the United States, in Central Asia and the South Pacific; more than half of them instigated by the US. These tests mark the beginning of a systemic radioactive contamination of the earth and the application of nuclear processes and radiation to food and for medical purposes. The nuclear tests caused the first damages to the ozone layer and all other layers of the atmosphere, and they were particularly detrimental to the layers of the Van Allen Belts, which determine the earth’s magnetic field.

Due to a lack of knowledge about the functions of the upper atmospheric layers in regard to the preservation of the earth’s life support systems, as Bertell calls them, there was complete ignorance about the effects (exo-)atmospheric nuclear testing could possibly cause. The military scientists acted by “trial and error”. Nature’s reaction to an attack on it’s very self would just have to be seen (Bertell 2013, pp 58f, 151, 156f, 158, 167, 476).

The damages to this sensitive mantle of the atmosphere, however, are unaccounted for until today and it remains unclear, if they will ever vanish again. We may never grasp the meaning of the earth’s “life systems” of which the electromagnetic field is a part, or understand the changes it has undergone.

In addition, experiments with the weather began to take place, reaching a first climax during the Vietnam War. They started with experiments on an artificially prolonged monsoon season, with artificially intensified severe weather episodes, using lethal chemicals such as Monsanto’s “Agent Orange”, which was dispersed through sprayings by airplanes, so that the trees would lose their leaves. These experiments moved on to the attempt of creating a hole in the ozone layer, with the objective of triggering a collapse of Vietnamese agriculture through the induction of unfiltered cosmic radiation, consisting of gamma rays, x rays, infrared rays, UV rays, or certain other microwaves, from which intact layers of the atmosphere protect the earth (Bertell 2013, p. 230).

Meanwhile the hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica and the one that has formed recently and for the first time over the Arctic, probably due to radioactivity from Fukushima, allow numerous types of radiation, including the most harmful, to penetrate the atmosphere. Beyond that, this type of radiation is additionally manufactured for medical and electronic use down here (a.a.O.), following the principle of using war technologies in peace as well.

Further, the strategy around rockets and space travel, including supersonic flight, space stations, satellites, and the SDI „Star Wars“ program (Bertell 2013, pp. 184-188; 258ff), centers around projects designed to obtain military control of the Earth from space. “The space will be the next battlefield” (Bertell 2013, p. 177). For this reason thermonuclear bombs have circled above our heads to ensure swifter bombarding of targets on earth, and we have been endangered by plutonium that has been used to fuel rockets like the Cassini during its mission to Saturn, starting in 1997, a potential for widespread and lethal contamination in case of an accident.

Finally, experiments with EM (electromagnetic) waves and the heating up of the upper layers of the atmosphere (Bertell 2013, p. 139ff), called “ionosphere”, from an altitude of 80 km on, began in die 1960ies and 1970ies by influencing this electromagnetically charged layer through the use of “ionospheric heaters”. The most famous of these “heaters” being HAARP (High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Project) in Alaska, built up later in the 1990ies, huge radar installations with antenna and a special energy supply (Bertell 2013, pp.273ff). According to Bertell, the Arctic region has been subjected to a deliberate thawing process through the utilization of EM-ELF (extreme low frequency) waves, action that seems to have been agreed upon by the former Soviet Union and the United States in Vladivostok 1974 already (Bertell 2013, p. 256, 445; Ponte 1976; MacDonald 1968).

This is a kind of borderline science, since much of this knowledge remains outside of the scientific discourse familiar to us. Practically nobody is aware of this new science, even though nearly 40 years have passed. In contrast, scientists, researchers and the population are made to believe that greenhouse CO2 gas emissions by the civilian industry are the cause for the swift thawing of the Arctic region, and are proof of climate warming through CO2 in general! (Storr in Bertell 2013, p. 533).

Meanwhile Exxon Mobile and its Russian colleagues have begun to stake out areas of the Arctic region in their quest for oil…

In the meantime there have been continuous “official“ wars in which, however, new unofficial weapons were put to use, such as laser guided weapons and especially DU (depleted uranium) ammunition, produced from de-riched Uranium 238 which originates in nuclear plants. This has been the case in the Balkans, during the Gulf War with Iraq/Kuwait, and everywhere else since – in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in Libya.

As a result, radioactive contamination in these areas and for those living in these regions temporarily or permanently has increased drastically (see the “Gulf War Syndrome”, Günther 2002, Lengfelder 2006). Research by the geophysicist Leuren Moret has provided evidence of a significant decline in birthrates; a rebound cannot be expected (Moret 2011c, d). In other words, radiation has actually already led to a real decline in population in the respective areas. Fukushima’s contribution to this development (Moret 2011 a, b; Kaku 2011, 6th Info-Letter on www.pbme-online.org) is still completely unforeseeable.

After the many smaller facilities for manipulating the layers of the atmosphere with EM – electromagnetic – waves were installed, such as Poker Flats/Alaska, Plattville/Colorado, and HIPAS/Alaska, the larger ones emerged. This is to be seen in Arecibo/Puerto Rico, EISCAT in Tromsö in Northern Norway, as well as the so called “Woodpecker” in the Soviet Union (Bertell 2013, p. 288ff), and since the early 1990ies the HAARP antenna farms with 180 radar towers in 2002. They are meanwhile accompanied by facilities in the Netherlands and Sweden, Israel, Australia, China, and other countries (recently probably MARLOW near Rostock, northern Germany) as well as by mobile x-band radar as swimming supports, capable of ranging beyond the horizon. About two dozens of these facilities are estimated to be globally operational today. In the year 2013 a new one, MUOS, for satellite coordination, has been built in Sicily (MUOS 2015).

This way, a bombardment or heating up of the ionosphere can occur simultaneously, separately or in opposition to each other, be it for experimental purposes or as a planned attack (see “SuperDARNS” in Bertell 2013, p. 283ff).

For this to work, the electrically charged air of the ionosphere, the “plasma”, which is a unique aggregate state beyond a solid, fluid, or gaseous state (Bertell 2013, p. 143), is heated up using the power of the ionospheric heaters that can add up to GIGA watts, billions of watts. This operation is causing the plasma to densify and to bulge, creating a mirror like reflector from which rays of energy, sent by ionospheric heaters, can be bounced off at any desired angle, and be redirected back to a corresponding point on or under the earth’s surface (Bertell 2013, pp. 279ff). From there the great destruction emanates, that until now could not be explained as an artificially induced catastrophe, though the ENMOD Convention of the UN from 1977, after the Vietnam War, already talked about them, trying to forbid its military use (UN 1977). The use of ionospheric heating with pulsed EM waves as one of the main techniques for environmental modification is especially potent in unleashing or amplifying latent or beginning motion, being along earthquake lines or within active volcanoes. Such processes, utilizing extreme low frequency – ELF – waves, are capable of penetrating and cutting even through the interior of the earth and of causing disturbances at and within its very core, where the magnetic field of our planet is originating (“Deep Earth Penetrating Tomography“ or “Earth Probing tomography”, Bertell 2013, pp. 285ff).

EM waves of different types can also be used to change the “Jetstream” – fast winds moving around the globe on the northern and southern hemispheres being a barrier to  temperatures – up north or down south, so that more heat or cold can stream in. The waves can be used to change the course of the vapor-streams – clouds that move around the globe – to influence the development of droughts and floods. They can be used to get more energy than normal transported to certain places, producing fires, thunderstorms and extreme lightning down to the soil, or heavy explosions that resemble nuclear ones. They can be used to keep freak weather conditions on a certain place for a long time. They can be used to move and build up large storms and to influence ocean currents like El Nino and La Nina (Bertell 2013, pp. 445 ff; 465 ff).

The probably largest ionospheric heater, HAARP in Alaska, is able to set 1, 8 GIGA watts – billions of watts – in motion, and bundle them up to focus on one single point in the ionosphere. The types of technologies existing to destroy the environment have been explained by geophysicist and presidential consultant Gordon MacDonald in his article “How to Wreck the Environment“ published in “Unless Peace Comes” in 1968. That happened 48 years ago! (MacDonald 1968, cf. below)

The prominent journal “The Guardian“, London, has reported about the topic for example (4.4.2012) in an article titled: “At war over geo engineering“. The articles reads as follows:

“…Few in the civil sector fully understand that geo engineering is primarily a militaryscience and has nothing to do with either cooling the planet or lowering carbon … While seemingly fantastical, weather has been weaponized. At least four countries – the US, Russia, China and Israel – possess the technology and organization to regularly alter weather, and geologic events for various military and black operations.… Indeed, warfare now includes the technological ability to induce, enhance or direct cyclonic events, earthquakes, drought and flooding, including the use of polymerized aerosol viral agents and radioactive particulates carried through global weather systems”.

The article mentions as well the role of a gradual warming of the Polar Regions for resource extraction.

This article entirely validates the statements of Prof. Gordon MacDonald, former deputy director of the Institute for Geophysics and Physics at the University of California, and member of the president’s science advisory committee under president Lyndon B. Johnson, made in 1968. The globally renowned scientist writes in Nigel Calder’s book “Unless Peace Comes: A Scientific Forecast of New Weapons“. On geophysical warfare in the chapter “How to Wreck the Environment”, he describes, how the energy fields of the earth can be used to manipulate the weather, resulting in a melting of the polar caps, the destruction of the ozone layer, and the triggering of earthquakes. Prof. Gordon MacDonald therefore established in the 1960s that these weapons were actually in production and that the whole process would practically go unnoticed by their victims if potentially utilized (www.Sauberer-Himmel.de).

  • In fact, there was talk in the US as early as 1958 that „Climate control is coming!“ (Newsweek 1958): Edward Teller, “father” of the hydrogen bomb, was at the very front regarding the discussion of possible warfare through the manipulation of weather, for instance dumping aerosols into the atmosphere (cf. Hamilton in Bertell 2013, pp. 498ff).
  • The UN ENMOD convention of 1976/77 – now 40 years ago – describes these abominations, and prohibits the military or any other hostile use of these technologies. In the meantime, they are heard of on a daily basis today: earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts, and floods, change of weather patterns throughout entire regions, ocean currents and tornados, changes of the ozone layer and the ionosphere (cf. Bertell 2013, p. 46; Storr in Bertell 2013, p. 527).
  • In the year 1997 the former US secretary of defense, William Cohen, voiced his concerns about the possibility of precisely these types of weapons being put to use by terrorists (cf. Bertell 2013, p.291).
  • The EU Parliament conducted a hearing in 1999 in the matter of HAARP. The hearing remained without consequences, despite all the warnings. It, nevertheless, was admitted by the EU Commission that is has no influence whatsoever on military affairs! (Werlhof in Bertell 2013, p. 36). HAARP communications, however, state that “ionospheric heaters” are designed only for research purposes, and are by no means to be considered as a weapons system. Thus, they would most definitely be in the scope of EU influence, or would have to be prohibited by the UN!
  • On the other hand, there is not much talk either about the European ionospheric heaters such as EISCAT in Tromsö, northern Norway. This facility is operated by the German Max-Planck-Institute.
  • The UN pronounced another Moratorium on Geoengineering at the Biodiversity Conference in Nagoya, Japan, in 2010, prohibiting the private and publicly uncontrolled use of geoengineering (Bertell 2013, p. 318).
  • In 2013 nearly 50 European activists and several members of the European Parliament, organized in “Skyguards”, made another intent to mobilize the EP via a conference “Beyond Theories of Weather Modification – Civil Society versus Geoengineering”, accompanied by a Petition to the EP that was even accepted by the EP-Commission on Petitions in 2014 (Werlhof in Bertell 2013, pp. 33-41). In 2016, nevertheless, the same happened to this petition as to the one of 1999: Ex-MEP Josefina Fraile from Skyguards, who had organized the Petition, got a letter from the EU-Commission telling her that military questions are not to be treated in the realm of the EP – though the petition spoke especially about civil geoengineering.
  • In general, the Report on “Weather as a Force Multiplier – Owning the Weather in 2025”, prepared for the US Air Force in 1996, shows that the question of “weather wars” is in the hands of the military. A civilian and independent geo-engineering for “saving the world from climate change” is surely not existing (US Air Force 1996).

Results’ summary:

These political experiences seem to contradict the central thesis of Bertell´s book that the earth has already been transformed into a weapon of war, pointing against us as well as against itself in a perverse manner! The meaning behind all this: There is no official  recognition of the existence of means and possibilities of warfare that don’t only pose a threat to all life on earth by utilizing the earth’s own forces against us and itself, but beyond that the existence of a capacity capable of destroying the whole planet as such! (Bertell 2013, p. 251f). This danger had been spelled out already by physicist Nikola Tesla (1856-1943, Bertell 2013, pp. 223ff, 468ff), the original inventor of different ways how to use the electromagnetic powers of the planet (Bertell 2013, p. 32, 239f). Using her own forces, the earth can now be compelled to kill its own beings and then possibly coerced into suicide!

The means to destroy the planet are those of “geoengineering” – including electromagnetic plasma weapons and all additional forms of weather wars (Bertell 2013, p. 317). If these technologies used in an enhanced form, if the increase of rhythmically pulsed EM waves and the effect of their resonance becomes practically unlimited (Tesla’s “Magnifying Transmitter“, and “controlled earthquakes“, Bertell 2013, p. 288), the earth could possibly even be torn apart, plunge into the sun, or in last consequence, be hurled out into space! Special “Scalar” EM effects of resonance could be instantly reflected, when originating from the earth and penetrating space. A result could be the earth’s destruction through the sun, or the dynamic balance bet originating from the earth and penetrating space ween the earth and the moon, sharing the same magnetic field, could fall apart… Nikola Tesla, the most innovative mind in regard to the work with EM waves, predicted and warned of all these scenarios as a theoretical possibility at the beginning of the last century already (Bertell 2013, p. 465ff).

Further developments:

  • The further development of EM weapons in dimensions of longitudinal “scalar” waves, as first developed in the Soviet Union, has found particular focus in the work of former member of the US Army, Tom Bearden, a scientist and disciple of Tesla’s who has been quoted by Bertell (Bertell 2013, pp. 223ff, 238ff, 465f; Bearden 1986/2002). This chapter of weapons technology with (longitudinal) scalar waves appears to be even more mysterious than that of other (transversal) EM waves. Considering that in the so-called vacuum or hyperspace – the “ether” (according to Tesla) or the space beyond the solar system – the movement of these scalar waves reaches beyond the three – dimensional terrestrial space and its conditions, acting independently of each of them under at least four – dimensional conditions – the three dimensions of space and the time dimension. This means for instance that scalar waves are simultaneous, they don´t need time to spread. Military application of these processes on earth – that is working with “unlimited” extra-terrestrial conditions under limited terrestrial ones (cf. first Wagner 1970 on nuclear fission on earth) – would be and actually is the greatest imminent threat (Bearden 2012; Wood 2010).
  • Besides the effects triggered on a macro level, other effects that are no less eerie could be caused by EM waves on the micro level as well. We are talking about the interference with our brains using ELF waves that correspond to the pulse – the Schumann frequency – of the earth, which is the same as that of the brain (Begich/ Manning 1996; Bertell 2013, p. 289). These methods have apparently been developed predominantly by the Soviets, and can also be applied to larger populations, according to Bearden.

All this happens true to the motto: Electromagnetic pulses can reach anywhere, due to the fact, that matter itself “oscillates” (Begich/Manning 1996). This is finally the real “secret” of the magnitude and efficiency of the new Tesla-technologies as patented for their use in ionospheric heaters (official US patents by physicist Bernard Eastlund, Bertell 2013, p. 277ff) and elsewhere (Bearden 2012; Wood 2010).

The reaction of the public and of social movements

Through Bertell we are now finding out that we, the public, humans, and citizens have been vulnerable to this increasing threat since ca. 70 years without being made aware of it, let alone having been asked for our approval or “consent”, even though these developments are life endangering for us and the planet and have eroded conditions of life globally. Actually, if these threats are not brought to a halt, our living conditions and the earth itself could be destroyed within a brief period of time already.

Considering Bertell’s quotes: “The military is always 50 years ahead“. And:

“The military never uses the same weapons in a new war that have been used in an old one” (Werlhof in Bertell 2013, p. 48; Bertell Interview II, 2014).

We, as the allegedly responsible citizens:

1. Although embarrassing, we must now come to grips with the fact that we have not been aware of anything that has been going on in this field.

2. We need to realize that since the end of the “Cold War” we have allowed ourselves to believe in the end of wars, at least in the end of large-scale wars, and in the absence of the threat through another world war, nuclear war, let alone environmental wars, wars due to “natural” disasters, energy weapons, and eco terror! We held and still hold it unthinkable that the earth’s own forces can be used against us and the earth itself, and we even did not know about these forces at all…!

3. So, we have to ask, how and if at all there is still a differentiation between friend and foe, civilians and the military, conquerors and the conquered. Why has this distinction evidently become irrelevant? What kind of a war is this?

In respect to social movements, from Bertell’s analysis follows:

  • A peace movement exists that has not recognized that there is a modern war, that is directed at and against the environment (Bertell 2013, p. 57f; 325f; 344ff).
  • On the grounds of a continuously more obvious destruction of the environment, there nevertheless exists an ecological movement that has not yet realized the problems, which have particularly been caused by the military (Bertell 2013, p. 71).
  • The anti- nuclear movement has not realized the post nuclear development of weapons of mass destruction within the military that supersede the necessity of nuclear wars (cf. Bertell 2013, p. 58).
  • Right now a trend toward the creation of „environmental justice movements“can be observed. These “movements” intend to promote civil “geoengineering” within the fields of civil science, politics, and private industry, by claiming to fight “climate warming”. They are predominately comprised of geo-engineers. They claim to be in the position to fight climate warming without actually confronting the causes! (Hamilton in Bertell 2013, pp. 485 ff; Bertell 2013, p. 312ff). The blame for climate warming is laid down on the doorstep of civilian CO2 emissions, a position that is being taken only since 1997 (Kyoto protocol, Bertell 2013, p. 311).

According to Bertell, not a single climate conference ever mentioned CO2 before that! However, the movement of geo-engineers does not focus on the reduction CO2 emissions at all. On the contrary, this movement assumes that there is no chance of politically enforcing any considerable norms in this regard anyway. This “movement“ is targeting the alleged symptoms and not the problem of damages of the earth itself while attracting considerable funding and technical resources (Fraile 2015; Weiss 2014; 2016).

Rosalie Bertell

Under the premises of the CO2-thesis, these geo engineers tamper with nothing less than the planetary dimension of the earth’s elements. With the oceans (“ocean fertilization”), the layers of the air (aerosols, “Solar Radiation Management”, SRM, sprayings, s. Bertell 2013, p. 2543; 319), and the ground (deforestation (!), action in regard to more “albedo“, sun reflecting white spaces and clouds), to screen the earth against solar heat and/or for more effective CO2 absorption and to eliminate the necessity of CO2 reduction. Although the dangers resulting from CO2 are supposedly threatening, this approach denies the need to further deal with the issue – that is how to get rid of it itself! The process of fighting “climate warming”, once initiated in an engineering context, would need – as is said by geo-engineers – to be sustained “indefinitely” in order to maintain the climate and not risk an immediate overheating of the planet under the sweltering heat of a sun allowed to shine in blue skies. As a matter of fact, a partial warming of the earth is indeed taking place. However, this is not happening in the troposphere where CO2 actually accumulates, but rather in the higher layers of the stratosphere in which HAARP and similar facilities – the “ionospheric heaters” – are active! (Phillips 2011).

In total, global warming cannot be a result of CO2 emissions after all! (Bertell 2013, pp. 321-323). CO2 is dirty, but it is not heating up, as she says.Apart from Bertell hardly anyone has noticed that the environmental crisis in the guise of the so called climate crisis, as well as the alleged solutions for this crisis, namely geo-engineering, both originate from the same military laboratories!

Ironically, as said in Hamilton’s contribution to Bertell’s book: The military itself does not assume the existence of any kind of climate crisis at all! The measures of military geoengineering do not aim at reducing climate warming. These measures have been invented for completely different reasons, namely military ones: they are geo-weapons (Bertell 2013, p. 58).

Instead of figuring out how to stop military disruption and manipulation of the climate through, as Bertell states, “weather wars, plasma weapons, and geo engineering” by, for example, turning off “ionospheric heaters” globally, the discussion is focused on fighting the consequences of this global war – precisely by employing the same measures that have actually caused them!

The fact that it isn’t the alleged CO2 issue or even „evil nature“ opposing us, remains concealed due to the creation of deliberate confusion! One of most generous private sponsors of geo engineering, which poses as a civilian measure to counter the consequences of CO2 emissions, while actually being a military scheme towards the planet, is the wealthiest man on earth, Bill Gates (Bertell 2013, p. 253f; Hamilton in Bertell 2013, p. 504).

The end of “conspiracy-theory” accusations?

Bertell’ s book could be the beginning of an end to insults and suspicions that have been geared toward making all this sound like a “conspiracy theory” (a term invented by the CIA to revile those who doubted the official version of the murder of J.F. Kennedy). Where the corresponding current developments are dragged out of the dark room of anonymity, secrecy, denial, and concealment – as Bertell has done –, it will not be possible anymore to brush the facts off!

This, nevertheless, is not yet happening, as we know now, five years after having published Bertell in German – the first real public appearance of her book after the sudden bankruptcy of her English publisher in 2000. The background of this strategy to hide the facts can precisely be seen in the ongoing concealment of the connections between environmental crisis and military experiments and attacks. Hiding by all means a meanwhile “unofficial” and/or possibly already raging undeclared war, is necessary in order to not risk opposition from civil society, or even from law, as would inevitably happen if reality were to become publicly evident (Storr in Bertell 2913, p. 545). MacDonald, who has been mentioned earlier, explains that such a ‘secret war’ need never be declared or even known by the affected populations. It could go on for years with only the security forces involved being aware of it (MacDonald, 1968). This kind of “geo-terrorism” and as such “technetronic” (MacDonald) warfare would appear in the guise of militarization or “weaponization” of “industrial mishaps”, “environmental disasters”, and “geo-engineering” (Phillips 2011).

Rosalie Bertell states that the military needs us for legitimization since it is in need of civilian resources (Bertell 2013, p. 388) and legwork, as e.g. done through scientists, and our belief in its ability to create security in a military sense (Bertell 2013, p. 365) and in case of disaster. To have us assuming that it produces these disasters itself would of course be a bad fit! The civilian academic field is precisely one that asserts the impossibility of this type of disaster occurring due to a deliberate manipulation of natural events. All the catastrophes of the past decades, namely 10 times the number of natural disasters as compared to before 1970 (Bertell 2013, p. 306) and the unending cluster of most severe earthquakes globally, are nothing but simple natural events for them. We must not forget, that „normal science“ is unable to explain these phenomena, as they have never taken into account what Nikola Tesla had explored and invented. The earth seems to have remained unchanged tectonically and seismically, and there are no reasonable explanations for the increase in volcanic activity, for instance.

Yet, it is science itself enabling the dangers discussed by Bertell. For without science the development of the relevant technologies pertaining to our topic would never have been possible. It is important to bring the invisible doings of a science serving the military to awareness within the sciences themselves. Civilian science is going to lose its reputation and credibility in public, when trying to disguise possible and current mega crimes that would not be possible without its cooperation with military science in the first place. As Lowell Wood, “civil” geo-engineer and disciple of Edward Teller put it:

“We as humans always influenced our environment the way we wanted it. Why not the Planet?” (Hamilton in Bertell 2013, p. 501).

The overall damages to the planet.

Meanwhile, the earth, our planet, is in critical conditions. According to Bertell it has been weakened and could already have been irreversibly damaged (Bertell 2013, p. 59, 228, 320, 323, 326, 455, 473). The planet has become „a research victim of militarism“ (Bertell 2013, p. 483). It is as if air, water, soil, animals, plants and humans are presented like a “sacrifice” (Bertell 2013, pp 325ff) to the “Gods”!

Bertell illustrates how the military causes the greatest environmental damages, usurps most of the resources, and wastes away living conditions on earth by compromising it ruthlessly and without conscience (Bertell 2013, pp. 335ff). She draws parallels between the military and the behavior of an addict. The addict will not refrain from his addiction on his own. Obviously, all this goes without the knowledge or approval of the earth’s population, regardless of our democratic systems and beliefs.

Preliminary effects of the new weapons which have been described here in part, are:

  • Apart from damages through mining, chemistry, nuclear and genetic engineering, life industries, Nano- technology, and sprayed substances like aluminum, barium, sulfur and lithium, that continue to destroy the atmosphere, the soil, the water, plants, and living conditions,
  • there are holes in the ozone layer, produced by decades of nuclear testing, supersonic flights and rocket flights into space (and not by FCKW as we are constantly told!)
  • there are disturbances of the earth’s electromagnetic field within its core as outside in space and in the Van Allen belts,
  • there are holes and incisions throughout the protective layers of the atmosphere, produced by ionospheric heaters,
  • there is a wobble/an imbalance of the planetary motion (Bertell 2013, p. 450) and a slowing down of the rotation,
  • there is, therefore, the possible acceleration of a magnetic polar shift/polar reversal;
  • there is the active thawing of the arctic region (Bertell 2013, p. 227) since the 70ies of the 20thcentury
  • causing an increase in ocean levels, a loss of fresh water,
  • and there is a weakening of the gulf stream by 1/3 already, the end of which would mean a possible new ice age for Europe.
  • There is the disappearance of the glaciers worldwide that leads to huge floods now and to extreme droughts later with the effect that the large rivers of the world would run dry and leave the population and nature without fresh water.
  • Further, the outer layers of the atmosphere are decreasing by 1 km every 5 years (Bertell 2013, Chapter 3-5 in Part II, additional Texts A, D, C in Part IV).
  • This means the loss of protection of the atmosphere against cosmic radiation like UV, Gamma, microwaves and x rays on the earth´s surface (Bertell 2013, p. 230), detrimental for all life on it and,
  • if more, finishing with agriculture.
  • It means weather and climate chaos everywhere and loss of any equilibrium to be expected.
  • It means natural catastrophes of any magnitude, and that it will mostly be impossible to distinguish between natural and manufactured ones, especially when the tipping point is reached, and synergetic effects enter into play.
  • It means that no catastrophe can be foreseen, or protected against. Catastrophes can and do happen everywhere and at any moment.
  • If used for war these weapons can even lead to a total destruction of the planet as such, as Tesla warned (Bertell 2013, p. 241).

What are the plans? What is going on currently? How much of the earth’s living systems have already been destroyed irreversibly? How is the process of destruction going on already? What means that nature has a time lag of 40-60 years to respond to our manipulations? Does it mean that nothing is going to stop what is only starting to happen now? What actually do we not know about ongoing experiments? (Bertell 2013, p. 305)

We can anticipate: a boomerang effect, a nemesis – a counter reaction – of nature, synergies/tipping points as well as unpredictable “side effects” that will need to be taken into consideration (Bertell 2013, p. 256). “How do I repair a system without understanding it?” This is a question, which geo-engineers pose to themselves with regard to the climate. What they omit in the process is the fact that they are referring to a “system” that has essentially been under attack precisely by them, and that, too, before they had an understanding of it themselves!

The phenomenon of “kyndiagnosia”, the incapacity to recognize danger, is omnipresent in science, politics, economy, ecology, society, and particularly in the military. All the time over society has allowed these institutions to put life at risk – the life of people, nature and now even the planet – for their destructive actions and experiments. Never have the principles of war crimes, defined by the Nürnberg Tribunal after World War II, been applied to them (Bertell 2013, p. 474).

The need for more of a theoretical explanation

Since the whole undertaking causes harm to everyone, it becomes unbelievable and seemingly irrational. An explanation is necessary. Who of us regular human beings could possibly understand this deliberate promotion of insanity?

Rosalie Bertell is explaining the multiple facts she has gathered about the military as an institution that exists for ongoing and planned wars. As it seems clear, therefore, that the military is specialized in destruction and systems of destruction of always new kind, there appears to be no necessity for a more thorough explanation. This necessity, however, exists, because the military technologies stem from the natural sciences, the civil as well as the military ones.

Bertell as a scientist herself, though, has not developed a critique of the sciences as such, which means of modern science. The analysis of the origins and the development of modern science, nevertheless, shows that the military is just the tip of the iceberg. Beneath its water surface, there is the mountain of a science that has been invented in modern times. It started with planning subjecting nature in all its forms, including women as “nature”, destroying and controlling them and nature alike by means of the “scientific experiment”. The respective technologies were first developed in the dungeons of the “Holy Inquisition” (Merchant 1982). These new sciences were not only motivated by a “patriarchal” society that was interested in new forms of subjecting women, but also in working with and for the military from their very beginning (Wagner 1970).  Today they are now ending up with trying to control Mother Nature, too, as Earth herself, like a sort of “mega witch”, destroying her, the planet, as we now know.

So, things have remained the same until today, the only, but important difference being that the dimensions and the dangers which have multiplied since, as well as the overall connection between the civil and the military sciences seems to be outside of the general knowledge and consciousness. When looking at the destruction of nature and life that takes place everywhere and can surely not be denied any more, occurring even without any direct war, we then can realize what it means that the sciences are related to the military even where they declare to be “civil” and “peaceful”. This way the whole of the scientific undertaking in reality is a war against life, the military being only its peak. This is exactly what we now are experiencing full size.

So, we now have to answer the question why and how this has happened and is even promoted by the Society, using all possible means, as we have seen.

From the point of view of my approach of the “critical theory of patriarchy”, the military has invented something like a “military alchemy”, an expression that Rosalie Bertell liked very much when she knew about it. (She even wanted a new edition of her book be entitled this way). It means that the patriarchal, women and nature hating – dimension of modern civilization (Werlhof 2016b) goes back to antiquity, where the science and technique of a patriarchal “alchemy” were developed. Their aim at that time already was to start to take control over women, mothers and Mother Nature in order to transform them into a supposedly higher and better life and matter, namely a motherless life and artificial gold (Schütt 2000; Werlhof 2011). They failed in doing so and did not succeed. With the invention of modern science and technology, nevertheless, the modern “alchemists” started with the same project again, being much more successful than at any time before in history. The results can be admired today: the machine, the commodity, money and “capital” in general being the alchemical wonders of modernity which are thought to replace life, nature and “matter” by something more civilized, more developed and more divine!

From nuclear, genetic and nanotechnology to geoengineering, from micro- to macro-life, this has been the path of modern alchemy, the military alchemy of geoengineering being its last invention, as I see it (Werlhof 2011, 2014, 2015).

The “Anthropocene“ (Crutzen 2002) is the result, the earth-era of mankind, to truly be God! This is “proved”:

  • by transforming – “hacking” – the planet into a manageable instrument, as if this would be desirable and possible without damaging it;
  • by reversing the vibrant planet into a “better” one, a predictable giant machine, a Mega-Machine, and a war-machine!
  • by means of intended ultimate control over all of life’s processes, the ones of the planet as a whole included;
  • and, finally, through a „taming“ of Mother Earth as a sort of dangerous and life threatening „mega witch“! (“Dr. Strangelove” in Hamilton 2013, p. 498ff)

There are people at work who are not kidding at all, but risk the last and greatest matricide, that of the earth herself. These people are “allowed” to do so! The necessity to demand an end to such a dangerous undertaking and hubris has not been acknowledged, and such undertaking has not been forbidden! It is obviously believed that all this is a desirable “progress” and “development” and really worth striving for. So, as an endeavor it takes on a truly religious dimension. We can see this way, how historically old this kind of “wishful thinking” and hubris is already. A failure seems inconceivable for the perpetrators, and such a thing does not even exist in their minds.

This development has endured for 500 years – rooted in a 5000 years old belligerent-religious-ideological beginning. It comes to a climax and to an end now: We are talking about “patriarchal” thinking and the development of a global “alchemical system” based on the utopian project of the destruction and technical substitution of a motherly nature, a process that appears to have become the “collective unconscious” of today’s civilization. (Werlhof 2010, 2014a, 2015, 2016b; Projektgruppe 2011).

Bertell says about the dangers and the secrecy around military activities:

 “Until now, nobody has clearly considered the potential consequences, described them, or admitted to them.“ (Bertell 2013, p.473).

What we will hear in the end might be no different from what the nuclear industry, which in fact remains uninsured against failure, has to say, namely that they assumed that the “worst case” scenario would never actually take place.

Bertell was still somehow optimistic in the year 2000. She was confident in grass roots movements throughout the world and their ability to join forces with international organizations like the UN in order to disempower the military, even abolish war (Bertell 2013, p. 376), and to find a path towards a peaceful and friendly future shaped by respect towards the earth and the maintenance of “ecological safety”.

Today, 16 years later, the ongoing crisis points towards a completely different development, if not to a new world war (Chossudovsky 2012 and 2015) which seem to have begun already. The public, most of civil science, social movements and most politicians, though, have not yet understood how the new weaponry of weather wars, plasma weapons and geoengineering is functioning. They lack any understanding why it should be possible to produce earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, storms, droughts, floods, changing ocean currents, tsunamis, influencing the weather of whole regions, heat and cold, freak conditions beyond the seasons or the climate zones – all mentioned in the UN ENMOD Convention in 1977 already.

The reason is that these effects are mainly due to “Tesla technologies”, based on the manipulation of the electromagnetic potential of the earth. The physicist and inventor Nikola Tesla (1856-1943) has never been publicly recognized by the civil sciences, even if without him there would be no alternating current, no electronic device, and no wireless communication. Tesla´s idea of treating the phenomena of life via its “waves” instead of via its “particles”, taking influence on its movements instead of on solid matter, as was usual in modern science, led to inventions of a character and magnitude that could neither have been produced, nor explained by “normal” physics. Tesla´s inventions (Tesla 1919) were secretly taken over by the military in the East, and the West at the end of World War II, and were never discussed in public. Less was it recognized how Tesla´s inventions were related to Quantum physics, another part of the new physics of the last century, leading to even more terrible weapons, as explained by Bearden, a disciple of Tesla, and Bertell (Bearden 1986; Bertell 2013, pp. 237, 239, 243, 251, 454, 468ff).

“Unfortunately”, says Bertell, “waiting for these weapons to be employed in order to then be able to better understand them will mean the end of our civilization and our life. Our research must be ahead of the threats instead of limping behind. Chemtrails are the attempt of biological and chemical warfare. What they are dumping on us now might only be a pre-taste of what is actually planned”. (Bertell, email 27.1.2011)

 What about the legal situation?

No laws exist that prohibit the tampering with the earth’s climate” (Hamilton in Bertell 2913, p. 502).

Bertell’s stance on this issue: if the military is tampering with our air, our water, the ground and the forces of our earth, or doing anything that questions our living conditions, let alone has the potential to destroy them, then that simply must not happen! First and foremost this needs to be discussed publicly…Beyond all secrecy we must have a right to that!

Environmental advocate Dominik Storr:

“The fact that geophysical warfare against mother earth has no legal repercussions is, however, also a symptom of complete political failure. Politically it has not been possible to generate any binding legal norms concerning limitations, let alone a ban on climate and weather moderating measures.” (Storr in Bertell 2013, p. 528).

For, these remain concealed, and are regarded as inexistent, though the laws concerning human rights in general are sufficient to ban climate and geoengineering, once investigated and proved their necessarily detrimental effects on the health of people as well as of the environment as such. The UN-ENMOD Convention is prohibiting the hostile use of techniques that are altering the environment.  This Convention can, therefore, not been taken for legal activities as far as a “scientific and peaceful” use of these techniques is propagated, as civil geoengineering is proposing it. So, the military use of it has to be kept secret (Storr in Bertell 2013, p. 526, 530ff, 534ff).

None of the UN-Conferences has brought to the table a discussion about the military behavior, so Bertell, even though the UN has been well aware of the existence of weather modification for wars since 36 years, and has actually banned this, the topic was not even raised at the conference in Copenhagen 2009, at which climate was the central topic. Nor has this been the case in the COP21 UN-Conference in the same issue in Paris in 2015.

Instead, however, the UN enforced a global Moratorium against geo engineering in Nagoya 2010, prohibiting individual, therefore private action. Who cares? At the Stock Exchange, you can gain money with “weather derivates”.

What can we do?

It is our objective to rouse the public, the media, movements, science, politics, the EU, and above all, the people, especially the youth.

The official theories about global warming and the alleged reasons for it, namely the civil output of CO2 gases, as recently maintained again at the last UN Climate Conference COP21 in Paris (2015), have to be dismantled (Bertell 2013, pp. 300ff). The IPCC – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – as the main official institution propagating the theory about the importance of CO2, is based on mere computer simulation and has no real proves to offer (Storr in Bertell 2013, p. 533). Most scientists even have severe doubts about the CO2 thesis (Weiss 2016; Wigington 2016). The results of independent scientists like Marvin Herndon are not published (a.a.O.). Investigations like those of activist Dane Wigington are not valued (Wigington 2016), even if he is quoting official sources like a recent speech of CIA-Director Brennan on geo-engineering and some of its methods. Civil geo-engineers, on the other hand, are denying the actual use of these methods, pretending that they are only on the table of discussion for an eventual future use (Fraile 2015, Weiss 2014, 2016). This way they avoid any legal problem, any problem with civil society and any proximity to the military. For, if climate change is the result of the application of military geo-engineering, there is no way to propagate it against climate change!

COP 21: Heads of delegations (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Rosalie Bertell is an eye-opener! She leads us into 7 decades of manipulation and destruction of the earth´s systems, and shows how complicated the reality has become in the meantime, as synergetic effects may have been influential on the one hand, whereas the results of scientific research about them are lacking in public on the other hand.

She shows us that and why a new dimension never considered until now has to be recognized – the planetary one. At the same time, she demonstrates that this planet is a gigantic, but friendly and beautiful cosmic being that wants to maintain the abundance of life it has created over billions of years – us included! Rosalie Bertell is able to see the new dimensions of incredible dangers that are threatening us, to analyze them soberly, and to call for our love for Mother Earth as a mental and spiritual way to move on at the same time. It is an invitation to not give up, not to hide, and not to go into despair, but to start to open up, to join, to get organized and to stand up for this Earth as it is the only one we have. I call it her “planetary consciousness” (Werlhof 2014b), a consciousness for this wonderful planet that has to be loved and protected by us. What else?

Rosalie has called herself an ecofeminist. Isn´t her consciousness and love of Mother Earth exactly what ecofeminism needs today in order to be at the level of a reality that has entered a new dimension, one that has never existed on earth before? The key is, therefore, to wake up to this planetary consciousness before and not after an electromagnetic geophysical war. A new movement will be needed to get to it and a broader theory to understand it.

Bertell’s book is a global warning for all of us.

Claudia von Werlhof is Professor of Political Science and Women’s Studies at the University of Innsbruck, Austria.

Sources

Altnickel, Werner: Kerner und Greenpeace: Über Chemtrails, Massenmord und HAARProben. Ein Interview mit Chemtrail-Kritiker Werner Altnickel, in Kopp Nachrichten, 18.11. 2011

Bearden, Thomas E.: Fer de Lance. Briefing on Soviet Scalar Electromagnetic Weapons, Santa Barbara, Cheniere Press 1986/2002

Bearden, Thomas E.: Skalar Technologie, Peiting, Michaelsverlag 2012 (engl. Gravitobiology)

Begich, Nick und Manning, Jeanne: Löcher im Himmel, Peiting 1996 / Angels Don´t Play this HAARP: Advances in Tesla-Technology, Earthpulse Press

Bertell, Rosalie: No Immediate Danger? Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth, London/Toronto, The Women´s Press, 1985

Bertell, Rosalie: Planet Earth. The Latest Weapon of War, London, The Women´s Press 2000

Bertell, Rosalie: Kriegswaffe Planet Erde, J.K. Fischer Verlag, Gelnhausen 2011/ 2nd ed. Birstein 2013/ 3. ed. 2016

Bertell, Rosalie: Interview: Are we the Last Generations? Radioactivity as progressive extinction of life, in: 8th Information-Letter, 2013b, www.pbme-online.org

Bertell, Rosalie: Interview: Planet Without A Future? New Weapons through the Destruction of Mother Earth 2010, in: 9th Information-Letter, 2014, www.pbme-online.org

Carson, Rachel: Silent Spring, Mifflin, Boston/New York 1962

Chossudovsky, Michel: Towards a World War III Scenario, Global Research, Ottawa 2012

Chossudovsky, Michel: The Globalization of War. America´s “Long War” against Humanity, Global Research, Ottawa 2015

Crutzen, Paul, J.: Geology of mankind, in: Nature 415, 23; 2002

Dahl, Jürgen: Die Verwegenheit der Ahnungslosen. Über Gentechnik, Chemie und andere Schwarze Löcher des Fortschritts, Stuttgart, 2. ed. 1994, Klett-Cotta

ETC Group: The Big Downturn? Nanogeopolitics, 2010 www.etcgroup.org/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=129&qid=S7135

Fraile, Josefina: Climate Engineers in Berlin. Coup d´Etat against global democracy – Summarized report of a critical environmental activist, in: 11th Info Letter, July 2015, www.pbme-online.org

Günther, Siegwart-Horst: Uran-Geschosse: Schwergeschädigte Soldaten, mißgebildete Neugeborene, sterbende Kinder. Ahriman, Freiburg (Breisgau) 2000, 2. ed.

Hamilton, Clive: die Rückkehr des Dr. Strangelove – Die Politik der Klimamanipulation als Antwort auf die globale Erwärmung, in: Bertelll 2013, pp. 485-507

Information-Letters of the Planetary Movement for Mother Earth“, www.pbme-online.org

Lengfelder, Edmund: Kaku, Michio in Bob Nichols: Fukushima: How Many Chernobyls Is It? 8.7.2011 (in: 4. Info-Letter PMME, Okt. 2011)

MacDonald, Gordon: How to Wreck the Environment, in: Nigel Calder: Unless Peace Comes: A Scientific Forecast of New Weapons, London, Pelican 1968, pp. 119-213 (see also https://calderup.wordpress.com/tag/unless-peace-comes/, 6.4.2012) http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2012/01/12/climate-control-is-coming/?utm_source= feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ModernMechanix+%28Modern+Mechanix%29

Merchant, Carolyn: The Death of Nature. Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution, Sn Francisco, Harper & Row 1982

Moret, Leuren: Erdbeben in Japan und Atomunfälle sind Folgen eines tektonischen Nuklearkrieges, www.politaia.org/kriege/bekannte-Geowissenschaftlerin…, 23.3.2011a

Moret, Leuren: Der tektonische Nuklearkrieg wird von den weltweiten HAARP-Partnern beobachtet, www.politaia.org/kriege/leuren-moret…, 27.5.2011b

Moret, Leuren: Mega-Tsunami, totale Kernschmelze und Strahlenkrankheiten, www.politaia.org/israel/leuren-moret-am-14-06-2011, 19.6.2011c

Moret, Leuren: Japan, U.S., Kanada vertuschen Fukushima-Strahlungsdesaster, www.politaia.org/sonstige-nachrichten/leuren-moret…, 21.8.2011d

Morpheus: Transformation der Erde. <interkosmische Einflüsse auf das Bewusstsein, Berlin/München 2010, 2. Aufl., Trinity Verlag i. d. Scorpio Verlag GmbH & Co. KG

MUOS: U.S. Navy Launches 4th MUPÒS Telecom Satellite, in: Spacenews, 3 September 2015

Newsweek (condensed from Newsweek) Climate Control is Coming.

April 1958 http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2012/01/12/climate-control-is-coming/ ?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ModernMechanix+%28Modern+Mechanix%29.

Phillips, Jeff: Geo-Terrorism: The Weaponization of ´Industrial Accidents´, Natural Disasters´ and ´Environmental Engineering´, 4, 2011 (cf. www.pbme-online.org)

Ponte, Lowell: The Cooling. Has the next ice age already begun? Can we survive it? Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1976

Projektgruppe „Zivilisationspolitik“(Hrsg.): Kann es eine ´neue Erde´ geben? Zur Kritischen Patriarchtstheorie und der Praxis einer postpatriarchalen Zivilisation, Reihe „Beiträge zur Dissidenz“ Nr. 27, Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang Verlag 2011

Schütt, Werner: Auf der Suche nach dem Stein der Weisen. Die Geschichte der Alchemie, München, CH. Beck 2000

Smith, Jerry E.: Weather Warfare – the Military´s Plan to Draft Mother Nature, 2006

Storr, Dominik: Eine juristische Betrachtung von Rechtsanwalt Domini Storr, in: Bertell 2013, pp.525-546

Tesla, Nikola: My Inventions V – the Magnifying Transmitter, in: Electrical Experimenter, June 1919, pp.112f, 148, 173, 176 ff.

The Guardian, 4.4.2012: At war over geoengineering, London

UN: Environmental Modification Convention – Convention on the Prohibition of Military and any other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, Geneva, 18. May 1977, Web.

U.S. Air Force. “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025.” A Research Paper by Col Tamzy J. House, Lt Col James B. Near, Jr., LTC William B. Shields (USA), Maj Ronald J. Celentano, Maj David M. Husband, Maj Ann E. Mercer and Maj James E. Pug, 1996

Wagner, Friedrich: Weg und Abweg der Naturwissenschaft, Stuttgart, Klett-Cotta 1970

Weiss, Mathias: Capturing the atmosphere of the CEC 2014 – Climate Engineering Conference, in 10thInfo-Letter, Sept. 2014, www.pbme-online.org

Weiss, Mathias: Zur Geschichte des Geo-Engineering, „Postscript“ in Bertell: Kriegswaffe Planet Erde, 2016, 3rd. ed, forthcoming

Werlhof, Claudia von: West-End. Das Scheitern der Moderne als „kapitalistisches Patriarchat“ und die Logik der Alternativen, Köln, PapyRossa 2010

Werlhof, Claudia von: The Failure of Modern Civilization and the Struggle for a “Deep” Alternative. On “Critical Theory of Patriarchy” as a New Paradigm, Frankfurt a. M./New York, Peter Lang 2011

Werlhof, Claudia von: Mit Bertell gegen Geoengineering: Debatte im Europaparlament 2013, in: Bertell 2013, pp. 33-41

Werlhof, Claudia von: Nell´Età del Boomerang. Contributi alla teoria critica del patriarcato, Milano, Unicopli 2014a

Werlhof, Claudia von: „Planetary Consciousness“ – What is that?, in: Return to Mago, USA July 2014/August 2014, in: Magoism, The Way of S/HE, http://magoism.net/2014/07/10/meet-mago-contributor-claudia-von-werlhof/, 14/15 July and 4/5 August 2014b

Werlhof, Claudia von: Madre Tierra o Muerte! Reflexiones para una Teoría Crítica del Patriarcado, Oaxaca, El Rebozo 2015

Werlhof, Claudia von: La destrucción de la Madre Tierra como último y máximo crimen de la civilización patriarcal, México, Noviembre 2015, in: DEP, Venedig, Nr. 30, Februar 2016a, pp. 259-281

Werlhof, Claudia von: The “Hatred of Life”: The World System which is Threatening All of Us. On: Global Research, 16 August 2016b
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-hatred-of-life-the-world-system-which-is-threatening-all-of-us/5541269

Werlhof, Claudia von: Geoengineering and Planetary Movement for Mother Earth, in: CWS – Canadian Womens´ Studies Journal, Toronto 2016c, forthcoming

Wigington, Dane, 2016 http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/scientists-surveyed-unanimously-refuse-to-deny-climate-engineering-reality/

Wood, Judy: Where Did the Towers Go? The Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11, 2010 (Web)

www.pbme-online.org

www.sauberer-himmel.de

Posted in Politics, WorldComments Off on Earth as Weapon, Geo-engineering as War

The Criminalization of War. Tun Dr. Mahathir’s Open Letter to Muslims in Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Yemen

NOVANEWS

Global Research has received from Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, 4th Prime Minister of Malaysia (1981-2003) an important message, addressed to Muslims in Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Yemen.

This message, however, is also addressed to the U.S. and its indefectible British ally which have relentlessly supported Saudi Arabia’s war against the people of Yemen, a criminal act tantamount to  genocide under international law.

The U.S. has been instrumental in supporting the naval blockade on the delivery of food and medicine to Yemen’s starving children. In turn, the corporate media has payed lip service to the inaction of  Western governments and their self-proclaimed “international community”.  Both the US and Britain have sold billions of dollars of weapons to Saudi Arabia, while also advising them on the conduct of military operations. In the words of Rep. Ron Paul

“[Why does] Washington support Saudi Arabia – a tyrannical state with one of the worst human rights record on earth – as it commits by what any measure is a genocide against the Yemeni people?”

Let us endorse this important message by Tun Mahathir who in the course of the last twelve years has sought to criminalize war as well as create the required legal conditions for the indictment of the political architects of modern warfare.

The Kuala Lumpur Initiative to Criminalize War 

In 2005, after having served as Prime Minister of Malaysia for 22 years, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamadinitiated a pathbreaking endeavor which consisted in criminalizing all acts of war. This historic initiative under the helm of Tun Dr. Mahathir resulted in the formulation of  “The Kuala Lumpur Initiative  to Criminalize War”:

“Killings in war are as criminal as the killings within societies in times of peace. Since killings in peace time are subject to the domestic law of crime, killings in war must likewise be subject to the international law of crimes. This should be so irrespective of whether these killings in war are authorized or permitted by domestic law.”

The full text of the December 2005 Declaration to criminalize war is included below.

Read the Declaration carefully. It is an important document.

Tun Mahathir “has a dream” that one day all wars will be abolished.

The signatories of the December 2005 Declaration share Tun’s resolve to criminalize war.

We call on our readers to share that dream, to send Tun Mahathir’s  message far and wide, to change the course history.

Michel Chossudovsky, Signatory of the 2005 Kuala Lumpur Initiative to Criminalize War

***

Open letter from Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad to the Muslim community in Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Yemen

The Kuala Lumpur Declaration to Criminalize War

Text of Declaration

15 December 2005

THE Kuala Lumpur Global Peace Forum of concerned peoples from all five continents

UNITED in the belief that peace is the essential condition for the survival and well-being of the human race,

DETERMINED to promote peace and save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,

OUTRAGED over the frequent resort to war in the settlement of disputes between nations,

DISTURBED that militarists are preparing for more wars,

TROUBLED that use of armed force increases insecurity for all,

TERRIFIED that the possession of nuclear weapons and the imminent risk of nuclear war will lead to the annihilation of life on earth.

From Left to Right: Francis A.Boyle, Helen Caldicott,  Denis J. Halliday, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, Hans-Christof Von Sponeck, Michel Chossudovsky, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf

To achieve peace we now declare that:

  1. Wars increasingly involve the killing of innocent people and are, therefore, abhorrent and criminal.
  2. Killings in war are as criminal as the killings within societies in times of peace.
  3. Since killings in peace time are subject to the domestic law of crime, killings in war must likewise be subject to the international law of crimes. This should be so irrespective of whether these killings in war are authorized or permitted by domestic law.
  4. All commercial, financial, industrial and scientific activities that aid and abet war should be criminalised.
  5. All national leaders who initiate aggression must be subjected to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
  6. All nations must strengthen the resolve to accept the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and institute methods to settle international disputes by peaceful means and to renounce war.
  7. Armed force shall not be used except when authorised by a Resolution passed by two-thirds majority of the total membership of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
  8. All legislators and all members of Government must affirm their belief in peace and pledge to strive for peace.
  9. Political parties all over the world must include peace as one of their principal objectives.
  10. Non-Governmental Organisations committed to the promotion of peace should be set up in all nations.
  11. Public servants and professionals, in particular in the medical, legal, educational and scientific fields, must promote peace and campaign actively against war.
  12. The media must actively oppose war and the incitement to war and consciously promote the peaceful settlement of international disputes.
  13. Entertainment media must cease to glorify war and violence and should instead cultivate the ethos of peace.
  14. All religious leaders must condemn war and promote peace.

To these ends the Forum resolves to establish a permanent Secretariat in Kuala Lumpur to –

IMPLEMENT this Initiative.

OPPOSE policies and programmes that incite war.

SEEK the cooperation of NGOs worldwide to achieve the goals of this Initiative.

Signed by:

Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf

Prof. Francis A. Boyle

Dr. Helen Caldicott

Mr. Matthias Chang

Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

Prof Shad Saleem Faruqi

Mr Denis J. Halliday

Dato’ Mukhriz Mahathir

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar

Dato’ Michael O.K. Yeoh

Mr. Hans-Christof Von Sponeck

Posted in Saudi ArabiaComments Off on The Criminalization of War. Tun Dr. Mahathir’s Open Letter to Muslims in Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Yemen

Saudi Arabia’s Phony “War on Terror”, Leading State Sponsor of ISIS, al-Qaeda, et al

NOVANEWS
 

Saudi Arabia is the Arab world’s leading state sponsor of terror. It backs ISIS, al-Qaeda, its al-Nusra offshoot and other terrorist groups – supplying them with weapons (including CWs), munitions, funding and other material support.

Wahhabism in the kingdom is the most extreme form of Islam, calling Shias and other non-Wahhabis “infidels,” encouraging intolerance, supporting terrorism.

Former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki accused Riyadh and Qatar of supporting regional terrorist groups.

Tehran accused Saudi Arabia of sponsoring two terrorist attacks in the Islamic Republic last June, killing 17, wounding dozens, saying individuals responsible belonged to a Wahhabi terrorist network.

Days after the incidents, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander General Mohammad Ali Jafari said

“(w)e have precise intelligence showing that unfortunately, Saudi Arabia, in addition to supporting the terrorists, has demanded them to conduct operations in Iran.”

Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) is no political reformer – just the opposite. He’s cut out of the same cloth as his father and earlier Saudi leaders – ruthless despots, supporting regional terrorist groups, along with committing appalling human rights abuses internally.

MBS saying he’ll “wipe (terrorists from the) face of the earth” belies his full support for what he claimed to oppose. His war on terror is as phony as America’s.

Both countries back the scourge, waging war OF terror against humanity. The Saudi Arabia-based Islamic Military (counterterrorism) Alliance (IMA) is a convenient fiction – fooling no one.

Announced by MBS as Saudi defense minister in December 2015, it’s headquartered in Riyadh – the heart of Islamic terrorism.

Dozens of alliance members support the ruse. In January, Pakistan’s former army chief of staff/retired general Raheel Sharif was named its commander-in-chief.

The alliance isn’t about protecting Muslim countries from its threat. MBS lied, earlier saying the IMA intends coordinating efforts to fight terrorism in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt and Afghanistan, adding:

“There will be international coordination with major powers and international organizations…in terms of operations in Syria and Iraq.”

All IMA member states are Sunni Muslim dominated, majority Shia countries Iran, Iraq and Syria excluded. So is Qatar because of a Gulf states dispute ongoing since last summer.

During an alliance meeting in Riyadh, MBS turned truth on its head, claiming

“(t)oday we start the pursuit of terrorism, and we see its defeat in many facets around, the world especially in Muslim countries.”

“We will continue to fight it until we see its defeat” – not so as long as Saudi Arabia and its rogue allies support the scourge they claim to oppose.

Last week, MBS disgracefully called Iranian Ayatollah Ali Khameni “the new Hitler of the Middle East.” Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qasemi responded, calling his remark “immature and weak-minded,” adding:

“Now that he has decided to follow the path of famous regional dictators…he should think about their fate as well..” Khamenei called the House of Saud an “accursed tree,” responsible for regional terrorism.

Riyadh continues sponsoring the scourge, the IMA perhaps to provide cover for its destructive agenda.

Posted in Saudi ArabiaComments Off on Saudi Arabia’s Phony “War on Terror”, Leading State Sponsor of ISIS, al-Qaeda, et al


Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

November 2017
M T W T F S S
« Oct   Dec »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930