Archive | January 5th, 2018

CIA Whistleblower: Reports of Iran, al-Qaeda Ties ‘Simply a Lie’

Image result for CIA MOSSAD CARTOON

A new Pentagon report claiming that Iran supports terrorist groups such as the Taliban and al-Qaeda has been disseminated through American media outlets – but has come under fire for wishy-washy claims about said connections.

For instance, one supposed link came when Saad bin Laden, one of Osama bin Laden’s sons, fled to Iran after the September 11, 2001, attacks in the US. But what isn’t mentioned is that Saad and his family were detained upon arrival and placed under house arrest. Khalid bin Laden, another of Osama’s sons who was killed alongside him during the 2011 US Navy SEALs raid, accused the Iranians in 2010 of subjecting his family members to beatings and severe mistreatment.

Garland Nixon and Lee Stranahan of Radio Sputnik’s Fault Lines spoke to John Kiriakou, a CIA agent-turned-whistleblower who helped reveal the CIA’s torture program to the American public in 2007.

​”The whole thing rests on your definition of harbor,” said Kiriakou. “Osama bin Laden’s son [Saad] in the immediate aftermath of the [battle of Tora Bora in December 2001] fled to Iran with his wives and his children and a handful of hangers-on. They were promptly arrested at the border. They were not put under house arrest in some beautiful palace with servants and a view of the valley; they were put under arrest and put in a jail. If that’s harbored, man, I don’t want to be harbored.”

“Let me say something unequivocally: there was no cooperation between al-Qaeda and Iran, just like there was no cooperation between al-Qaeda and Iraq.” Kiriakou referenced a little-mentioned Taliban execution of Iranian diplomats a few years before 9/11: in 1998, in the city of Mazar-i-Sharif, the Taliban rounded up and killed a number of Iranian diplomats in retribution for Tehran’s support of the Northern Alliance in their war against the Taliban in the 90s — the same Northern Alliance that the US supported when they invaded Afghanistan in October 2001.

“There’s no love lost between between the Taliban/al-Qaeda and the Iranians,” said Kiriakou. “I’m going to say it again unequivocally: there is no connection between Iran and al-Qaeda, this is being made up. There are other countries that would benefit from the proliferation of this lie — but that’s what it is, simply a lie.”

Nixon mentioned that the connection between al-Qaeda and Iran was drawn from a CIA document dump from early November, with all the articles appearing in a three-day period — almost as though the outlets had coordinated to make the story.

“This is what the CIA does to confuse people,” said Kiriakou. “There’s no analysis, there’s no vetting of the documents, they just dump it. This is exactly what the CIA complained was happening during the first four years of the Bush administration, where the president is coming out or his aides are coming out and saying, ‘there’s cooperation between the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda.’ There wasn’t.”

“But what was happening was that people in the [National Security Council] who had their own political agenda were passing the president raw intelligence that had not been vetted, not been analyzed by the directorate of intelligence. Well, the CIA is doing exactly the same thing now, but they’re using the press as their dupe. They’re just releasing this raw data taken off of Osama bin Laden’s computers and saying, ‘here it is!’ No analysis, no nothing.”

On Wednesday, former New York Times journalist James Risen published a story on The Intercept in which he claimed his skepticism that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was linked to terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda were on multiple occasions buried by the Times’editorial staff.

“My stories raising questions about the intelligence, particularly the administration’s claims of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, were being cut, buried or held out of the paper altogether,” Risen wrote. “What angered me most was that while they were burying my skeptical stories, the editors were not only giving banner headlines to stories asserting that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, they were also demanding that I help match stories from other publications about Iraq’s purported WMD programs.”

Risen, and the others who were skeptical about the US intelligence community’s claims that Saddam had partnered with al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups in order to garner support for the 2003 invasion, were vindicated by history when the alleged links were revealed to be false.

Posted in IranComments Off on CIA Whistleblower: Reports of Iran, al-Qaeda Ties ‘Simply a Lie’

Neocons return to power


Neoconservative fingerprints all over Trump National Security Strategy document

President Donald Trump’s 2017 National Security Strategy report tells us how he sees the world, or rather how the Washington foreign policy elites do.

From a candidate who ran on a message of change, it is striking that the report is essentially a defense of status quo policies and views.

Clearly Washington’s neocons are running the show.

CrossTalking with Brian Becker, Michael Flanagan, and Michael O’Hanlon.


Posted in USAComments Off on Neocons return to power

2018 – War or No War? The Saker


Imbeciles and cowards. I also happen to think that they are traitors to their country and their people. Patriots they are not.

If the first months of 2017 were a time of great hopes following the historical defeat of Hillary Clinton, the year is ending in a sombre, almost menacing manner.

Not only has the swamp easily, quickly and totally drowned Trump, but the AngloZionist Empire is reeling from its humiliating defeat in Syria and the Neocons are now treating our entire planet to a never ending barrage of threats.

Furthermore, the Trump Administration now has released a National Security Strategy which clearly show that the Empire is in “full paranoid” mode. It is plainly obvious that the Neocons are now back in total control of the White House, Congress and the US corporate media. Okay, maybe things are still not quite as bad as if Hillary had been elected, but they are bad enough to ask whether a major war is now inevitable next year.

If we go by their rhetoric, the Neocons have all the following countries in their sights:

  1. Afghanistan (massive surge already promised)
  2. Syria (threats of a US-Israeli-KSA attack; attack on Iranian and Hezbollah forces in Syria)
  3. Russia (disconnecting from SWIFT; stealing Russian assets in the US; attack on Russian forces in Syria)
  4. Iran (renege on nuclear deal, attack Iranian forces in Syria)
  5. The Donbass (support for a full scale Ukronazi attack against Novorussia)
  6. DPRK (direct and overt military aggression; aerial and naval blockade)
  7. Venezuela (military intervention “in defense of democracy, human rights, freedom and civilization”)

There are, of course, many more countries currently threatened by the US to various degrees, but the seven above are all good candidates for US aggression.

Let me immediately say here that listing pragmatic arguments against such aggression is, at this point in time, probably futile. If anything, the recent disaster triggered by the US recognition of Jerusalem clearly proves that the US is run by people as least as stupid and ignorant as they are evil and arrogant, possibly even more so. The sad reality we now live in is one where a nuclear superpower lack the minimal intelligence needed to act in defense of its own national security interests, and that is really frightening.

Last week I took a look at the mindset of what I called the “ideological drone“. If we now look at the mindset of the US national security establishment we will immediately notice that it is almost exactly the same as that of the ideological drone. The biggest difference between them might be that the ideological drone assumes that his/her leaders are sane and mostly honest people, whereas those in the elites not only know that they are total hypocrites and liars, but they actually see this as a sign superiority: the drones believes in his/her ideology, but his rulers believe in absolutely nothing.

Take the example of Syria. All the US decision makers are fully aware of the following facts:

  1. Daesh/ISIS/al-Nusra/etc is their creation and they tried everything to save these terrorists.
  2. The joint Russian-Iranian-Hezbollah effort defeated Daesh/ISIS/al-Nusra/etc in-spite of AngloZionist support and attacks on Syrian forces.
  3. The AngloZionist forces are in Syria completely illegally.

Yet none of that prevents them from claiming that they, not Russia, defeated Daesh/ISIS/al-Nusra/etc. This is absolutely amazing, think of it – the entire planet knows full well what really took place in Syria, but Uncle Sam decrees that black is white, water is dry and what is true is false. And the most amazing thing is that they know that everybody knows, yet they don’t care one bit. Why? Because they profoundly believe in four fundamental things:

  1. We can buy anybody
  2. Those we cannot buy, we bully
  3. Those we cannot bully we kill
  4. Nothing can happen to us, we live in total impunity not matter what we do

Besides people with intelligence there is another type of person who has completely disappeared from the US national security establishment: someone with honor/courage/integrity. Let’s take a perfect example: Tillerson.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson

There is no way we can make the argument that Tillerson is an idiot. The man has proven many times over that he is intelligent and quite talented. And yet, he is Nikki Haley’s doormat. Nikki Haley – there is the real imbecile! But not Tillerson. Yet Tillerson lacks the basic honor/courage/integrity to demand that this terminal imbecile be immediately fired or, if that does not happen, to leave and slam the door really loud.

Nikki Haley ambitious, bombastic, most undiplomatic U.S. Diplomat that sits in the UN.

Nope, the man just sits there and takes humiliation after humiliation. Oh sure, he will probably resign soon, but when his resignation comes it will have no value, it will be a non-event, just the sad and pathetic conclusion to a completely failed stint as Secretary of State.

The same goes for the US military: not one single officer has found in himself/herself to resign to protest the fact that the US is deeply in bed with those who are responsible, at least according to the official conspiracy theory, for 9/11. Nope, in fact US special forces are working with al-Qaeda types day in and day out and not a single one of these “patriots” has the honor/courage/integrity to go public about it.

Imbeciles and cowards. I also happen to think that they are traitors to their country and their people. Patriots they are not.

Delusional imbeciles giving orders and dishonorable cowards mindlessly executing themThat is the setup we are dealing with. As Trump would tweet “not good”.

Alas, this is also a very hard combo to deter or to try to reason with.

And yet, somewhere, to some degree, these guys must know that the odds are not in their favor. For one thing, an endless stream of military defeats and political embarrassments ought to strongly suggest to them that inaction is generally preferable to action, especially for clueless people. Furthermore, one simple way to look at risks is to say that risks are a factor of probability times consequences: R = P x C.

I don’t think that US decision-makers actually formally think that way, but on a gut level this is rather straightforward, even for ideological drone types. If we assume that this is the case, we can now revisit our 7 countries listed above as seen by Neocon decision makers (not me! I already outlined how I saw the risks of attacking these countries in this article written this summer):

Possible/likely consequences Probability Risk
Afghanistan (surge) more body bags high low
Syria (military intervention & attack on Iranian and Hezbollah forces in Syria) Iranian & Hezbollah counter-attacks high high
Russia 1 (economic attack: SWIFT & theft of assets)Russia 2 (shooting of Russian aircraft in Syria) non-military responsemilitary response highmedium unknownfor memedium
Iran (renege on nuclear deal) non-military response high low
Donbass (US backed attack on Novorussia) Russian intervention medium low
DPRK (attack; blockade) Nuclear war in Asia unknown unknown
Venezuela (direct military intervention) quagmire high high

A couple of points here:

Afghanistan: is rather straightforward and least controversial: there will be a surge in Afghanistan, it will result in more body bags, it will achieve nothing, cost a shitload and nobody cares.

Syria: very tempting, but the big risk is this: that US forces will find themselves face to face with Iranian and Hezbollah forces who have been dreaming about this day for decades and who will make maximal political use of the US forces they will capture or kill. Frankly, to engage either the Iranians or Hezbollah is a very scary option. Ask the Israelis :-)

Russia option 1: rumors that the US would disconnect Russia from SWIFT or steal (that is politely called “freeze”) Russian assets and funds in the US have been going in for a long time already. And the Russians have been making all sorts of menacing noises about this, but all of them very vague which tells me that Russia might not have any good retaliatory options and that this time around the hot air is blowing from Moscow. Of course, Putin is a unpredictable master strategist and the folks around him are very, very smart. They might hold something up their sleeve which I am not aware of but I strongly suspect that, unlike me, the US intelligence community must be fully aware of what this might be. I am not an economist and there is much I don’t know here, I therefore assessed the risk as “unknown” for me.

Russia option 2: the reaction of Russia to the shooting down by Turkey of a SU-24 in 2015 might well have given the US politicians and commanders a feeling that they could do the same and get away with it. In truth, they might be right. But they might also be wrong. The big difference with the case of the SU-24 is that Russia has formidable air-defenses deployed in Syria which present a major threat for US forces. Furthermore, if a Russian aircraft is under attack and the Russians reply by firing a volley of ground-to-air missiles, what would the US do – attack a Russian S-400 battery? The US is also in a tricky situation in an air-to-air confrontation. While the F-22 is an excellent air superiority fighter it has one huge weakness: it is designed to engage its adversaries from a long range and to shoot first, before it is detected (I mention only the F-22 here because it is the only US aircraft capable of challenging the Su-30SM/Su-35). But if the rules of engagement say that before firing at a Russian aircraft the F-22 has to issue a clear warning or if the engagement happens at medium to short range distances, then the F-22 is at a big disadvantage, especially against a Su-30SM or Su-35. Another major weakness of the F-22 is that, unlike the Su-30/Su-35, it does not have a real electronic warfare suite (the F-22’s INEWS does not really qualify). In plain English this means that the F-22 was designed to maximize its low radar cross section but at a cost of all other aspects of aerial warfare (radar power, hypermaneuverability, electronic warfare, passive engagement, etc.). This all gets very technical and complicated very fast, but I think that we can agree that the Neocons are unlikely to be very impressed by the risks posed by Russian forces in Syria and that they will likely feel that they can punch the russkies in the nose and that these russkies will have to take it. Local US commanders might feel otherwise, but that is also entirely irrelevant. Still, I place the risk here at ‘medium’ even if, potentially, this could lead to a catastrophic thermonuclear war because I don’t think that the Neocons believe that the Russians will escalate too much (who starts WWIII over one shot down aircraft anyway, right?!). Think of it: if you were the commander of the Russian task force in Syria, what would you do if the US shot down on of your aircraft (remember, you assume that you are a responsible and intelligent commander, not a flag-waving delusional maniac)?

Although President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to withdraw unilaterally from the nuclear deal, his senior national security team has persuaded him that the diplomatic costs outweigh the benefits of undoing it. | Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

Iran: Trump has announced that he wants out of the deal and while technically and legally he cannot do that, it’s not like he will care one bit. The US has long given up any pretense at respecting any kind of law, including international law. Also, since Trump is clearly Israel’s shabbos-goy I think that we can safely assume that this will happen.What will not stop is the full-spectrum demonization of Russia, thus the relationship between the two countries will further deteriorate. Putin’s Russia is a kind of Mordor which represents all evil and stands behind all evil. Denouncing and openly hating Russia has now become a form of virtue-signaling. Since the entire US political elites have endorsed this phobia, it is exceedingly unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

Donbass: will the Ukronazis finally attack? Well, they have been for many months already! Not only did they never stop shelling the Donbass, but they have this new “frog-jump” (pseudo) strategy which consists of moving in military forces in the neutral zone, seize an undefended town and then declare a major victory against Russia. They have also been re-arming, re-organizing, re-grouping and otherwise bolstering their forces in the East. As a result, the Urkonazis have at least 3:1 advantage against the Novorussians. However, we should not look at this from the Ukronazi or Novorussian point of view. Instead we should look at it from the Neocon point of view:

Possible outcomes US reactions
Option one: Ukronazis win Russia is defeated, US proves its power
Option two: Novorussians win Russia is accused of invading the Ukraine
Option three: Novorussians lose and Russia openly intervenes A Neocon dream come true: the NATO has a purpose again:decades of Cold War v2 in Europe.

The way I see it, in all three cases the AngloZionist prevail though clearly option #2 is the worst possible outcome and option #3 is the best one. In truth, the AngloZionists have very little to lose in a Ukronazi attack on Novorussia. Not so the Ukrainian people, of course. Right now the US and several European countries are shipping various types of weapons to the Ukronazis. That is really a non-news since they have been doing that for years already. Furthermore, western made weapons won’t make any difference, at least from a military point of view, if only because it will always be much easier for Russia to send more weapons in any category. The real difference is a political one: shipping “lethal weapons” (as if some weapons were not lethal!) is simply a green light to go on the attack. Let’s hope that the Urkonazis will be busy fighting each other and that their previous humiliating defeat will deter them from trying again, but I consider a full-scale Urkonazi attack on the Donbass as quite likely.

DPRK: that is the big unknown here. With some opponents, you know for an absolute fact that their people will fight down to the very last man if needed (Iranians, Russians, Hezbollah). But authoritarian regimes tend to have a pretty low breaking point unless, of course, they convince their own people that they are not fighting for a specific political regime, but for their country. I think that nobody knows for sure what the North Koreans will do if attacked, but I see no sign to simply assume that the North Koreans won’t fight. From what I hear, the memories of the ruthless attacks against North Koreans by US forces during the previous war on the Korean Peninsula are still very very real. Here is what an intelligence officer in the region wrote to me recently:


If this specialist is correct, and I have no reason to believe that he is not, then it is quite reasonable to assume that the possible dislike the North Korean people might have for their ruling elites is dwarfed by their hatred for the United States.

[Sidebar: he also had some interesting comments about my own assessment of the consequences of a war on the Korean Peninsula. Here is what he wrote to me:


And here is the deal, if you attack a small and defenseless country you can basically ignore the consequences of making the wrong guess, but when dealing with a country like the DPRK this is a miscalculation which no sane politician or military commander would ever take the risk of making. But delusional imbeciles giving and dishonorable cowards – would either one of them show the kind of caution needed when dealing with such a major threat?! I frankly don’t think so. In fact, I see no reason to believe that at all. Remember the “cakewalk in Iraq”? This term, coined by one of my former teachers at SAIS, Ken Adelman, is a wonderful illustration of the Neocon mindest: pure ideology and to hell with caution. We all know that this “cakewalk” ended up costing the Iraqi and American people: well over one million deaths for the former, well over five trillion dollars for the latter. Some cakewalk indeed… The truth is that at this point nobody knows what the outcome of a US attack on the DPRK might be, not even the North Koreans. Will that be enough to deter the delusional imbeciles giving and dishonorable cowards currently at the helm of the Empire? You tell me!

Venezuela: as much hatred as there is for Venezuela in the US elites, this country is not a lucrative target or, let me rephrase that, it is a great target to subvert but probably not a good one to intervene in. Violence in Venezuela is directly in the US interests but a direct military intervention is probably not. My contacts tell me that the Venezuelan military is an unholy (and rather corrupt) mess, but they also tell me that the popular will to resist the “Yankees” is so strong that a any military intervention will immediately trigger an ugly guerrilla war (not to mention a political backlash in the rest of Latin America). The truth is the US probably has the means to militarily intervene in Venezuela, but they also have much better options.

Now let’s sum this all up.

The chances are high that in 2018 the US will

  • Escalate the war in Afghanistan
  • Renege on the nuclear deal with Iran
  • Back an Ukronazi attack on Novorussia

It is quite possible that the US will also

  • Shoot down a Russian aircraft over Syria

I find it unlikely that the US will

  • Invade Syria
  • Invade Venezuela

I am unable to evaluate whether the US will:

  • Disconnect Russia from SWIFT or seize Russian assets
  • Attack the DPRK

Frankly, I am not very confident about this attempt as analyzing the possible developments in 2018. All my education has always been based on a crucial central assumption: the other guy is rational. That is a huge assumption to make, but one which was fundamentally true during the Cold War. Today I find myself inclined to think that psychologists are probably better suited to make predictions about the actions of the rulers of the AngloZionist Empire than military analysts. Furthermore, history shows us that the combination of delusional imbeciles and dishonorable cowards is what typically brings down empires, we saw a very good example of that with the collapse of the Soviet Empire.

With the latest Trump fiasco I have personally given up any hope of ever seeing a US President capable of making a positive contribution to the welfare of the people of the US or the rest of the planet. The burden now is clearly on Russia and China to do everything they can to try to stop the US from launching even more catastrophic and deeply immoral wars. That is a very, very difficult task and I frankly don’t know if they can do it. I hope so. That is the best I can say.

Posted in USAComments Off on 2018 – War or No War? The Saker

Kosherising the 9/11 Truth Movement


Image result for 9/11 CARTOON

Shoving Israel under the carpet

I have been correctly accused of remaining silent about 9/11. Although I frequently talk to 9/11 truth groups about various related topics such as Israel, Zionism and Jewish ID politics, I do not contribute to the discourse involving controlled demolitions and airplanes flying into buildings.

Engineering, construction and flying are not within my field of research. Though I am aware of many of the details to do with the 9/11 truth movement, I can’t make any original scholarly contributions in this arena.

However, there are a few areas of my study that I think are important in relation to the 9/11 truth movement:

1.     The Mossad’s motto is ‘by way of deception’ and false flag operations are deeply rooted in the Mossad’s modus operandi.

2.    The prime beneficiary of 9/11 has been Israel. It was Zio-cons who pushed for the so-called ‘war against terror.’ In the name of democracy and Coca Cola the English speaking empire has been fighting Zionist conflicts for almost two decades.

3.    Most important, be aware that controlling the opposition is at the core of Zionist survival strategy.

The last point is one of the most important conclusions I draw in my latest book, Being in Time – a Post Political Manifesto.

When self-identified Jews notice that something about their culture, ideology or politics has become a problematic topic, some Jews often form Jewish satellite dissent.  Once the Israeli Palestinian conflict evolved into a ‘Jewish problem,’ some ethically motivated Jews formed JVP (Jewish Voice for Peace), Mondoweiss and other pro-Palestinian Jewish bodies.

Within a short time these groups gained complete hegemony within the Palestinian Solidarity Movement. As soon as it became clear that the Neocon school is primarily an extended Zionist gathering and that Neocon wars are, in practice, Ziocon global conflicts, the ‘Neocon debate’ was reduced to an internal Jewish quarrel between rabid Zion-con Sam Harris and Anti-con Noam Chomsky.

But what about 9/11?

In my talks and writings I sarcastically suggest to my listeners that if Global Warming were to mature into a ‘Jewish problem,’ in a few hours we would see the formation of the newly ecologically aware ‘Jews Against Global Warming’ (JAGW I guess).  It would probably take another week before the new Jewish body would take over the Anti Global Warming Movement and start to expel the so-called ‘anti-Semites.’

This scheme applies to 9/11 truth. As soon as some noticed that the truth movement had become an emerging ‘Jewish problem,’ we could see a growing number of infiltrators attempting to steer the movement away from Israel. This transition within the truth movement has made the 9/11 truth movement of great interest to me.

 Ludwig Watzal, Elias Davidsson and the Kosher Narrative

Following the recent duplicitous slander campaign against my work in Germany run by Elias Davidsson and Ludwig Watzal, I stumbled upon their comical 9/11 spin. Countercurrents’ Are 9/11 Truthers Anti-Semites? An Interview With Elias Davidsson by Ludwig Watzal is a case study of an open, non–apologetic attempt to sabotage a movement.

Watzal writes, “Elias Davidsson is one of these ‘truthers’ who challenges the official narrative on 9/11. He is also concerned about the claim made by some ‘truthers’ that Israel was behind the attacks…”

Then we learn that Elias Davidsson is upset by Jew haters who keep referring to the  ‘dancing Israelis’ and  “the canard that 4,000 Jews, who, forewarned, did not go to work to the World Trade Center on 9/11.” Larry Silverstein is also vindicated by our 9/11 ‘truther’ because “he did not make any effort to cover his alleged tracks.

He leased the WTC just six weeks before 9/11, announced this lease to the world, insured it against terrorism for a whopping $3.2 billion and ‘admitted’ in a documentary film to have given on 9/11 the authorization to ‘pull’ WTC 7.”  According to our ‘kosher detective’ Davidsson, all this is evidence that Silverstein is innocent.

Why? Because “we have here all the requisite elements: A greedy Jew, proximity to the crime, motive. It is precisely the high visibility of Larry Silverstein as an ideal villain that makes me (Davidsson) hesitate to implicate him in the crime. His alleged complicity is simply too obvious.”

Silverstein may well be innocent, although proximity to the crime, having a motive and high visibility are not elements of ‘vindication.’ On the contrary, they justify intense scrutiny of Silverstein’s actions.

If Davidsson and Watzal had spent some time reading yours truly instead of fabricating statements and attributing them to me, they would know that I explain this. I contend that self identified Jews hardly conspire, they prefer to act in the open. Whether it is AIPAC, J-STRET, CFI, The CRIFF, Soros, Kushner or Israeli war crimes in Gaza, Jewish action is not disguised.

Jewish power, on the other hand, is the power to suppress discussion of Jewish power. Silverstein and Davidsson both provide evidence of my hypothesis. Silverstein acted in the open and Davidsson is obviously committed to suppressing discussion of Israel and Silverstein within the truth movement.

But “what might be the motives for linking Israel to 9/11?” Watzal wonders.

Davidsson answers, “who are better placed as bogeymen than Jews or Israel? The Nazis used this method with great success.”

Apparently Davidsson’s role in the truth movement is identical to JVP’s role in the Palestinian solidarity movement. The self appointed commissars are there to label as ‘Nazis’ those who do not adhere to the ‘correct’ narrative.

At this stage, I am not in any position to assess the role Israel might have played in 9/11. But I can easily evaluate Davidsson and Watzal’s kosher impetus. Both publicly attempt to steer the inquiry away from Israel or anything remotely Zionist.

Finally, Watzal asks Davidsson who did 9/11, to which Davidsson answers “I consider it beyond dispute that the US military planned and executed the mass-murder of 9/11 on behalf of the US elite (which, evidently, includes also persons of Jewish descent).”

Watzal and Davidsson inveigle to move the 9/11 movement to the realm of ‘beyond dispute,’ a territory in which Israel is clean and Silverstein has become a victim.  In Davidsson’s ‘beyond dispute’ land, once again, it is Goyim who are killing Goyim. Is it possible that both Davidsson and Watzal are too afraid of the 9/11 truth movement retaining its freedom to explore alternative narratives?

In his invaluable book Heidegger and the Jews, the French philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard suggested that history claims to tell us what really happened, but in practice, it acts to conceal our collective shame.

In the above article I come short of labelling Watzal and Davidsson as Israeli agents or controlled opposition, but it is clear ‘beyond dispute’ who and what the two are working hard to shove under the carpet.

Posted in USAComments Off on Kosherising the 9/11 Truth Movement

How Politics Shaped the Korean War


As is the case in any war, politics can be a driving force.  Militarist Carl von Clausewitz said that “war is politics by another means.”  The Korean War was no different than any other war.  Many decisions involving the conduction of the war were politically driven on both the domestic and foreign fronts.  Conversely United States’ politics was affected by the Korean War.

The United States was involved in the economic recovery of Europe at the end of World War II.  This assistance had the beginnings of anti-Russian communist intent. The Truman Doctrine promised U.S. aid to any country who sought protection from aggression, either externally or internally, by countries or factions within countries who espoused Communism.   The Truman Doctrine gave Turkey and Greece economic support but was also a doctrine of encirclement as it also included Iran, Pakistan, Japan, and China.  Also at this time the French were back in Indochina and the United States’ aid was supplied to Chiang Kai-shek for his Nationalist cause in China.

The Marshall Plan poured money into the recovery of Europe after World War II.  European countries were pleased with U.S. aid and sought assurances of total U.S. attention to their concerns.  The European nations did not want money diverted from their uses to that of the Koreans as these people fought for their freedom and reunification.  Congress sided with the European countries.  Europe also wanted assurances that the U.S. would assist in keeping Russia out of Eastern Europe.  Involvement on a second front, in the Pacific, might very well cause United States’ support to be lessened on the European front

Before U.S. involvement in Korea the Republican Party was comprised of internationalists and their counterpart isolationists.  The isolationists, under the guise of non-interventionism were support for Nazi Germany and feared that FDR’s New Deal policies were socialist in base.  Additionally, key Republicans had long term business relationships in Nazi Germany.    These businessmen and corporations used isolationist policies in an attempt to pressure the government into continuing to give them a free hand to support German war industries despite the Neutrality Act.

Though isolationists and noninterventionists were characterized as Midwestern conservatives, often of German ancestry, these groups full filled a primary purpose of influencing public opinion against American efforts against Axis intervention on a world-wide scale.

The eighty-first Congress, which Harry Truman had inherited with his Presidential win, had no intention of cooperating with its new commander-in-chief by supporting the Truman Doctrine or the Marshall Plan.   The conservatives did not share Truman’s or Secretary of State Marshall’s enthusiasm for a program for containment of Communism.   Republicans wanted an end to the graduated income tax, no labor unions, an end to the social security system, end of antitrust legislation, and a foreign policy based on the use of military force in support of American economic interests. Conservative Democrats (Dixiecrats) wanted   continued restriction of voting franchise, an implementation of a national police force with broad powers of search and seizure, control of the press, arrest and detention without habeas corpus, recognition and implementation of a national religion that is Christian, Protestant, Evangelistic and xenophobic with mandated prayer in schools and direct financial support for religious institutions, the creation of a secondary level of citizenship based on race, religion, national origin, political beliefs, and a series of physiological and intellectual criteria, and restriction of women’s rights and the enfranchisement of women.. This is the traditional Republican agenda.

The collapse of the Nationalist China gave the Republicans fuel against the Democrats.  The United States wrote the China White Papers to state its attitude towards the Communist versus Nationalist civil war in China.  The U.S. denied any responsibility for the loss of mainland China to the Communists, but the Republicans issued a public statement that the U.S. withheld weapons from the Nationalist Chinese and placed Asia in danger of being consumed by Communism.   The Republican Party wanted Kai-shek returned to mainland China and did not want the Truman Administration to recognize Red China.   The China White Paper states that “social and political upheavals within China gave Communists the country.”    Republicans blamed the results on pro-Communists in both Roosevelt’s and Truman’s administrations and further declared that these pro-Communist groups gave China to the Communists.

Senator Joseph McCarthy attacked the State Department and accused it of being pro-Communist and responsible of Mao’s victory in China.  McCarthy said, “In my opinion the State Department, which is one of the most important government departments, is thoroughly infested with Communists.”   The explosion of Russia’s first atomic bomb and the conviction of Alger Hiss for perjury after declaring he had never been in the Communist party all increased the pervading fear or distrust of Communism.

A Congressional election was approaching for November 1950 and the Republicans decided the most effective way to win more seats in Congress was by opposing the current administration. Congress was often divided on acceptable policies in dealing with the Korean War.   This political body alternately advocated the opposite positions of complete withdrawal from the Korean Peninsula or the waging of an all-out war against China.   An all-out war at this time would have meant global war.  “The Congressional Republicans throughout the 1950-1953 periods were seriously divided over the question of transforming the unification of Korea from a political to a military goal.

David Rees, author of Korea: The Limited War states that “The Korean decision was primarily a political decision in the Jeffersonian tradition of American idealism.”   The U.S. interest in Korea went beyond disgust of the Communist invasion of Korea, a defenseless country.

A limited war is a political war in that the home government’s political demands restrain the military.   The U.S. at times favored a limited war despite the military wishes for all-out war.  The three reasons why the U.S. decided to conduct a limited war were that they did not want to provoke Russia to enter the war, did not want to overextend in Korea and leave Europe vulnerable, and the U.S. allies were reluctant to expand the war.  The Republican dominated Eightieth Congress cut defense spending and delayed appropriating money for the army in 1949.  This was why the U.S. withdrew from South Korea in September of 1947.  Congress withheld monies again when it refused to give $60 million more in 1950 and 1951.  Without money armies cannot be maintained.

In the early part of the war the congressional Republicans approved of U.S. actions of moving into Korea.  Republican Senator Knowland warned of a Munich-like appeasement.  He vowed that if Korea fell to Communism, then all of Asia would be threatened.    He referred to appeasement as surrender on the installment plan. Republican Alexander Smith of New Jersey said,” We Republicans to a man—while we have been critical of the Far Eastern policy of the past—are united now with the administration.   While some Republicans were behind the administration, McCarthy was spouting that any failure of foreign policy was due to Communists within the State Department.

Eventually Republicans rallied around McCarthy and also joined in the anti-communist rhetoric.  Even Democrats voted for anti-subversive legislation.   There were witch hunts for Communists in the United States including the State Department.  Public demand for anti-Communist and anti-subversive legislature encouraged both Republicans and Democrats to vote for these measures.  The anti-communism band wagon seemed like a good ride as the elections of 1950 approached.  The Republicans planned to unseat the Democrats in Congress.

Republican charges of subversion in the administration colored foreign policy in the Far East.  By the summer of 1950 Truman had rejected peace efforts by India and England.  Then the administration used the conflict to achieve policy objectives in Europe.   The peace efforts of both India and England included the acceptance of People’s Republic of China into the United Nations as well as Korean War settlement. England wanted to maintain good relations with China for her own economic reasons.   If the administration had shown a willingness to accept Communist China, the Republicans would have used this to prove that there were Communists in the Administration as well as the State Department.  Public opinion in the U.S. was in favor of not accepting India’s peace initiative.

Republicans had allocated a tremendous amount of money for military aid in South Korea in October, 1949.  This money was to be used to build Korea’s army, but was never used for this purpose.  This would have been due to the reservations of the administration to give Rhee an army to use at his own discretion.  The administration was concerned that Rhee would take this army and attack North Korea and this would bring China and Russia into the fight.

The republicans had started to “prey on the fears of the electorate in times of crisis for the sake of political gain.”   The conspiracy group in Congress started to say that the U.S. had deliberately lost Manchuria, China, Korea, and Berlin in a loss of strategic areas throughout the world.   Republicans played on the U.S. population’s mounting fear of Communism within the U.S. as well as through out the world.

Truman asked Congress to “…remove the limitations on size of armed forces…authorize the establishment of priorities and allocations of materials to prevent hoarding and requisitioning of necessary supplies…raise taxes and restrict consumer credit…and (allocate) an additional ten billion for defense.”    The authority to control prices, wages, and distribution of consumer goods at retail level vested in the President more arbitrary power over lives of American people than any other legislation past or present.   Republicans demanded a cut in domestic spending and protested the increase powers the President would have.

The major fact that Truman did not consult with Congress before committing troops to Korea affected the 1950 Congressional elections.  If he had consulted them, hoping they would approve, those opposed to the way the conflict was going would have not be able to place blame on Truman and call the conflict Truman’s War.

Republican Senator Taft called for votes for the GOP in order to stop Communism on the home front, “creeping socialism” as well as high taxes and inflation.    Finger pointing at the Democrats in essence said that Democrats are why we have this problem with Communism and that is a good reason to get them out of Congress.

By 1950 the Republicans were supporting American intervention in Korea and aligned themselves with the “no substitute for victory” mentality of McArthur while at other times calling for withdrawal from Korea.  Congress professed to want intervention in Korea but withheld funds necessary to keep an army there.    It is possible that Truman may have thought about the political consequences of his acts, but this did not stop him from doing what he thought was necessary.  The policies changed from time to time and at times there seem to be some confusion as to which policy or military strategy was appropriate and would be successful. The Republicans used McCarthyism to create fear of Communism to turn the public against the administration. This was done strictly for partisan reasons and to affect elections.

By the 1952 Presidential election, the real intent of the Republican Party was visible.  Despite at one time wanting both the U.S. out of Korea and supporting McArthur’s all out policy they nominated a military hero who had no plan for ending the war even though his platform was against unification at times and all out military policy.  The Republican Party was not consistent in what it thought the U.S. should do and did not present a working alternative, thus what they did was for political maneuvering. Foreign politics put pressure on the United States to abandon financial aid to Korea to assist it in its fight for independence and reunification.  American politics did affect the Korean War, but not to the extent that the Republicans would have wished. Truman was able to conduct the war as he saw fit.  Domestic politics did bring a Republican President to the White House, but not one whose policies differed that much from the outgoing President’s.


Caridi, Ronald J.  The Korean War and American Politics: The Republican Party as a Case Study.  Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1968. pp. 3,5,11,12,15,21,29,55,98

Congressional Record, June 26, 1950. p. 9158

Congressional Record, July 5, 1950. p. 9666

Congressional Record, Aug. 14, 1950. p. 12400

Congressional Record, Sept. 5, 1950. p. 14214

Duff, Gordon.  Historian.

Goldman, Eric.  The Crucial Decade and After. New York, 1960. p. 142

Highman, Charles.  Trading With the Enemy:The Nazi-American Money  Plot 1933-1949.  New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1983. pp. XV-XiX.,7

Kaufman, Burton I.  The Korean War: Challenges in Crisis, Credibility, and Command.  New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1986. pp. 52, 55

Rees, David. Korea: The Limited War. New York, 1964. p. 11

Reeves, Thomas C.  Life and Times of Joe McCarthy.  New York, 1982. pp. 305-314

The New York Times, January 4, 1950, pp. 1 & 6

Truman Memoirs II. pp. 329, 348

Posted in North Korea, South KoreaComments Off on How Politics Shaped the Korean War

US media lies about Iran protests — just like in 1953


Who are today’s “Icy Ramadans” and “Brainless Shabans”?

Shaban Jafari, a.k.a. Shaban Beemokh (Brainless), was an important figure in Iranian contemporary history. For more than half a century he has been commonly known as a thug who led his men against opponents of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, notably during the 1953 coup. His spiritual and political descendants are still committing CIA-funded treason in Iran.

By Kevin BarrettVeterans Today Editor

“Stop the presses! Spontaneous protests, driven by economic woes and anti-leadership wrath, are about to bring down Iran’s government!”

That’s what the Mockingbird media told us in August 1953. They rehashed the story in 2009. And now they’re singing the same old tired refrain.


The “spontaneous protests” of 1953 were anything but. As documented in The Coup by Ervand Abrahamian, the CIA hired the two biggest gangsters of the South Tehran ghetto,  “Icy Ramadan” and “Brainless Shaban,” to mobilize rent-a-mobs. That’s right, the two leading “Iranian anti-government protest organizers” of 1953 were CIA-sponsored hoodlums named Icy and Brainless. They were the icy, brainless brains behind protests scripted by the CIA to show that the people of Iran hated Mosaddegh.

In fact, most of the Iranian people liked Mossadegh. They never forgave the US for destroying their democratically-elected government. In 1979, they overthrew the US-Zionist puppet regime headed by the CIA’s torturer-in-chief, the Shah. Iran has been a democratic, independent, Islamic, socialist country ever since.

The US media lied through its teeth in 1953. Abrahamian’s book shows that American correspondents in Tehran were rolling on the floor laughing at the absurdity of the claims of popular support for the CIA’s anti-Mossadegh movement led by Icy & Brainless. But they dutifully reported the scripted lies about the people of Iran supposedly rising up against their government. If they didn’t, America’s biggest newspapers and TV networks just rewrote the stories to match the CIA script.

The same scenario played out again in 2009. The CIA and its Soros-funded allies hired slightly more genteel rent-a-mobs to try to do to the populist Ahmadinejad—who had just won a fair and honest election—what they had done to Mossadegh. The result this time was very different. Most of the Iranian people made it clear that they had no use for the latest CIA attempt at a Color Revolution.


The New York Times, one of the worst liars of 1953, is rehashing the same script, saying that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei (like Mossadegh in 1953) has been a target of the protesters.” The whole Western Zionist-dominated MSM is casting the protests as aimed at overthrowing the Islamic Republic. This is complete nonsense – but it is in the CIA script, so I guess they have to keep saying it.

Turnout at the nationwide pro-government rallies held in more than 1200 cities was estimated in the low millions: a mountain compared to the foothills of anti-austerity protests, and the molehills of CIA-sponsored anti-Revolution sedition and rioting.

In fact, the relatively modest numbers of anti-government protestors have been mainly pro-Ahmadinejad populists who are unhappy about current president Rouhani’s mild rollback of socialism. Some of these protests have been hijacked with violence and sedition by small numbers of Icy Ramadans and Brainless Shabans. The Western media has relentlessly focussed on the messages of the CIA-Mossad provocateurs, even though they represent a tiny fraction of the anti-government (i.e. anti-Rouhani) protestors, who themselves are vastly outnumbered by the pro-government demonstrations that have followed.


*Very large numbers of people are in the streets supporting their system of government, the Islamic Republic, and to a lesser extent certain leaders currently in power under that system.

*Modest but significant numbers of people, beginning with Ahmedinejad supporters and other populists, have been protesting economic stagnation and “austerity” (Rouhani’s mild rollback of socialism).

*Small numbers of people, led by today’s versions of Icy & Brainless, have been smashing things up, burning things down, insulting the Supreme Leader, and calling for the overthrow of the Islamic Republic.

If the 2018 versions of Icy & Brainless (and their CIA-Mossad backers) have their way, Iran will go the way of Libya and Syria: to hell in a proverbial handbasket. Trump’s BS about “regime change” for the alleged benefit of the Iranian people is just as mendacious as Obama’s and Hillary’s claims that they were helping the Libyan and Syrian peoples by destroying their governments and societies—and before that, Bush’s claim that he was “liberating” the people of Iraq by destroying that country.

As Gen. Clark told us, 9/11 was staged to trigger the destruction of “seven countries in five years.” Iran is the biggest target on that list. But so far the Iranian people and their elected representatives (a category that includes the Supreme Leader, who is elected by an advisory council that is itself elected by the people) have been smart enough to ward off destruction while remaining independent—and continuing to support Palestine.

It’s no coincidence that the “Iranian unrest” immediately followed Trump’s move on Jerusalem. Israel is trying to finish the job it started on 9/11: The destruction of every independent country in the region. It is using the American government it captured on 9/11 to pursue the total destruction of the Middle East on behalf of Israel.

Will Islamic Iran, a key player in the emerging multipolar world, defeat the Zionist war on the Muslim East…perhaps with behind-the-scenes help from Russia, China, and other players who are fed up with the unipolar Anglo-Zionist Empire?

2018 is already shaping up as a very interesting year.

Posted in IranComments Off on US media lies about Iran protests — just like in 1953

David and Goliath battle continues in Yemen to the shame of Saudi partners

The US cannot sit in judgement on anyone after what it has done in Syria and Yemen

Mike Pence cancels Middle East trip – original title

Are we maybe re-living biblical times?

[ Note: Press TV Programs tapes its interviews for editing into a fast paced news feature, so one never knows what parts of your contribution they will use. Sometimes it is just one clip, but for this one I got three in a ten minute program.

It’s always nice to have more time as reporting on these complex wars is much harder to do really just using sound bites. So the pressure is on guests to pack as much information as they can into helping the public understand what is really going on.

Mining ironies is one of my tactics, like Trump pretending he is all for freedom and people’s rights in Iran when he has a heart of stone when it comes to the people Yemen, Syria, Donbass, the Palestinians, etc. The man is a three dollar bill.

We Americans have to find a way to rub these threat frauds into the faces of those who are the real threats, despite their efforts to steer us all over a mirage cliff to remove us as opposition.

But as long as Trump is there, we won’t be going anywhere, as Trump and his gang of hoodlums, those in public view and those not, are going to keep us busy as long as he disgraces the White house with his presence and his tweeting.

VT might start collecting funds for a Trump Wall the size of the Vietnam Memorial where we can have all of his silly tweets carved into stone just in case his Israeli friends find a way to erase them from Twitter …JD ]

Video below

Yes, kids are fighting in Yemen

– First aired … December 27, 2017 –

These are the headlines we are tracking for you in this episode of On the News Line:

US VP cancels Middle East trip 

It appears the US underestimated the rebuttal and push back on their decision to recognize Jeruslame al-Quds as Israel’s capital.

The US VP Mike Pence had to cancel his trip to the Mid-east again. Previously the PA president Mahmoud Abbas refused to meet him after Trump’s decision on al-Quds.

Video Player

Ansarullah fighters capabilities

Reports have surfaced that the Saudi bombing campaign on Yemen is not the only powerful force. Dozens of Saudi-led coalition military aircraft in addition to hundreds of battle tanks and armored vehicles have been destroyed by the Ansarullah fighters.

That may explain why the US just recently announced that they were pushing everybody to move into a political process as quickly, including the Ansurallah movement.

Posted in YemenComments Off on David and Goliath battle continues in Yemen to the shame of Saudi partners

Iranians to Trump and warmongers: Iran ain’t for sale


Paul Sheldon Foote of Cal-State Fullerton, probably the leading authoritative source in the United States on the MEK, and its presently functional relationship with the Israeli Mossad and elements in the American intelligence community, has publicly stated via his own sources that the MEK is the leading tool of Israeli intelligence and American Neo-Conservatives in the latter’s espionage agencies in launching acts of destabilization and violence directed at Iran’s current government and conducted illegally within Iranian borders.

…by Jonas E. Alexis and Mark Dankof

Mark Dankof is the former 36th District Chairman of the Republican Party in King County/Seattle. He was an elected delegate to Texas State Republican Conventions in 1994 and 1996 and entered the United States Senate race in Delaware in 2000 as the nominated candidate of the Constitution Party against Democratic candidate Thomas Carper and Republican incumbent William Roth.

Jonas E. Alexis: Right after a massive protest in Iran a few days ago, Donald Trump tweeted: “Iran is failing at every level despite the terrible deal made with them by the Obama Administration. The great Iranian people have been repressed for many years. They are hungry for food & for freedom. Along with human rights, the wealth of Iran is being looted. TIME FOR CHANGE!”[1]

He obviously got this “time for change” message from Benjamin Netanyahu, who previously advocated regime change in Iran. Netanyahu said: “When this regime [the Iranian government] finally falls, and one day it will, Iranians and Israelis will be great friends once again.”[2]

In another tweet, Trump said: “The entire world understands that the good people of Iran want change, and, other than the vast military power of the United States, that Iran’s people are what their leaders fear the most…Oppressive regimes cannot endure forever, and the day will come when the Iranian people will face a choice. The World is watching!”

A few days later, another massive protest ensued in Iran. But this time the protesters were supporting the Iranian government and the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. Places like Ahvaz, Kermanshah, Bushehr, Abadan, Gorgan and Qom, were flooded with protesters essentially sending a message to Trump, warmongers, and covert operators in the region. “Leader, we are ready!,” the protesters said. “We offer the blood in our veins to our Leader.” And then this: “Death to seditionists.”[3]

The Ayatollah Khamenei didn’t help seditionists and warmongers when he said that the protest was fueled by “enemies of Iran,” who used “money, weapons, politics and security apparatus.”[4] President Hassan Rouhani implicated the Saudi government in the protest against Iran as well, saying that “They [the Saudis] have blatantly said that we will create problems in Tehran.”[5] Rouhani added:

“Our success in the political arena against the United States and the Zionist regime was unbearable to [Iran’s enemies]. Iran’s success in the region was unbearable to them. Don’t you expect that they would seek revenge? Don’t you think they would provoke some people?”[6]

Trump, who would love to see the Iranian government overthrown, declared that Iranians have “little food, big inflation and no human rights,” and the protest shows that Iranians are rising “against the brutal and corrupt Iranian regime.”[7]

Let’s suppose that Trump is right here. But why doesn’t he say the same thing about Saudi Arabia, who is still liquidating tens of thousands of men, women and children in Yemen? Trump is pretentiously showing compassion toward the Iranians, but Yemeni children do not deserve the same compassion and love? Who is this man really fooling? The mass media? The vast majority of Americans?

Even Newsweek itself published an article last September titled: “Saudi Arabia is bombing Yemen but blames humanitarian disaster on Iran-backed Houthis.”[8] Take it from the same Zionist organ:

“Since the war in Yemen began more than two years ago, more than 10,000 civilians have been killed, and some 3 million have been displaced. According to the World Health Organization, an unprecedented cholera outbreak is now ravaging a growing percentage of the country, with 500,000 known cases and 2,000 dead.

“WHO estimates by the end of the year, 600,000 Yemenis—that’s one in every 45 people in the country—will come down with cholera. The U.N. now calls Yemen the world’s greatest humanitarian disaster. Yet it’s a preventable, man-made catastrophe that’s directly the result of the war that the Saudi-led coalition is waging in Yemen.”[9]

Now Trump wants to talk about Iran’s human rights abuse, while he is still in cahoots with the Saudis?

Moreover, why didn’t he tweet about the protesters who supported the Iranian government? Why didn’t he say something like, “The Iranian government needs to protect those people as well”? Wouldn’t that show his impartiality?

You see, the “democracy” and “freedom” ideology that New World Order agents like Trump are propounding is nothing but a smokescreen designed to corrupt the masses. It is what scholar Christopher Simpson would have called psychological warfare. Simpson writes in his study The Science of Coercion: Communication Research and Psychological Warfare, 1945-1960:

“At heart modern psychological warfare has been a tool for managing empire, not for settling conflicts in any fundamental sense…In practice modern psychological warfare and propaganda have only rarely offered ‘alternatives’ to violence over the medium-to-long term.

“Instead, they have been an integral part of a strategy and culture whose premise is the rule of the strong at the expense of the weak, where coercion and manipulation pose as ‘communication’ and close off opportunity for other, more genuine, forms of understanding.”[10]

As we all know, psychological warfare is not only able to strike fear among the enemy and “deprive him of the support of his allies and neutrals,” but it also has the potential to “increase in our troops and allies the will to victory.”[11]

Moreover, in a psychological war, any weapon, including lies and fabrications, can be employed in order to influence the mass media. To put it in Christopher Simpson’s words, “In this light, overt (white), covert (black), and gray propaganda” is possible.

Moreover, “sabotage,” “special operations,” “guerilla warfare,” “espionage,” “political, cultural, economic, and racial pressure are all effective weapons. They are effective because they produce dissension, distrust, fear and hopelessness in the minds of the enemy.”[12] White propaganda has a heavy emphasis on “repetition,” and “it is designed to be perceived by its audience as truthful, balanced, and factual.”

Black propaganda, however, “stresses trouble, confusion…and terror. A variation of black propaganda tactics involves forging enemy documents and distributing them to target audiences as a means of discrediting rival powers.”[13]

This theory was postulated prior to the war in Iraq. It is interesting to observe that this was exactly what happened when the Neoconservative machine mobilized the nation to go to war with Iraq. They spread fear among decent Americans—fear that Saddam was coming, that Iraq had WMDs, that Iraq was the greatest threat to the security of the United States, that terrorism was all across the world and must be fought—and those precious folks had no choice but to support former President Bush to go to war.

The power of this form of psychological warfare had not abated even in 2012,[14] as warmongers in the Wall Street Journal were claiming that allowing a nuclear Iran would be far more costly in the long run than attacking it.[15] Mark Dankof, tell us something about how Israel has infiltrated Iran in the past through terrorist cells such as MEK.

Mark Dankof: Information from non-classified sources is circumstantial but overwhelmingly strong.  Dr. Paul Sheldon Foote of Cal-State Fullerton, probably the leading authoritative source in the United States on the MEK, and its presently functional relationship with the Israeli Mossad and elements in the American intelligence community, has publicly stated via his own sources that the MEK is the leading tool of Israeli intelligence and American Neo-Conservatives in the latter’s espionage agencies in launching acts of destabilization and violence directed at Iran’s current government and conducted illegally within Iranian borders.

Foote identifies the PJAK, the offshoot of the Kurdish separatist PKK, and the Jundallah, as the other elements in this dangerous game. The MEK’s fingerprints in Tehran are joined by what seems to be a cooperative relationship with PJAK directed against the Iranian government in efforts launched from northeast Iraq and the Qandil Mountains and directed against Iranian Azerbaijan.

And suspicious terror activities in Khuzestan and Diyala Provinces in recent years seem to be augmented by bomb blasts and terror killings in Balochistan Province in Iran where it appears that the MEK’s partner-in-crime is the Jundallah based in Pakistan.

But again, the Hidden Hand is comprised of the obvious, bigger ultimate players and assets. The increase in PKK attacks on Turkey since May 2009 coincides exactly with the corresponding time frames of the Turkish government’s public beefs with Israel over the Mavi Marmara shoot-up and other formal Erdogan government protests against the actions of the Netanyahu regime in Gaza and elsewhere.

What does this tell any of us? But for the Israeli Mossad, the American CIA, the British MI6, and their respective Commanders-in-Chief, the operative concept is “plausible deniability.”

America & Israel worked with MEK.

Mainstream American governmental and media sources confirm publicly that the MEK is the source of the information being used by pro-Israeli American Neo-Conservatives to argue for a military attack on Iran to preemptively strike the latter’s alleged weaponized nuclear program and its supposed desire to use it against Israel.

It is noteworthy that this “information” contradicts the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report prepared by the 16 intelligence agencies of the American national security establishment regarding Iran and its nuclear program.

Worse yet, there have been repeated allegations in the international press corroborated by Israel’s critics in the American intelligence community that these MEK-generated reports and the lies in them being repeated incessantly by every War Party news agency from CNN to Fox News, World Net Daily, The Weekly Standard, NewsMax, and National Review, are in fact nothing more than the Israeli government’s brokering of deliberate agitation-propaganda to the voluminously gullible and ignorant consumers of these well-packaged charades which employ the MEK as the broker.

In essence, it would appear to be the case beyond a shadow of a doubt that the MEK is playing the same Judas Goat role for the American and Israeli intelligence establishments that the Iraqi National Congress (INC) and Ahmad Chalabi did with their brokered nonsense before the last American invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein possessed “Weapons of Mass Destruction.”

This is a critical angle to this present story involving the MEK. Why should the people of the United States and honest policy makers in Washington (all 10 of them?) now believe sources on Iran in 2011 with every motive for lying and a past record of doing so, especially in the last ten years?

After the last assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist in Tehran, Newsweek magazine all but confirmed the role of the Mossad and the MEK in that murder (and the previous episodes as well).[16]  The coverage was preposterously positive regarding these killings.

To put into perspective just how this ruthless game is played, your readers may find it interesting that when the late Sidney Harman owned Newsweek, his wife was California Democratic Congressman Jane Harman, a member of the House Intelligence Committee.  According to Pat Buchanan, Mrs. Harman was overheard on an American National Security Agency (NSA) wiretap assuring some Israelis at the other end of the conversation that she would use her considerable and covert influence on Capitol Hill to have American prosecutors drop their espionage case against Weissman and Rosen of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) for illegally obtaining classified National Security Council (NSC) documents on Iran from one Larry Franklin, so-called NSC expert on Iran.

This is just one example of how American financial, political, and media power always seems to intersect when it comes to the subject of Israel. And since Israel and the MEK are now full business partners in directing their animus at Iran, the MEK will draw an increasingly free pass in the American media and government, as long as they are doing the Mossad and Israeli Lobby’s bidding.

All of this of course, increases the moral bankruptcy of this policy mix exponentially, when considered in conjunction with the clearly established fact that Israel is the weaponized nuclear monolith of the Middle East; has never and presumably will never submit to any form of international inspection of its nuclear program, not to mention its known stockpile of every biological and chemical warfare agent known to humanity;[17] while the Zionist State’s policies in Occupied Territories and Gaza, as evidenced by its military assault on the civilian Mavi Marmara humanitarian flotilla in international waters in May of 2009, and the earlier Operation Cast Lead in Gaza,[18] are the acts of an increasingly desperate entity led by a criminal cabal of sociopaths.

If the United States is worrying about nuclear weapons in the hands of the wrong people, it should start with taking a hard look at our leading “ally” in the region. But the money trail will keep that from ever happening.

  • [1] James Phillips, “Protests in Iran: Beyond the Tweets, What Trump Should Do Now,” Newsweek, January 3, 2018.
  • [2] “Netanyahu predicts Iran regime change, denies Israel’s involvement in protests,” Russia Today, January 2, 2018.
  • [3] “‘Leader, we’re ready!’ 10,000s march in Iran in support of govt & Khamenei,” Russia Today, January 3, 2018.
  • [4] Ibid.
  • [5] Ibid.
  • [6] “Netanyahu predicts Iran regime change, denies Israel’s involvement in protests,” Russia Today, January 2, 2018.
  • [7] “‘Leader, we’re ready!’ 10,000s march in Iran in support of govt & Khamenei,” Russia Today, January 3, 2018.
  • [8] Jonathan Broder, “Saudi Arabia is bombing Yemen but blames humanitarian disaster on Iran-backed Houthis,” Newsweek, September 21, 2017.
  • [9] Ibid.
  • [10] Christopher Simpson, The Science of Coercion: Communication Research and Psychological Warfare, 1945-1960 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 8.
  • [11] Ibid., 12.
  • [12] Ibid.
  • [13] Ibid.
  • [14] Robert Fisk, “A Word of Advice About the Middle East—We’ve Reached the ‘Tipping Point’ with Cliches,” Independent, Dec. 24, 2012.
  • [15] John Allen Gray, “Should We Bomb Iran to Save Money?,” National Interest, Dec. 27, 2012.
  • [16] For further studies, see Michael Bar-Zoha and Nissim Mishal, Mossad: The Greatest Missions of the Israeli Secret Service (New York: Harper Collins, 2012); Dan Raviv and Yossi Melman, Spies Against Armageddon: Inside Israel’s Secret Wars (New York: Levant Books, 2012).
  • [17] For further studies on this, see Avner Cohen, Israel and the Bomb (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998); The Worst-Kept Secret: Israel’s Bargain with the Bomb (New York: Columbia University Press, 2010); Michael Karpin, The Bomb in the Basement: How Israel Went Nuclear and What That Means for the World (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006).
  • [18] Norman Finkelstein, Method and Madness: The Hidden Story of Israel’s Assaults on Gaza (New York: OR Books, 2015).

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI, IranComments Off on Iranians to Trump and warmongers: Iran ain’t for sale

The Trump administration’s “Seven Forbidden Words”

Trump Newspeak

By Lawrence Davidson
On the uses of censorship

There is a scene in George Orwell’s famous dystopian novel 1984, where the protagonist, Winston Smith, is having a conversation with a philologist by the name of Syme. Syme is involved in a government effort to restructure the language spoken by the novel’s upper classes, those who have power or work for the ruling party. The language is called “Newspeak”. Syme’s job is to get rid of dangerous words. Here is how he describes his task:

We’re destroying words – scores of them, hundreds of them, every day… The whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought. In the end we shall make thoughtcrime [having unorthodox thoughts] literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.

Now let’s shift to another scene, not a literary or fictional scene, but a probable real life one.

Sometime in the month of December 2017, somewhere in the bowels of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in Washington, DC, a high-level appointee of the Trump administration moved to take ideological control of the agency’s budget-writing process. This official presented a directive to the agency’s departments, such as the Centres for Disease Control (CDC), listing seven words that were not to be used in budget preparation. If they were, they would be flagged and the document sent back for “correction”. The seven “forbidden” words are: “vulnerable”, “entitlement”, “diversity”. “transgender”, “fetus”, “evidence-based” and “science-based”.

If fully effective, this attempt at censorship… could contribute to undermining several generations of cultural progress, and challenge the “science-based” methodology that serves as a foundation for the modern world.

The higher-ups at the HHS have insisted that there is no “ban” in place. Departments like the CDC can still do research in areas to which these unwelcome key words relate. But this disclaimer is misleading. To do the research you need money, and the money comes from the budget. The “discouragement” of key words is meant to marginalise their related research agendas. If fully effective, this attempt at censorship – for that is what it is – could contribute to undermining several generations of cultural progress, and challenge the “science-based” methodology that serves as a foundation for the modern world.

We already know that President Trump has no time for facts that differ from his personal worldview. That is why the US is not part of the “science-based” treaty to slow down global warming. We also already know that he does not think minorities (both racial/ethnic and sexual) deserve protection under the law. These and other prejudices, worn so publicly by the president of the United States, have let loose a revolt of religious and social reactionaries, perhaps numerically represented by the 33 per cent of Americans who approve of Trump’s performance. These folks would take the country back to a time of discrimination, segregation and scientific know-nothingness. And for Trump these folks are the only ones who really count. He has recently declared that unfavourable polls are “fake news“. This is Trump “making America great again”.

It appears that one way Trump and his allies think this can be done is by censoring the language used by the people in power and those who work for them. As the computer engineer and writer Jem Berkes points out in reference to 1984, “the ultimate aim of Newspeak is to enclose people in an orthodox pseudo-reality and isolate them from the real world”. Sounds a lot like what is happening at HHS.

Can censorship work?

Can this work? It probably already has among the roughly one-third of adult Americans who are sympathetic to Trump’s ultimate aims. These include many Christian fundamentalists and various racist conservative sects, the “alt-right” and Fox TV talking heads. Among those who are of the opposite point of view, both cultural and political progressives, there is no chance that this proposed “orthodoxy” will go unchallenged. Many of this latter group are old enough to remember what the president’s “great America” once looked like – for instance, what life was like before the civil rights acts. And many of those who can see through Trump’s double-talk, of whatever age, have an instinctive preference for equality, fairness and clear thinking.

However, between these two opposing groups lies the insulated masses – the millions who pay little attention to politics and know little of the importance of science. These folks, focused on their day-to-day concerns, are essentially isolated in their localness. They have no sense of what is presently at stake, and therefore find it difficult to think critically about the Trump agenda. For this group, skewing language may well result in skewing their worldview. It is probably from the thinking of this segment of the population that Trump and his agents want to ultimately eliminate the values represented by the “seven forbidden words” and all that they mean for social policy.

Thus, the end game is no more thinking of society and its problems in terms of citizen diversity, minority vulnerability or entitlement based on proven need. For instance, citizens are not to think that sexual minorities are in need of legal protections. Indeed, the country’s LGBT population turns out to have less right to protection than an unborn fetus. In addition, citizens are to no longer to pay heed to evidence-based and science-based arguments when they may call into question the practices of alleged societal customs.

Trump’s use of language

You might find the scenario laid out above farfetched. Yet it correlates well with the way Trump uses language, as well as his devaluing of any objective standard for truth. Thus, Trump’s persistent combination of gross exaggeration and “alternative facts” gives many of his public statements an Orwellian odour.

In his ghost-written book The Art of the Deal, Trump is quoted as stating that “if you tell people a lie three times, they will believe anything”. No doubt he has told himself this more than three times, for he now seems to live his public life by this tenet. There are fantastic and untrue self-aggrandising claims such as, because of the changes Trump is initiating, our children will grow up in a nation of miracles”, and we have done more in five months than practically any president in history”. There are also fantastic and untrue negative claims such as some three million votes were cast illegally in the presidential election – all of them apparently for Hillary Clinton, and “[President] Obama founded ISIS, literally. According to The Washington Post’s Fact Check project, “President Trump has made 1,318 false or misleading claims over [his first] 263 days [in office]. Many of these claims are repeated over and over again – significantly more than three times.


Forbidding specific terminology from the budget language of HHS departments constitutes one avenue of attack against those who refuse to believe Trump’s innumerable lies. You might not believe his fantasies, but you are not to use “evidence-based” counter-arguments if you operate within the executive branch bureaucracies he ultimately controls.

Of course, the implicit censorship inherent in ideology has always played a role in US politics. And, the ultra-conservative ideology behind the “seven forbidden words” gambit has been around for a long time. It dominated economic policy until the New Deal and social policy until the Civil Rights Movement. By modern standards it brought disaster in both realms. So why would anyone want it back? Maybe because the aims of greater economic and racial/ethnic equality make some white citizens feel disempowered and uncomfortable. One way to address that discomfort is to turn the clock back. To do this, you just restructure reality by labelling those parts that you don’t like as “fake”. Trump does this almost daily.

The strategy of eliminating the official use of words like “diversity”, “vulnerable”, “entitlement”, “transgender”, “evidence-based”, “science-based” and “fetus” is part of this effort to turn the clock back. Maybe then, so the story goes, with no words to express these concepts, the uncritical minds of our time will be – as Syme the philologist predicts – unable to think unorthodox thoughts.

Posted in USAComments Off on The Trump administration’s “Seven Forbidden Words”

The Real Reason Washington Is Worried About North Korea’s ICBM Test


The Real Reason Washington Is Worried About North Korea’s ICBM Test. An Effective Self-Defense?

With its ICBM test signaling its capability to retaliate against US aggression, North Korea has made clear that the United States’ seven decades long effort to topple its government may never come to fruition—a blow against US despotism, and an advance for peace, and for democracy on a world scale

This article first appeared on GR in July 2017.

A number of countries have recently tested ballistic or cruise missiles and a handful, not least Russia and China, possess nuclear-tipped ICBMs capable of striking the United States. And yet the missiles and nuclear weapons program of only one of these countries, North Korea, arouses consternation in Washington.

What makes tiny North Korea, within its miniscule defense budget, and rudimentary nuclear arsenal and missile capability, a threat so menacing that “worry has spread in Washington and the United Nations”? [1]

“The truth,” it has been said, “is often buried on the front page of The New York Times.” [2] This is no less true of the real reason Washington frets about North Korea’s missile tests.

Image result for David E. Sanger

David E. Sanger (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

In a July 4, 2017 article titled “What can Trump do about North Korea? His options are few and risky,” reporter David E. Sanger, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the unofficial think-tank of the US State Department, reveals why Washington is alarmed by North Korea’s recent test launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile.

“The fear,” writes Sanger, “is not that [North Korean leader] Mr. Kim would launch a pre-emptive attack on the West Coast; that would be suicidal, and if the North’s 33-year-old leader has demonstrated anything in his five years in office, he is all about survival.”

Washington’s alarm, according to Sanger, is that “Mr. Kim [now] has the ability to strike back.” In other words, Pyongyang has acquired the means of an effective self-defense. That, writes Sanger, makes North Korea “a dangerous regime.”

Indeed, to a world hegemon like the United States, any renitent foreign government that refuses to place itself in the role of vassal becomes “a dangerous regime,” which must be eliminated. Accordingly, allowing pro-independence North Korea to develop the means to more effectively defend itself against US imperialist ambitions has no place in Washington’s playbook. The United States has spent the past 70 years trying to integrate the tiny, plucky, country into its undeclared empire. Now, with North Korea’s having acquired the capability to retaliate against US military aggression in a manner that would cause considerable harm to the US homeland, the prospects of those seven-decades of investment bearing fruit appear dim.

US hostility to North Korean independence has been expressed in multifarious ways over the seven decades of North Korea’s existence.

A three-year US-led war of aggression, from 1950 to 1953, exterminated 20 percent of North Korea’s population and burned to the ground every town in the country [3], driving the survivors into subterranean shelters, in which they lived and worked. US General Douglas MacArthur said of the destruction the United States visited upon North Korea that

“I have never seen such devastation…After I looked at the wreckage and those thousands of women and children and everything, I vomited.” [4]

A vicious seven-decades-long campaign of economic warfare, aimed at crippling the country’s economy, and engendering attendant miseries among its people, has conferred upon North Korea the unhappy distinction of being the most heavily sanctioned nation on earth. Nestled among the tranches of US sanctions are those that have been imposed because North Korea has chosen “a Marxist-Leninist economy,” [5] revealing what lies at the root of US hostility to the country.

For decades, North Koreans have lived under a US nuclear Sword of Damocles, subjected repeatedly to threats of nuclear annihilation, including being turned into “charcoal briquettes” [6] and “completely destroyed,” so that they “literally cease to exist” [7]—and this before they had nuclear weapons and the rudimentary means to deliver them. In other words, in threats to vaporize North Koreans, Washington has threatened to make them the successors to aboriginal Americans as objects of US perpetrated genocides.

We should remind ourselves why North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in the first place. As University of Chicago history professor Bruce Cumings writes, for North Korea the nuclear crisis began in late February 1993, when

General Lee Butler, head of the new U.S. ‘Strategic Command,’ announced that he was retargeting strategic nuclear weapons (i.e., hydrogen bombs) meant for the old U.S.S.R, on North Korea (among other places.) At the same time, the new CIA chief, James Woolsey, testified that North Korea was ‘our most grave current concern.’ By mid-March 1993, tens of thousands of [US] soldiers were carrying out war games in Korea…and in came the B1-B bombers, B-52s from Guam, several naval vessels carrying cruise missiles, and the like: whereupon the North pulled out of the NPT.” [8]

Two and half decades later the B1-B bombers and several naval vessels carrying cruise missiles—this time, US ‘power-projecting” aircraft carriers—are back.

Last month, Washington sent not one, but two aircraft carriers, the USS Carl Vinson and the USS Ronald Reagan, to the waters between Japan and Korea, to conduct “exercises,” “a show of force not seen there for more than two decades,” reported The Wall Street Journal. [9]

At the same time, the Pentagon sent B1-B strategic bombers, not once, but twice last month, to conduct simulated nuclear bombing runs “near the Military Demarcation Line that divides the two Koreas;” in other words, along the North Korean border. [10]

Understandably, North Korea denounced the simulated bombing missions for what they were: grave provocations. If the communist country’s new self-defensive capabilities spurred consternation in Washington, then Washington’s overt display of its offensive might legitimately enkindled alarm in Pyongyang. The Wall Street Journal summed up the US provocations this way: the “U.S. military has conducted several flyovers near the Korean Peninsula using B-1B [i.e., nuclear] bombers and directed a Navy aircraft carrier group to the region—all to North Korea’s consternation.” [11]

Robert Litwak, director of international security studies for the Wilson Center, explains the reason for Pyongyang’s consternation, if it’s not already blindingly obvious. US-led war games “[may look] like a defensive maneuver for us, [but] from North Korea‘s perspective, they may think we’re preparing an attack when you start bringing B2 fighters.” [12]

In January, North Korea offered to “sit with the U.S. anytime” to discuss US war games and its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs. Pyongyang proposed that the United States “contribute to easing tension on the Korean peninsula by temporarily suspending joint military exercises in south Korea and its vicinity this year, and said that in this case the DPRK is ready to take such responsive steps as temporarily suspending the nuclear test over which the U.S. is concerned.” [13]

The North Korean proposal was seconded by China and Russia [14] and recently by South Korea’s new president Moon Jae-in. [15] But Washington peremptorily rejected the proposal, refusing to acknowledge any equivalency between US-led war games, which US officials deem ‘legitimate’ and North Korea’s missile and nuclear tests, which they label ‘illegitimate.” [16]

US rejection of the China-Russia-South Korea-backed North Korean proposal, however, is only rhetorically related to notions of legitimacy, and the question of legitimacy fails to stand up under even the most cursory examination. How are US ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons legitimate and those of North Korea not?

The real reason Washington rejects the North Korean proposal is explained by Sanger: an agreed freeze “essentially acknowledges that the North’s modest arsenal is here to say;” which means that Pyongyang has achieved “the ability to strike back,” to stay the US hand, and deter Washington from launching a regime change aggression in the manner of wars it perpetrated against Saddam and Gaddafi, leaders who led pro-independence governments which, like North Korea, refused to be integrated into the informal US empire, but which, unlike North Korea, relinquished their means of self-defense, and once defenseless, were toppled by US-instigated aggressions.

“That is what Mr. Kim believes his nuclear program will prevent,” writes the Council on Foreign Relations member, referring to the US effort to bring the United States’ seven-decades-long campaign of regime change against Pyongyang to a head. And he may, Sanger concedes, “be right.”

Anyone concerned with democracy should take heart that North Korea, unlike Gaddafi’s Libya and Saddam’s Iraq, has successfully resisted US predations. The United States exercises an international dictatorship, arrogating onto itself the right to intervene in any part of the globe, in order to dictate to others how they should organize their political and economic affairs, to the point, in North Korea, of explicitly waging economic warfare against the country because it has a Marxist-Leninist economy at variance with the economic interests of the upper stratum of US society whose opportunities for profit-making through exports to and investments in North Korea have been accordingly eclipsed.

Those countries which resist despotism are the real champions of democracy, not those which exercise it (the United States) or facilitate it (their allies.) North Korea is calumniated as a bellicose dictatorship, human rights violator and practitioner of cruel and unusual punishment of political dissidents, a description to a tee of Washington’s principal Arab ally, Saudi Arabia, a recipient of almost illimitable military, diplomatic and other favors from the United States, showered on the Arabian tyranny despite its total aversion to democracy, reduction of women to the status of chattel, dissemination of a viciously sectarian Wahhabi ideology, an unprovoked war on Yemen, and the beheading and crucifixion of its political dissidents.

If we are concerned about democracy, we should, as Italian philosopher Domenico Losurdo argues, also be concerned about democracy on a global scale. The worry that has spread in Washington and the United Nations is a worry that democracy on a global scale has just been given a boost. And that should not be a worry for the rest of us, but a warm caress.


1. Foster Klug and Hyung-Jin Kim, “North Korea’s nukes are not on negotiation table: Kim Jong-un,” Reuters, July 5, 2017.

2. This may be attributable to Peter Kuznick, co-writer with Oliver Stone of The Untold History of the United States.

3. According to US Air Force General Curtis LeMay, head of Strategic Air Command during the Korean War, cited in Medi Hasan, “Why do North Koreans hate us? One reason—They remember the Korean War,” The Intercept, May 3, 2017. LeMay said, we “killed off…20 percent of the population…We went over there and fought the war and eventually burned down every town in North Korea.”

4. Glen Frieden, “NPR can’t help hyping North Korea threat,” FAIR, May 9, 2017.

5. “North Korea: Economic Sanctions,” Congressional Research Service, 2016.

6. Colin Powell warned North Korea that the United States could turn it into a “charcoal briquette.” Bruce Cumings, “Latest North Korean provocations stem from missed US opportunities for demilitarization,” Democracy Now!, May 29, 2009.

7. US General Wesley Clark, quoted in Domenico Losurdo, Non-Violence: A History Beyond the Myth, Lexington Books, 2015, Clark said, “The leaders of North Korea use bellicose language, but they know very well that they do not have a military option available…Were they to attack South Korea, their nation would be completely destroyed. It would literally cease to exist.”

8. Bruce Cumings, Korea’s Place in the Sun: A Modern History, W.W. Norton & Company, 2005. p. 488-489.

9. Gordon Lubold, “North Korea, South China Sea to dominate Defense Secretary’s Asia Trip,” The Wall Street Journal, June 2, 2017.

10. Jonathan Cheng, “U.S. bombers fly near North Korean border after missile launch,” The Wall Street Journal, May 30, 2017.

11. Jonathan Cheng, “North Korea compares Donald Trump to Adolph Hitler,” The Wall Street Journal, June 27, 2017.

12. “US experts argue in favor of scaling down S. Korea-US military exercises,” The Hankyoreh, June 20, 2017.

13. Korean Central News Agency, January 10, 2015.

14. Jonathan Cheng and Alastair Gale, “North Korea missile launch threatens U.S. strategy in Asia,” The Wall Street Journal, July 4, 2017.

15. David E. Sanger, “What can Trump do about North Korea? His options are few and risky,” The New York Times, July 4, 2017.

16. Jonathan Cheng and Alastair Gale, “North Korea missile launch threatens U.S. strategy in Asia,” The Wall Street Journal, July 4, 2017.

Posted in USA, North KoreaComments Off on The Real Reason Washington Is Worried About North Korea’s ICBM Test

Shoah’s pages