Archive | April 22nd, 2018

Might Trump Ask Nazi regime to Fund America’s Invasion-Occupation of Syria?

NOVANEWS
Might Trump Ask Israel to Fund America’s Invasion-Occupation of Syria?
 

On 16 April 2018, the internationally respected analyst of Middle-Eastern affairs, Abdel Bari Atwan, headlined about Trump’s increasingly overt plan to break Syria up and to establish permanent U.S. control over the parts it wants, “Attempting the Unachievable”. He stated that

“The coming few months are likely to prove very difficult for the Americans, and very costly, not just in Syria but also in Iraq.”

He closed:

“Who will cover the costs of this American move? There are no prizes for guessing the answer: it has already been spelled out.”

The only country that his article mentioned was Israel:

“It would not be surprising if Israel and the various lobbies that support were behind this American strategic volte-face. For Israel is in a state of panic.”

The U.S. already donates $3.8 billion per year to Israel’s military, in order for Israel to purchase U.S.-made weapons. However, Atwan argues that the costs of this invasion-occupation of Syria are likely to run into the trillions of dollars. The Gross Domestic Product of Israel is only $318.7 billion as of 2016. So, America now already donates a bit more than 1% to that amount, and Atwan’s thesis is that Israel will now become instead a net donor to America’s international corporations (funding some of the Pentagon, which then will pay that money to America’s weapons-firms), in order to avoid adding the enormous costs of this increasing invasion-occupation of Syria, onto America’s taxpayers, fighting forces, etc.

I do not consider this enormous reversal of Israel — from recipient to donor — to be likely. Far likelier, in my view, is Saudi Arabia, to finance the invasion.

The GDP of Saudi Arabia is $646.4 billion as of 2016, more than twice Israel’s — and the Saud family, who own that country, are accustomed to paying for the services they buy, not having them donated (unless by their fellow fundamentalist Sunnis, to spread the faith). Furthermore, the royal family, the Sauds, are extremely close to America’s leading oil families, who also donate heavily to Republican politicians. Ever since at least 2012, the Sauds have been the U.S. Government’s main partner in the long campaign to overthrow and replace Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, by a Sharia-law, fundamentalist-Sunni, regime, which will do what the Sauds want.

America’s oil companies and pipeline companies, and military contractors such as Lockheed Martin, profit from America’s invasion-occupation of Syria, but U.S.President Donald Trump isn’t doing it only with their welfare in mind; he has an international campaign to press America’s allies to foot a larger percentage of the cost to U.S. taxpayers for America’s military. He wants America’s allies to pay much more, in order for them to be able to enjoy the privileges of staying in America’s alliance against Russia, China, and other countries whose economies threaten to continue growing faster than America’s. U.S. aristocrats fear that such challengers could replace them as the global hegemon or Empire, the uber-aristocracy. Empire is expensive, and the general public pay for it, but Trump wants foreign taxpayers to pay a bigger share of these costs in order to relieve part of the burden on U.S. taxpayers. His famous comment about the invasion-occupation of Iraq, “We should have taken the oil”, is now being put into practice by him in Syria. However, that money goes only to corporations, not to the U.S. Treasury.

Which allies could finance escalated war against Syria?

On 24 September 2017, the Wall Street Journal bannered, “U.S.-Backed Forces Seize Syrian Gas Plant From Islamic State”, and reported:

“U.S.-backed forces said Sunday they were advancing through eastern Syria after seizing a gas plant there from Islamic State, striking a blow to the terror group’s dwindling finances, which rely heavily on its control of Syria’s oil and gas fields. The plant, one of the most important in the country, is capable of producing nearly 450 tons of gas a day.”

Trump wants the profits from that to go to American companies, not to Syrian ones. That’s the type of arrangement Trump has been favoring when he says “We should have taken the oil.” Syria is allied with Russia, and with Iran. The U.S. is allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, which are the two countries that call Iran an “existential threat” — and which have been urging a U.S. invasion to overthrow Assad.

The Sauds and their allied fundamentalist Sunni Arab royal families are considering to finance an American-led invasion of Syria. Turkey’s newspaper Yeni Safak headlined on 15 June 2017, “Partitioning 2.5M barrels of Syria’s oil”, and reported:

A meeting was held on June 10 for the future of Syrian oil on the premise of the intelligence of Saudi Arabia and the US in Syria’s northeastern city of Qamishli, which borders with Turkey. One of the US officers who visited terrorist organizations in the Sinjar-Karachok region after Turkey’s anti-terror operation in northern Syria and spokesman for the Global Coalition to Counter Daesh, Colonel John Dorrian, attended the meeting. Representatives from Egypt, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia, as well as some tribal leaders from Syria and senior Democratic Union Party (PYD) members attended the meeting. The delegation gathered for the purpose of determining a common strategy for the future of Syrian oil, and decided to act jointly after Daesh. Former President of the National Coalition of the Syrian Opposition and Revolutionary Forces, Ahmed Carba, determined the tribal and group representatives from Syria, and Mohammed Dahlan determined which foreign representatives would attend the meeting. Representatives agreed on a pipeline route. Radical decisions were made regarding the extraction, processing and marketing of the underground wealth of the Haseke, Raqqah and Deir ez Zor regions, which hold 95 percent of Syrian oil and natural gas’ potential.

That’s “taking the oil.” There could be lots of it.

This article also reported that, “Syria produced 34,828,000 barrels of crude oil in the first quarter of 2011 and reached 387,000 barrels per day during the same period” and that, “there are 2.5 billion barrels of oil reserves in Syria.”

On 16 April 2018, Whitney Webb at Mint Press bannered “How the US Occupied the 30% of Syria Containing Most of its Oil, Water and Gas”, and reported that,

“Though the U.S. currently has between 2,000 to 4,000 troops stationed in Syria, it announced the training of a 30,000-person-strong ‘border force’ composed of U.S.-allied Kurds and Arabs in the area, which would be used to prevent northeastern Syria from coming under the control of Syria’s legitimate government.”

She noted, regarding the area in Syria’s northeast, where U.S.-armed, Saudi-funded, Syrian Kurds are in control: “those resources – particularly water and the flow of the Euphrates – gives the U.S. a key advantage it could use to destabilize Syria. For example, the U.S. could easily cut off water and electricity to government-held parts of Syria by shutting down or diverting power and water from dams in order to place pressure on the Syrian government and Syrian civilians. Though such actions target civilians and constitute a war crime, the U.S. has used such tactics in Syria before.”

She says:

“Given the alliance between Syria and Iran, as well as their mutual defense accord, the occupation is necessary in order to weaken both nations and a key precursor to Trump administration plans to isolate and wage war against Iran.”

That type of plan could be worth a lot to Israel, but Yeni Safak headlined on 18 April 2018, “US to build Arab force in NE Syria as part of new ploy: The US is seeking to amass an Arab force in northeastern Syria comprised of funding and troops from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE.” This report said:

The Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said that the kingdom is willing to send troops to Syria in a press conference on Tuesday. The minister noted that discussions on sending troops to Syria were underway. “With regards to what is going on now, there are discussions regarding what kind of force needs to remain in eastern Syria and where that force would come from. And those discussions are ongoing,” said al-Jubeir. He stressed that troop deployment in Syria will be done within the framework of the Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition and also suggested Saudi Arabia would provide financial support to the U.S.

How likely is it that Israel would be funding this huge escalation in The West’s invasion-occupation of Syria — an escalation in which fundamentalist-Sunni armies would then be serving Israeli masters? Though Arab royals might find it acceptable, their soldiers would not.

The Sauds are the world’s wealthiest family, and they can and do use the state that they own, Saudi Arabia, as their investment asset, which they aim to maximize. This war will be a great investment for them, and for their allies, in the US, UK, Israel, and elsewhere. Israel can’t take the lead in such a matter. But the Sauds and their friends could.

Funding by the Sauds would be the likeliest way. On 21 May 2017, I headlined “U.S. $350 Billion Arms-Sale to Sauds Cements U.S.-Jihadist Alliance” and reported that the day before,

U.S. President Donald Trump and the Saud family inked an all-time record-high $350 billion ten-year arms-deal that not only will cement-in the Saud family’s position as the world’s largest foreign purchasers of U.S.-produced weaponry, but will make the Saud family, and America’s ruling families, become, in effect, one aristocracy over both nations, because neither side will be able to violate the will of the other. As the years roll on, their mutual dependency will deepen, each and every year.”

That turned out to be true — and not only regarding America’s carrying the Sauds’ water (doing their bidding) in both Yemen and Syria, but in other ways as well. Now the Sauds will pitch in to pay tens of thousands of troops in order to dominate over Iran and Shiites, whom the Sauds hate (and have hated since 1744).  

On 21 March 2018, CNBC bannered “Trump wants Saudi Arabia to buy more American-made weapons. Here are the ones the Saudis want”, and reported what Trump had just negotiated with Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman al-Saud, which was a step-up in that $350 billion sale, to $400 billion. So: Trump is working on the Sauds in order to get them to take over some of the leadership here — with American weapons. It’s a business-partnership.

On 16 April 2018, which was the same day that Atwan suggested Israel would take the lead here, the Wall Street Journal bannered “U.S. Seeks Arab Force and Funding for Syria: Under plan, troops would replace American military contingent after ISIS defeat and help secure country’s north; proposal faces challenges,” and reported that:

The Trump administration is seeking to assemble an Arab force to replace the U.S. military contingent in Syria and help stabilize the northeastern part of the country after the defeat of Islamic State, U.S. officials said. John Bolton, President Donald Trump’s new national security adviser, recently called Abbas Kamel, Egypt’s acting intelligence chief, to see if Cairo would contribute to the effort, officials said. The initiative comes as the administration has asked Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates to contribute billions of dollars to help restore northern Syria. It wants Arab nations to send troops as well, officials said. 

If the U.S. will invade, Israel will participate in this invasion-occupation, but the Sauds will lead it — with U.S.-made weapons. And taxpayers everywhere will lose from it, because invasions just get added to the federal debt. The invading nation goes into debt, which that nation’s public will pay. The invaded nation gets its wealth extracted and sold by the invading aristocracy. It’s happened for thousands of years.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI, SyriaComments Off on Might Trump Ask Nazi regime to Fund America’s Invasion-Occupation of Syria?

Enoch Powell and British Politics: Blood Speeches and Anniversaries

NOVANEWS

“What struck me re-reading it, and thinking back to how I felt at the time, was how in a way the ghost of Enoch Powell still stalks British politics.” – Lord Hain, BBC, April 15, 2018

Speeches are often at the mercy of their interpreters and biographers. They can incite and encourage just as they can deflate and demoralise.  On April 20, 1968, Enoch Powell, a political figure who still stirs the blood of the milk-and-honey protectors of the strife free inclusive society, issued a dire warning.

In his mistermed “Rivers of Blood” speech, Powell claimed before Conservative party members in Birmingham that Britain was “busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre”, with people becoming “strangers in their own country”.  He spoke of “wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond all recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated”.

It did not stop here:

“at work they found their employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted.”

Rich in discomforting implication, he conveyed the view put forth by one of his constituents, who might well have sounded like a modern UKIP voter:

“in this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”

Ugly stuff indeed, though there are points when Powell is sympathetic.  He conceded that there were those Commonwealth immigrants,

“many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.”

To expect, however, this sentiment to prevail amongst the “great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.”

Powell, then shadow minister, was dismissed by an alarmed Edward Heath.  It was a point of severe disagreement with various East End dockers and meat porters from Smithfield, who protested in some numbers.  He was duly, as one biographer notes, drowned in 100,000 letters and some 700 telegrams.  Despite his exit from the front bench, Powell haunted conservative immigration policy sufficiently to influence Heath when in government to pass the 1971 Immigration Act.

It has become a matter of routine:  All anniversaries on Powell’s speech begin with an error, one spawned in its immediate aftermath.   To even christen the speech with the title of “Rivers of Blood” was problematic in ignoring the original source of its inspiration, Book IV of Virgil’s Aeneid: “Like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River of Tiber flowing with much blood’.”

Other errors, omissions, and misunderstandings populate readings of Powell.  Far from being illiberal in any jackboot sense, he was citing immigration as a possible cause of strife that could prove inimical to democracy.  This was liberalism turned inside out, ugly yet comprehensible on a certain level.

Having worked for military intelligence in India between 1943 and 1946, he feared the possible introduction into British life of the very communalism that was sundering a country he admired, albeit through the worn lenses of a dusty imperialism.  But as the world recovered from the trauma of a global conflict, Powell persisted to see Britain’s colonies as examples of liberal paternalism and possible future danger.

Historians have attempted to chew what they can about his motivations in uttering those words at Birmingham. Racialism in some way, certainly, though a picture somewhat more complex than that.  Did Powell do so on the belief that Britain had to sever itself from its own imperial offspring?  The empire, having set, had been replaced by a Commonwealth of nations he would rather have ignored.

In an excellent feat of digging, Peter Brooke in the Historical Journal (Sep. 2007) identified a prescient statement made by Powell in a report (December 3, 1946) drawn up for the Conservative Research Department.  While economically driven in its attempt to assess India’s future, Powell levels a tantalising snifter on his thinking:

“That division of labour and specialization of production should be bounded by international frontiers is to some extent inevitable because men have differences other than economic ones, such as political and racial, and value certain other aims more highly than economic aims.”

It brutally states the case of familiarity over difference, the prospect of dangers in mingling the two.  There were the nations “closely connected politically and racially as the British Dominions”; then there were those differences “between European and Asiatic nations.”  There could be no “redistribution of population” between India “and other nations, especially European nations.”

Historical nuance can be a drag, but Powell continues to remain the kryptonite of political discussion.  Even after all these years it was deemed controversial to even broadcast the Birmingham speech in full, as if taking a few snippets of it (read, hacking off most of it) would somehow do service to balanced meaning.

Andrew Adonis, Labour member of the House of Lords, deemed the speech “the worst incitement to racial violence by a public figure in modern Britain” insisting the BBC not broadcast it in an act of pre-emptive responsibility. Censorship was his implausible suggestion, given that any politician, were he to make a similar speech today “would almost certainly be arrested and charged with serious offences.”

Anyone who challenges the established notion that EP was an off-his-head racist is similarly shouted down.

“He wasn’t a racist in the crude sense,” claimed UKIP Wales leader Neil Hamilton, a qualification that might have been better stated.  “Powell actually changed politics by articulating the fears and resentments of millions and millions of people who are being ignored by the establishment.”

True envy indeed.

Twitter offers very view avenues for explanation but is delightful for vitriol and reflex stomping.  Powell was hardly going to get much of a hearing at the hands of Leanne Wood in Wales, who had already considered him a sharpened spear to be used by UKIP.

“If anyone was in any doubt that UKIP are ideologically far right, listen again to their Assembly leader justifying Enoch Powell’s racist speech on @BBCRadioWales.  UKIP are keeping Powell’s racist rhetoric going.”

It is precisely the snippets, the cuts and incisions made to speech – and in some cases total prohibition – that make subsequent interpretations flawed, even dangerous.  Rarely are incitements to hatreds the products of lengthy observations about a state of affairs.  More often than not, they stem from one portion, a slice, a section.

Political figures have tended to avoid Powell like the pox but Brexit Britain is, to a large extent, a continuation of one strand of dominant resentment alluded to fifty years ago.  The concept of the inclusive integrated society battles that of those beyond accommodation.  Anxieties remain.

Where hashtags count for substantive discourse, Powell will not so much rank as burn.  His words will be taken into an orbit of social media mash, and then re-delivered in unrecognisable form.  The BBC will be attacked for conveying the fuller picture, even in the context of historical analysis.  In its effort of balance, which was bound to be criticised, the Beeb’s statement of explanation for broadcasting the speech on Radio 4’s Archive on 4 was credible as it was desirable.  “It’s not an endorsement of the controversial views themselves and people should wait to hear the programme before they judge it.”

Posted in UKComments Off on Enoch Powell and British Politics: Blood Speeches and Anniversaries

“Were You Sad or Were You Happy?”. The Destruction of Syria’s Industrial Heartland

NOVANEWS

Mark Taliano reporting from Syria

Sheikh Najjar, an industrial city spanning 4,400 hectares, is part of the Industrial heartland of Syria.  Before the war, it accounted for 40% of the country’s GDP.

Western terrorists have targeted Syria’s industrial base since the beginning of the war, stealing what they could, and destroying everything else.

In the video below, a factory owner explained that when Daesh/ISIS was attacking, he kept lights low so his factory wouldn’t be attacked. Janice Kortkamp, leader of the Salam Syria tour rhetorically asked him, for the benefit of disillusioned Western audiences,

“So when the city was liberated, were you sad or were you happy?”

Source: Mario Heineman Jaillet

The destruction of a country’s industrial base is part of the Imperial Dirty Game. The industrial collapse  drastically devalued the Syrian currency, it disemployed 50,000 workers, and it strengthened economies of plunder and terrorism.

All of the pre-planned Death and Destruction are Imperial Success Stories.  The “Dirty Games” are pre-planned War Crimes.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on “Were You Sad or Were You Happy?”. The Destruction of Syria’s Industrial Heartland

Saudi Arabia: Coup Attempt against Crown Zionist puppet (MBS)

NOVANEWS
Saudi Arabia’s Drone Scare Might Have Really Been a “Coup Attempt” against Crown Prince Bin Salman (MBS)

It’s unbelievable that so much firepower was directed for so long against what the authorities claim was just a toy drone that strayed over restricted airspace.

Nobody seems to believe Saudi Arabia’s official explanation that the extended gunfire that reportedly took place near the royal palace over the weekend was the result of a single toy drone straying over restricted airspace, with popular sentiment all over the internet being that this narrative is nothing more than a cover-up for either a terrorist attack or a failed coup attempt. In all likelihood, that’s probably the case, but it’s in Riyadh’s interests not to publicize what might have happened in order to not scare away international investors fromCrown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman’s (MBS) ambitious “Vision 2030” socio-economic reform program. Seeing as how the authorities succeeded in containing the speculative events – whatever they truly were – to a small area outside the prying eyes of the populace, they were able to run with this “publicly plausible” excuse no matter how ridiculous it actually sounds.

Educated Guesswork

It’s impossible at this point to know exactly what may have happened, but it there’s a high chance that it wasn’t what the government said, with the most likely scenarios being a terrorist attack or a failed coup attempt. Had it been the first-mentioned, however, then there wouldn’t be much of a reason to keep news about it suppressed because the armed forces’ swift and successful response could actually make its military look better than it already does after suffering so many defeats by the Houthis. That said, there’s also an argument that can be made about why no one should know about this if it happened because it could be exploited by the country’s homegrown (and up until recently, deliberately cultivated) Islamic extremists to assert the infowar narrative that the royal family is “haram” and must be overthrown just like what was last seriously attempted in 1979.

Had what happened actually been a failed coup attempt possibly instigated on behalf of or through the active participation of members of the royal family against the “Red Prince”, then there’d be even more reason for Riyadh to keep it under wraps because of the potential that it could undermine international confidence in his government. Foreign “deep states” (permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies) might already be aware of the truth, but once again, all that matters to MBS in this context is what possible “Vision 2030” investors think, and the most important ones that he’s aiming for are in the private sector. Even if it was a failed coup attempt, it ultimately didn’t succeed, which would imply that he and his own “deep state” will be carrying out swift retribution behind the scenes to ensure that it doesn’t happen again.

The Military Factor

After all, his military and security services have already proven their loyalty to him last year in executing his mostly flawless “deep state” “anti-corruption” coup, during which time they could have easily turned against him or accepted what can be assumed were impressive bribes offered by the arrested royals to let them escape. They didn’t do this, and therefore demonstrated that not only do they support the Crown Prince, but that they may have even been the “brains” behind the sweeping operation in the first place and simply allowed MBS to be the public face of what happened for matters of mutual convenience. The military-intelligence axis of the Saudi “deep state” sees MBS and his “Vision 2030” as the Kingdom’s “last hope” amidst rising socio-economic pressures that are bound to explode in the next decade if radical action such as what the Crown Prince has been proposing isn’t undertaken.

Enemies All Around

From the other side of this analysis, there are two distinct international forces that don’t want MBS to succeed, and these are interestingly Great Power rivals Iran and the US, though for completely different reasons that aren’t in any way related to one another. The Islamic Republic has a deep hatred for the Wahhabi Kingdom due to the regional proxy war between the two that they’ve been fighting since 1979 per the US’ “Lead From Behind” encouragement for sectarian divide-and-rule ends, while America is extremely uncomfortable with Saudi Arabia’s rapid rapprochement with Russia and deepening Silk Road partnership with China, both of which it fears could move it closer to the “doomsday scenario” of transitioning from the petrodollar to the petroyuan. For these reasons, Iran and the US can be regarded as two of the most likely “suspects” that might have directly or indirectly advanced a speculative coup attempt scenario.

That said, Saudi Arabia is entirely responsible for a large amount of its most destabilizing domestic factors, specifically its millions of Wahhabi followers who are now dead-set on retaining their rigid “traditions” and might see the “Vision 2030” socio-economic reforms as a “threat” to their “ideal” (dystopian) lifestyle, so the reader shouldn’t get any impressions that the author is only laying the blame for unrest in the Kingdom at Iran and America’s doorsteps. MBS has done a lot to alienate many powerful members of his family, some of whom are suspected of having terrorist ties and could expectedly have a bone to pick with him after his latest “deep state” coup against his “fellow” royals, so there’s an entirely believable and self-sustaining scenario of “conspiratorial” unrest that might unfolded in sparking the latest conjectural events independently of any foreign factors.

Concluding Thoughts

At the end of the day, nobody can really know for sure whether Saudi Arabia’s drone scare was for real or if it was just a clumsy cover story for a failed terrorist attack or coup attempt, but it’s natural to speculate about the most probable cause of the extended gunfire that was reported after it clearly didn’t confirm to what are presumably highly trained marksmen shooting down a single flying toy. The Saudis are understandably jumpy after so many Houthi missile strikes against their capital, but this obviously wasn’t one of those either, and while it’s indeed possible that the toy drone story might have been what really happened, it’s almost silly to countenance it given the absolutely disproportionate response that the armed forces gave to it. That’s why it’s more likely that the truth of the matter is that either a terrorist attack or coup attempt was thwarted, with the second-mentioned possibility being more probable.

Posted in Saudi ArabiaComments Off on Saudi Arabia: Coup Attempt against Crown Zionist puppet (MBS)

The “Ukraine Issue” and Canada’s “Foreign” Minister Chrystia Freeland

NOVANEWS

Chrystia Freeland gives a new meaning to the title ‘Foreign Minister’. Normally, it means the person in charge of a state’s dealings with foreign countries. In Canada’s case, however, it sometimes seems to mean something rather different – namely, the minister who represents the interests of a foreign country. For on occasion Ms Freeland appears to be less the foreign minister of Canada and more the foreign minister of Ukraine.

This week, Canada is hosting a meeting of foreign ministers of the G7. But on this occasion, Freeland has made it into something of a G8 by inviting along her Ukrainian counterpart, Pavlo Klimkin. As The Globe and Mail reports:

Russia is using Ukraine as a test ground for its information war against Western democracy, Ukraine’s foreign minister told G7 ministers meeting here on Sunday.

Foreign Affairs Minister Chystia Freeland wants the disruptive influence of Russia on the West to be a top agenda item, and she set the table – literally – for Ukrainian foreign minister Pavlo Klimkin to deliver that message to her G7 counterparts.

Freeland invited Klimkin to be part of Sunday’s talks, hosting him and other ministers at her home for a traditional brunch that was prepared by her own children.

“It was amazing how she organized it, in the sense of creating this friendly atmosphere of hospitality with ministers sitting around the table with her kids what they had personally prepared,” Klimkin told The Canadian Press in an interview Sunday afternoon.

Their conversation was decidedly less festive, with Klimkin pressing the G7 to make a strong, unified stand against what he described as Kremlin efforts to destabilize democracy through election interference and other cyber-meddling.

He called this part of a bigger war “against the democratic transatlantic community.” Supporting Ukraine, he said, should be seen “as a part of a bigger pattern.

“Fighting along with Ukraine would give an immense asset to the whole democratic community in the sense of understanding Russian efforts to destabilize the western world.”

Freeland views the clash of the forces of democracy and authoritarianism as a defining feature of our time, and she has singled out Russian President Vladimir Putin as a major disrupter.

The G7 consists of Canada, the US, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan. These countries have some serious issues to deal with: trade relations (particularly due to the renegotiation of NAFTA, Brexit, and the recent round of protectionist measures taken by the USA and China against each other); climate change and environmental issues more generally; terrorism and international security, including the wars in Syria and Iraq; and so on. Yet Ms Freeland, in setting the G7’s agenda, has put Ukraine at the top of the list.

Chrystia Freeland

@cafreeland

brunch this morning at the Freeland household. Welcome to , dear friends! Brunch du ce matin à la résidence Freeland. Bienvenue à , chers amis! @konotaromp @FedericaMog @JY_LeDrian @HeikoMaas @angealfa @StateDept @PavloKlimkin

To say the least, it’s a rather odd choice. The future of Ukraine is hardly a vital Canadian national interest; not only is it far, far away, but bilateral trade between the two countries is a pathetic $260 million a year. The decision to promote the topic can only reflect Ms Freeland’s own personal connections to Ukraine and her consequent desire to get the G7 to take action against Russia. This becomes clear in the phrases above which say that, ‘Freeland wants the disruptive influence of Russia on the West to be a top agenda item … Freeland views the clash of the forces of democracy and authoritarianism as a defining feature of our time, and she has singled out Russian President Vladimir Putin as a major disrupter.’

G7 members take turns chairing and hosting the meetings, so a country only gets to set the agenda once every seven times. You’d have thought that you’d use this rare opportunity to turn conversation to matters which are really vital national interests. Instead, Canada has chosen to use it to focus on Ukraine and on whipping up anti-Russian sentiment. It is extremely hard to see how this serves the Canadian national interest.

The only explanations I can come up with is that either Freeland is blinded to Canadian national interests due to her Western Ukrainian nationalist sentiments, or she really believes all that guff about Ukraine being in the front line of a Russian-led assault designed to transplant democracy with authoritarianism, and so actually does imagine that Canadian democracy is in peril because of the malign influence of Russia. If it’s the former, she subordinating Canadian interests to those of a particular foreign government. If it’s the latter, she is, in my opinion, quite deluded.

Take, for instance, the war in Syria. This does not fit Freeland’s idea of a ‘clash of the forces of democracy and authoritarianism as a defining feature of our time’. On the one side in Syria, there is the Syrian government, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah. One can argue about this, but just for the simplicity’s sake, let’s take it as given that this side doesn’t consist of bastions of liberal democracy. But who’s on the other side? The USA, Britain, and France, plus a whole bunch of jihadists of various unpleasant sorts, plus the increasingly ‘authoritarian’ Turkey, plus the decidedly undemocratic Saudi Arabia and Qatar. So, how is this a war of ‘democracy’ versus ‘authoritarianism’. It clearly isn’t, as the democracies are acting in alliance with quite definitely non-democratic actors.

Then, there’s the war in Yemen: Iran supposedly backing the Houthi rebels, and Britain and the USA backing Saudi Arabia. Again, given that the democracies are working hand in hand with the Saudis, how can this be described as democracy versus authoritarianism?

One could go on and on. The authoritarianism/democracy dichotomy is not a good model for describing international relations. And it isn’t a good model for describing what’s happening in Ukraine either. The toppling of Viktor Yanukovich in 2014 was certainly not a democratic process, and the post-Maidan government has not exactly been a paradigm of liberal democratic government. In today’s Kyiv Post, I see the headline ‘US State Department calls for anti-graft court, slams human rights violations in Ukraine.’ Meanwhile, another of today’s Ukraine-related headlines reads: ‘Ukrainian neo-Nazi C14 vigilantes drive out Roma families, burn their homes.’ The article which follows reveals that this wasn’t a ‘vigilante’ attack after all: the neo-Nazis responsible were members of the National Guard working in cooperation with the local administration.

Somehow, I doubt that we’ll ever see Chrystia Freeland condemning any of this. Canada’s foreign foreign minister would have us believe that Ukraine is the frontline of a struggle between democracy and authoritarianism. Forgive me, but I’m not buying what she’s selling.

Posted in UkraineComments Off on The “Ukraine Issue” and Canada’s “Foreign” Minister Chrystia Freeland

US-Led NATO, I$raHell Plotting Escalated Aggression in Syria?

NOVANEWS
US-Led NATO, Israel Plotting Escalated Aggression in Syria?
 

 

April 14 US, UK, French aggression in Syria failed to achieve its objective, despite Pentagon claims otherwise.

It did nothing to weaken Syrian military capabilities as intended. It likely backfired.

Enraged by the incident, Russia appears set to supply Syria’s military with sophisticated S-300 air defense systems, what it should have done years ago.

They’re able to down hostile warplanes and missiles far more effectively than its current defensive capability.

French President Macron is in Washington meeting with Trump, Germany’s Merkel to follow later in the week.

Israeli media said US CENTCOM head General Joseph Votel visited Israel on Monday – meeting with IDF Chief of Staff General Gady Eisenkot, national security adviser Meir Shabbat, and other senior defense officials.

Their talks reportedly focused on Syria and Iranian military advisors in Syria, along with Israeli involvement with US-dominated NATO’s regional agenda.

Was further aggression in Syria agreed on, given failed April 14 aerial attacks, along with Russia likely intending to supply Syrian forces with S-300 air defense systems?

Reports indicate US-led NATO members may try circumventing Security Council authority by invoking the rarely used 1950 Uniting for Peace Resolution 377, empowering the General Assembly to override SC resolutions on Syria vetoed by Russia.

Res. 377 says the following:

“Resolves that if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

Going this route to override SC veto power by one or more of the five permanent members requires a two-thirds General Assembly majority.

Washington and its rogue allies could use Res. 377 to try legitimizing further aggression on Syrian military targets based on alleged CW attacks.

Real and fake CW incidents are falsely blamed on Assad. Washington and its rogue allies used them to launch attacks on Syrian targets.

General Assembly authorization through Res. 377 would make restoring peace and stability further out of reach than already.

Adopted on November 3, 1950, it was used to escalate US-led aggression in North Korea, massacring millions of its people, turning much of the country to smoldering rubble.

US terror-bombing was so intense, pilots exhausted targets to strike. Nearly 30% of the country’s population was killed.

Invoking Res. 377 authority on Syria could rape and destroy the country more than already. It would risk direct confrontation with Russia.

Amnesty International reports on Syria disgraced the organization.

Weeks earlier, it shamefully said

“(t)he international community’s catastrophic failure to take concrete action to protect the people of Syria has allowed parties to the conflict, most notably the Syrian government, to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity with complete impunity, often with assistance of outside powers, particularly Russia.”

AI disgracefully blames Syria for US-led high crimes committed against the nation and its people.

On Monday, its secretary-general Ian Martin shamefully said

“(t)he Russian veto need not be the end of efforts for collective action by the UN,” adding:

“The responsibility of asserting accountability for the use of chemical weapons, and for bringing an end to the horrors of the Syrian conflict, rests with the world community as a whole.”

Was Martin indirectly endorsing further US-led aggression in Syria – based on spurious accusations, falsely claiming government use of CWs?

US-led April 14 attacks on Syrian targets almost surely is prelude for more to come, likely more intense than earlier.

The fate of the nation, its sovereign independence, and security of its people depend heavily on whether Russia no longer intends tolerating US-led aggression in Syria for regime change.

A Final Comment

Overnight, Israel conducted another aerial attack on a Syrian military position near occupied Golan where its forces are combatting ISIS.

On Monday, did CENTCOM head General Votel and Israeli officials agree on further aggression together with US-led NATO allies?

Posted in SyriaComments Off on US-Led NATO, I$raHell Plotting Escalated Aggression in Syria?

Alleged Syria Chemical Weapons Attack: OPCW to Rubber-Stamp Official Falsified Douma Narrative?

NOVANEWS

 

The alleged Douma CW incident never happened. The official narrative was fabricated as documented by Robert Fisk. 

Residents and medical personnel were unanimous in their judgment.

No attack occurred, no one ill or hospitalized from toxic CW exposure, no one dead, no one harmed in any way.

US, UK, French April 14 terror-bombing of Syrian sites was based on a Big Lie.

The OPCW’s fact-finding mission delayed its arrival in Douma for 11 days, falsely saying it was too unsafe to come sooner.

The town was liberated, the OPCW team was guaranteed security by Syrian and Russian forces. It was safe for the fact-finding mission members to come 11 days ago.

Why the unacceptable delay? The OPCW is notoriously pro-Western, its actions likely directed by Washington and/or Britain.

It rubber-stamped the official falsified narrative on the alleged April 2017 Khan Sheikhoun CW incident – without visiting the town, relying on so-called evidence from anti-Syrian elements, notably al-Qaeda-linked White Helmets.

No CW incident occurred. No site evidence suggested one. Khan Sheikhoun and Douma were replicas of each other – Syria and Russia falsely blamed for nonexistent CW incidents.

On Saturday, the OPCW fact-finding mission arrived in Douma. The organization issued a press release, saying:

Its mission members “visited one of the sites in Douma, Syrian Arab Republic today to collect samples for analysis in connection with allegations of chemical weapons use on 7 April 2018. The OPCW will evaluate the situation and consider future steps including another possible visit to Douma.”

Samples collected will be sent to the organization’s Rikswijk, Netherlands lab for analysis.

Based on the results, along with “other information and materials collected by the team,” it’ll prepare its “report for submission to the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention for their consideration,” the press release added.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said the OPCW’s delay in visiting Douma for 11 days after receiving a formal request from Damascus to inspect the alleged site in question was “unacceptable (since) not only the Syrian side but the Russian military guaranteed security” for the team.

Visiting one site, avoiding nearby others, taking few samples instead of many, as well as interviewing what appears to be pre-selected residents raises “serious concerns,” Zakharova stressed, adding:

The OPCW team “demonstate(d) (an) unwillingness to shed light on yet another staged provocation with the use of chemicals, which served as a reason for the missile strike.”

Washington and supportive Western media falsely accused Syria and Russia of preventing the mission from entering Douma sooner.

Here’s what’s at stake. If OPCW analysis confirms a CW incident, it’ll claim what didn’t happen.

If its report finds no evidence of CWs used, Washington, its rogue allies, and Western media will accuse Russia and Syria of tampering with the site.

Either way, the official falsified narrative won’t change, Syria declared guilty by accusation, further US-led terror bombing likely coming – notably because most missiles targeting Syrian military sites were destroyed in flight.

Since taking office, Trump escalated US naked aggression in Syria instead of stepping back from the brink.

Washington’s rage for dominance rules out any prospect for world peace and stability.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Alleged Syria Chemical Weapons Attack: OPCW to Rubber-Stamp Official Falsified Douma Narrative?

Syria Chemical Weapons: Red Flags and False Flags

NOVANEWS

Relevant to the recent alleged chemical attack in Douma is this article by Mark Taliano about last year’s sarin gas attack in Khan Sheikhoun. Read how the US reached dubious conclusions based on a priori assumptions.

*

There are too many red flags about the chemical weapons attack in northern Syria to believe the official version of events that immediately assigned guilt to the Assad government.

Each of the red flags, on the other hand, strongly suggests that the incident was (yet another) false flag operation perpetrated by the terrorists with a view to destroying the peace process and prolonging the war.

A key consideration would be Cui bono?

Does the Assad government benefit from a chemical weapons attack on innocent people when he is winning the war and a just peace is on the horizon? No. The Assad government in no way benefits.

Do imperial terrorist proxies benefit from demonizing Assad and hastily accusing him of “killing his own people”? Yes they do.

Was there foreknowledge of the event? Apparently so.

Reporter Feras Karam announced before the event, that it was going to occur.

And what about the chemical agent itself? The hasty conclusion that the gas was sarin is unreasonable, not only because the conclusion was reached almost immediately, but also because videos of the alleged victims contradict symptoms that would normally be associated with sarin gas exposure.

In an interview conducted on April 5, 2017, Damian Walker, a former army bomb disposal officer, made these observations:

When I initially read that sarin nerve agent had been used in an attack on Idlib, I was surprised that the chemical warfare agent had been identified so quickly.

On watching the video of the incident, I quickly concluded that it was unlikely a sarin attack. If it was the first responders would also have been killed, and the victims’ symptoms appeared to be the result of a “choking agent”, and not a military grade agent.

At the very least, the totality of these red flags demands an independent investigation, which would likely take weeks, rather than hours. Failing this, the reasonable conclusion would be that the incident was a false flag event.

In matters of war and peace, thorough investigations should be a matter of importance and priority, but accusations are already infesting mainstream media narratives, so the more likely outcome is that the incident will be used to falsely blame the Assad government, with a view to prolonging the war, and destroying Syria and her people.

NATO warmongers do not want peace.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Syria Chemical Weapons: Red Flags and False Flags

Nicaragua: Next in Line for Regime Change?

NOVANEWS

The pattern is similar to events in Libya, Syria and Venezuela, where extreme right-wing political minorities conspired with foreign elites to overthrow the national status quo.

Events in Nicaragua over the past week are clearly modeled on the kind of U.S.-led, NATO-driven regime change that succeeded in Libya, Ivory Coast and Ukraine, but has so far failed in Thailand, Syria and Venezuela. At a national level, the protests have been led by the private sector business classes defending their rate of profit against socialist policies in defense of low-income workers and people on pensions.

The Events So Far

Since April 18, violent protests have taken place across Nicaragua. The protests began a couple of days after the government announced proposed reforms to the social security system, which is running a deficit of around US$75 million a year. The government announced the proposed reforms following the suspension of talks by Nicaragua’s private sector business organization, Cosep. Pending possible modifications, the reforms are due to come into effect on July 1.

In the protests, as of Friday, 10 people have been killed and over 80 people injured, including at least 30 police officers. Most fatalities resulted from lethal use of firearms by right-wing provocateurs. Mainstream Western media reports cover up the fact that – far from being peaceful – the protests have been characterized by lethal violence from extreme right-wing shock groups trying to destabilize Nicaragua, just as they have done in Venezuela. In response, workers and students supporting Nicaragua’s Sandinista government have mobilized against the violent opposition provocations.

The protests started in earnest in Nicaragua’s capital, Managua, on April 18 and rapidly spread to important provincial centers such as Leon in the west, Granada to the south and Esteli to the north. The protests were fueled by inflammatory messaging on social networks and deliberate manipulation by right-wing media. Some right-wing TV cable media went off the air – their signal apparently having been deliberately taken down – without any clear, independently verifiable explanation.

Apart from the deaths and injuries caused by the violent opposition protests, widespread damage was caused to infrastructure, including local Social Security Institute offices; municipal authority offices in Esteli and Granada; university buildings in Managua and Leon; Sandinista party offices in Chinandega and Masaya, and government offices in Managua. There, too, opposition gangs tried to enter and destroy the brand new ‘Denis Martinez’ baseball stadium; the brand new Fernando Velez Paiz Hospital, and the Institute of Social Security head office. The gangs also attacked most of the Sandinista-aligned radio stations, including Nuevo Radio Ya and Radio Sandino, trying to set them on fire.

A group of more than 100 protesting students retreated from the main university area in Managua and took refuge in the city’s Catholic cathedral. The police contained them there until their peaceful departure was negotiated. Further afield in Nueva Guinea, towards Nicaragua’s Caribbean Coast, an opposition gang attacked a cultural event held in support of the government, wounding various government supporters. In many places, gangs of opportunist delinquents have intermingled with the political protests, which have also involved attacks on commercial business premises and vehicles, as well as bystanders not involved in the protests.

While the private business sector organization Cosep has called for peaceful demonstrations, extremists from the right-wing Citizens for Liberty and Sandinista Renewal Movement political organizations have led the violent protests. They have made effective use of social networks, spreading false information and inflammatory accusations so as to confuse and mislead people – especially young people – who know little or nothing about the Social Security reforms, which have turned into a mere pretext for violent protests aimed at destabilizing a government which enjoys overwhelming electoral support.

Both evangelical religious authorities and the Catholic church hierarchy have urged calm and called for dialogue. Cosep has insisted that people protest peacefully and called to reopen talks on social security reform with the government. The army and police completely support the government, and the police have acted with restraint in the face of lethal provocation. Trade unions and the main student organization have condemned the violence and expressed support for the government’s proposed social security reforms. The Union of Older Adults, which lobbies for better pension rights and health benefits for older people, also supports the proposals, which include a five percent deduction from older people’s pensionsin exchange for full rights to the same healthcare as active workers.

Context: Nicaragua’s Social Security System

After Nicaragua’s right-wing parties won the national elections 1990, the three subsequent right-wing governments mismanaged the Social Security Institute (INSS), cutting back coverage and reducing benefits. During the same period, millions of dollars of INSS funds were misappropriated to fund private sector businesses and make illicit payments to individuals. When a new Sandinista government took office under President Daniel Ortega in January 2007, the social security fund had an unsustainable deficit and a much-reduced contributions base.

Since then, the INSS has increased the number of people covered by social security and also extended the benefits the system provides. These now include hemodialisis, oncology therapies, spinal surgery, ophthalmology, neurosurgery, hip and knee replacements, kidney transplants and other very expensive, specialized procedures.

Despite having greatly increased the number of people contributing to the system, the INSS is still running a deficit of around US$75 million. The dispute between the government and the private business sector is over how to fund that deficit. The private business sector wants to reduce costs by applying the following neoliberal plan:

  • Raising the retirement age from 60 to 65
  • Eliminating the reduced pension paid to retired people who were unable to complete the 750 weekly contributions required to receive a full pension
  • Eliminating the minimum pension that ensures no one has a pension lower than the minimum wage for industrial workers
  • Eliminating the annual Christmas bonus equivalent to one month’s pension
  • No longer maintaining the value of the pension against the national currency to compensate for the annual sliding devaluation of five percent applied by the Central Bank
  • Doubling the number of weekly contributions qualifying for a pension from 750 to 1500
  • Privatizing the INSS medical clinics

The government wants to protect the social security health system and increase social security coverage and benefits as a collective public good by:

  • Gradually increasing the employer’s contribution by 3.25 percent
  • Increasing the employee’s contribution by 0.75 percent
  • Increasing the government’s contribution for public sector workers by 1.25 percent
  • Removing the salary ceiling so that people earning high salaries pay social security contributions proportionate to their income
  • Deducting 5 percent from retirees’ pensions so they receive the same healthcare benefits as active workers (which they currently do not)
  • Maintaining the number of weekly contributions to qualify for a full pension at 750
  • Maintaining the reduced pension and the minimum pension
  • Maintaining the Christmas bonus
  • Maintaining pensions’ value against the annual 5 percent devaluation
  • Keeping all INSS clinics in the public system

Latest Developments

President Daniel Ortega has confirmed the government will continue discussions with Cosep, the organization representing Nicaragua’s private sector business, as well as the other organizations taking part in the talks about how to defend the sustainability of the INSS. Disturbances continue in various parts of Nicaragua, with more deaths and injuries being reported. Church representatives, business leaders and political figures are calling for an end to the violence. For the right-wing political groups provoking the violence, the INSS reform is simply the opportunistic pretext of the moment, but it is unclear whether they aim to cause longer-term destabilization.

The pattern so far is similar to events in Libya, Ivory Coast, Syria, Ukraine, Thailand and Venezuela. In these countries, extreme right-wing political minorities conspired with foreign elites – mainly in the United States and Europe – to overthrow the national status quo and take power. In Nicaragua, the small, minority right-wing political opposition have openly sought financial and political support in the United States and Europe explicitly to undermine and destabilize Nicaragua’s Sandinista government. The obvious model they are working from is Venezuela. The next couple of weeks will tell if Nicaragua is going to suffer yet another U.S. intervention with all that implies for the country’s people and the region.

Posted in USA, NicaraguaComments Off on Nicaragua: Next in Line for Regime Change?

Evidence – Novichok Delivery System Patented in the US

NOVANEWS
 

Featured image: Main Image – Patent Powder Dispersal Device – filed 2013, patent pending for the delivery of nerve agents, specifically, Novichok and sarin: Examples of nerve agents may include G series such as Tabun (GA), Sarin (GB), Soman (GD), Cyclosarin (GF), GV series such as Novichok agents, GV (nerve agent), V series such as VE, VG, VM, and the like. (Source: Powder Dispersal Device and method)

We wrote back on 9th April that: “The Skripal Novichok poison affair has fooled almost no-one with a slightly questioning mind and an internet connection. The entire story would make an epic egg-on-face Inspector Clouseau classic worthy of Peter Sellers at his best. The plot includes a delusional Russian despot attempting to assassinate an ageing retired ex-spy in Britain where the end result was an international scandal, a dead cat, two starved guinea pigs and a lot of unemployed diplomats.”

The Porton Down scientific findings only went as far as to say: “Blood samples from Sergei Skripaland Yulia Skripal were analysed and the findings indicated exposure to a nerve agent or related compound. The samples tested positive for the presence of a Novichok class nerve agent OR CLOSELY RELATED AGENT.

Theresa May, Boris Johnson, politicians from all tribes along with the false mouthpiece of the establishment – the mainstream media – unquestioningly supported the case for dragging the UK into the centre of a global crisis, just as they did when Tony Blair blatantly lied to the world and supported the Americans in creating the human hellhole that much of the Middle East now represents.

The evidence provided to a more critically minded public was little more than dubious accusations supported by ambiguous expressions such as “highly likely,” and “suspected” – forcing the government into the highest propaganda mode we have seen in over a decade. The lessons that should have been learned from the Chilcot Enquiry, that actual evidence is needed prior to acting – completely ignored by all.

Journalists such as The Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland is a perfect example: He refers to those who critically ask questions about the famed White Helmets, the chemical weapons attacks in Syria or the Salisbury Novichok attack with a rushed asthmatic certainty that everyone is a conspiracy theorist without even as much showing any evidence to the contrary:

“That claim, which has been repeatedly debunked, was instantly applauded and spread by the same crowd of pro-Russia voices on the far left and far right who have served so dutifully as Assad’s online cheerleaders. To them, Waters was a hero for daring to speak an unpopular truth. For everyone else, a once admired musician had joined the ranks of conspiracist cranks and apologists for a murderous dictator.”

People like Friedland have completely ignored the actual evidence provided by Robert Fisk, the Independent newspaper journalist with 40 years mid-east experience that there was no chemical weapons attack in Douma. He has ignored ex-ambassadors such as Peter Ford and Craig Murray,with huge experience in these regions.

Freedland wrote in 2003 –

that war (Iraq) is needed to topple a cruel tyrant who has drowned his people in misery. In this view, the coming conflict is a war of liberation which will cost some Iraqi lives at first, to be sure, but which will save many more. It will be a moral war to remove an immoral regime. To oppose it is to keep Saddam in power.”

A million innocents lost their lives, millions more displaced and Iraq has since sided with Syria, Iran and Russia because of this type of absolute slavish devotion to those who turned out to be mass genocidal murderers.

As ever though, deliberately overlooked or more likely ignored was that Russia had submitted evidence that the Novichok nerve agent was produced and patented in the United States as a chemical weapon in 2015, Russia’s Permanent Representative at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Alexander Shulgin said this some two weeks ago. That information just washed over the heads of his counterparts and the media while they looked the other way.

We were not satisfied with Russia’s story on the basis that they would, of course, defend themselves regardless of the truth, so unlike everyone else we looked. Half an hour later we found over 80 patents of the 140 that Russia said were applied for. The ones we found revealed the word Novichok in 81 patents as part of the patent document filing in the United States.

This doesn’t mean that all patents actually involved the nerve agent itself, but it does suggest that this deadly substance is at least available, particularly as none of these patents go back further than 2002 and some were applied for as recently as 2016 and one we found was granted as late as last November.

Without delving that deeply, due to time constraints, we found several patents of particular interest. The first is entitled:

Biological active bullets, systems, and methods

The abstract or introduction to the patent which was filed in April 2013 reads as follows:

“A novel biological active bullet able to be discharged from a firearm, the ammunition essentially comprising a bullet in a cartridge, the bullet associated with/containing at least one biological active substance, along with a method of use of delivering with this bullet at least one biological active substance having at least one biological effect in the target upon impact.”

The patent documentation is lengthy but includes the broad description of: “including, but not limited to, chemically active substances, biologically active substances, radioactive substances, thermodynamically active substances, and pharmaceutically active ingredient substances, and any combinations of active substances thereof; and capable of delivering this at least one active substance to/within a target, including, but not limited to, a mammal, such as a human.

This document states the patented bullet-like projectile – may or may not cause a wound depending on its material manufacture and can deliver all manner of poisons, viruses and substances that can kill or maim.

The projectile as set forth in claim 1 wherein at least one active substance is selected from nerve agents, including, but not limited to, organophosphates , such as G-agents, including tabun (GA) , sarin (GB) , soman (GD) , cyclosarin (GF) , and GV, V-agents, including EA- 3148, VE, VG, VM, VR, and VX, Novichok agents, and any combinations thereof.

The assumptions one can take from this patent is that A) Novichok can be manufactured in the United States and B) there are a number of delivery methods, one of which is specifically designed to hit a single desired target. Not forgetting this is an invention of the USA.

Other methods of delivery where the Novichok nerve agent are specifically mentioned as part of the patent documentation is a Powder Dispersion Device and Reactive Absorbent Materials filed in May 2016.

Examples include, “without limitation (list shortened), Agent 15 (BZ), ammonia, arsenic pentafluoride, boron tribromide, boron trichloride, hydrogen cyanide, nitrogen mustard (HN-1, HN-2, HN-3), and a Novichok agent.”

Contrary to what we have been told about the deadly nature of Novichoks, there is a Nerve Agent Antidote patent filed in 2013 that was granted 14th November 2017. Another is for methods of detection and another for protection against the neurotoxin Novichok.

Why would so many patents be filed in the first place (in America) if there had never been any intention of their use?

There is more to come on this story – for sure.

Posted in USAComments Off on Evidence – Novichok Delivery System Patented in the US


Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

April 2018
M T W T F S S
« Mar   May »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30