| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:30 pm Post subject: Is Putin against the 'War on Terror'? |
 |
|
Feb 10th 2007
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/2/11/worldupdates/2007 -02-10T231848Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_-287134-3&sec=Worldupdates
| Quote: | MUNICH, Germany (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin, in one of his harshest attacks on the United States in seven years in power, accused Washington on Saturday of attempting to force its will on the world.
In a speech in Germany, that one U.S. senator said smacked of Cold War rhetoric, Putin accused the United States of making the world a more dangerous place by pursuing policies aimed at making it "one single master".
Attacking the concept of a "unipolar" world in which the United States was the sole superpower, he said: "What is a unipolar world? No matter how we beautify this term it means one single centre of power, one single centre of force and one single master."
"It has nothing in common with democracy because that is the opinion of the majority taking into account the minority opinion," he told the gathering of top security and defence officials.
"People are always teaching us democracy but the people who teach us democracy don't want to learn it themselves," he said.
The Kremlin has for several weeks been dropping hints that Putin, who steps down next year after two terms in power, was preparing a major foreign policy speech that would point the way for his successor.
........
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, however, denied the Russian president was trying to provoke Washington. "This is not about confrontation. It's an invitation to think," he told reporters. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well worth some of your time reading this:
Transcript of Putins Speech at Munich Security Conference
| Quote: | | At the same time, it is impossible to sanction the appearance of new, destabilising high-tech weapons. Needless to say it refers to measures to prevent a new area of confrontation, especially in outer space. Star wars is no longer a fantasy – it is a reality. In the middle of the 1980s our American partners were already able to intercept their own satellite. |
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:54 pm Post subject: Putin against the 'War on Terror'? |
|
|
It wasn't long ago that Chavez called Bush a devil.
Putin has now done the same in not too many words.
Chavez has already stated that 9/11 is dodgy.
The Russians may soon do that as well.
Everything is pointing to the situation that they may be about to reveal something and are conditioning people to accept the point of view of some form of collusion between the US government and 9/11.
This will get closer to being revealed if a war does not occur with Iran.
If one breaks out it may be covered up. Or the opposite as well.
An article about Putins speech
| Quote: | Russian President Putin lambastes US foreign policy
By Niall Green and Andreas Rizzi
13 February 2007
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/puti-f13.shtml
Just a few hours after the opening of this year’s 43rd annual Munich Conference on Security Policy, the organization’s motto of “peace through dialogue” proved to be worth less than the paper it was printed on. Instead, the word “drumbeat” was the one most frequently heard to describe the proceedings, while others spoke of a “fiery speech” and even of a “new Cold War.”
The reactions followed an address by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who launched a sharp attack on US foreign policy. In one of the most vociferous criticisms of Washington publicly voiced by any head of a major power, the Russian president declared that American foreign policy was “very dangerous” in its “ uncontained hyper use of force—military force—in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts.”
Putin told his audience, including the new US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman, and other senior Washington officials, that American imperialism had “overstepped its national borders in every way.”
In a clear reference to the US debacle in Iraq, Putin stated that “unilateral illegal actions have not resolved any single problem; they have become a hotbed of further conflicts.”
The Russian president continued: “We are seeing increasing disregard for the fundamental principles of international law . . . No one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race. The dominance of force inevitably encourages a number of countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction.”
In an interview with the Arab television station Al-Dschasira, Putin compared what he termed the “hundreds of persons,” who had died at the hands of the deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to the number who had died since the invasion of Iraq in 2003: “3,000 Americans killed, while the number of dead Iraqis totals—according to various estimations-hundreds of thousands.”
Criticising Washington’s efforts to secure its position as the sole superpower by military means, Putin asked, “What is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.
“It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.”
In a barb aimed at his critics in Washington who have used the growth of authoritarianism under his presidency to justify a harsher policy towards Russia, Putin stated that US hegemony “has nothing in common with democracy.”
“We are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves,” he said.
Putin bluntly accused Washington of pursuing military policies aimed directly against Russia. With regard to the planned stationing of an American anti-missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic he said, “They are trying to impose new dividing lines and walls on us,” and he threatened counter measures: “We know that they [the US] are working on an anti-missile defence system. And that thereby our nuclear armed forces could possibly be neutralized. Russia, however, has the weapons, which can overcome the system.”
Putin also recalled the guarantees given to the Soviet Union in 1990 by then NATO Secretary-General Manfred Wörner—i.e., that the North Atlantic alliance would not station any troops east of the German border. “Where are these guarantees today?” Putin asked, referring to a total of 10,000 NATO troops stationed in military camps in Bulgaria and Romania.
Despite the harsh tone of his criticism, Putin’s spokesman stressed that the speech was “not about confrontation, it’s an invitation to think.” In subsequent comments to the press, Putin himself pointed to his personal friendship with President Bush, whom he described as a “decent man.”
Preparations for war against Iran
Putin’s open breach of diplomatic norms at the world’s most prestigious international defence and security forum can only be understood in the context of US preparations for war against Iran.
In December, following the political defeat suffered by Bush’s Republican Party in the US midterm elections and the publication of the Baker-Hamilton report, hopes flourished in Moscow as well as the capitals of Western Europe that Washington would return to foreign policies based on international co-operation and diplomacy, instead of the unilateral use of military force. Instead, the opposite scenario has developed. The US has not only increased its troop numbers in Iraq, but is also preparing a military strike against Iran.
Virtually on a daily basis, the US establishment directs new charges and claims against Iran. Most recently, unnamed US officials have made unsubstantiated claims that Teheran is supplying Shiite rebels with weapons to kill US troops in neighbouring Iraq.
This entire propaganda exercise recalls the run-up to the Iraq war, in which blatant falsifications and absurd lies were pumped out over months in order to establish a basis for the invasion and conquest of the country.
It is in this connection that one must see the significance of US demands for more troops in the south of Afghanistan and the “spring offensive” against Taliban rebels announced by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Afghanistan shares a border of nearly 1,000 kilometres with Iran, and the expansion of military operations together with the “clearing” of the terrain in Afghanistan represents a further step in preparations for war with Teheran.
Moscow has repeatedly bowed to US demands that it pressure Iran into complying with Washington’s aggressive dictates regarding Tehran’s nuclear programs. Russia itself is seeking to prevent Iran from developing into an influential regional power, fearful that an increase in power for the Mullah’s regime would strengthen Islamic forces in the Russian border regions and central Asia.
In the course of his Munich speech, Putin again largely backed the US position of increasing pressure on Teheran over its nuclear program: “I don’t understand why Iran has not responded positively and constructively to these [nuclear] concerns and the proposals by International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed El Baradei that would address these concepts.”
An American military strike against Iran, however, would be a nightmare for Russia. On the one hand, vast economic interests are involved. In January, Teheran signed a deal to buy 83 Russian passenger planes. Such large orders for Russian manufacturing are of considerable importance under conditions in which Russia’s high economic growth is almost exclusively tied to the export of energy and raw materials.
Russia also has a leading role in the construction of Iran’s disputed nuclear reactor program. Delivery of the necessary nuclear fuels is planned for March, and the reactor is due to be completed for linkage to the Iranian electricity network in October.
The principal interests at stake, however, are of a strategic character. An attack on Iran would virtually complete the encirclement of Russia, which Washington has been systematically pursuing since 1991 as part of its strategy for world power. Most of the former Eastern European members of the Warsaw Pact (the post-war military alliance dominated by the Soviet Union), have in the meantime joined NATO. Governments aligned with Washington were brought to power in Ukraine and Georgia by means of US-backed “revolutions.” Afghanistan and Iraq, both formerly part of the Soviet sphere of influence, are now occupied by US troops. Iran is one of the last countries in the region in which Washington exerts negligible influence.
The bluntness of Putin’s speech, therefore, was an expression of Moscow deepening anxiety over the role of US militarism and the growing dominance of Washington’s nuclear capabilities over those of Russia. It also expressed Moscow’s renewed confidence on the world arena, based on the wealth flowing into the state treasury from high oil and gas revenues and the growing ability of the Kremlin to use the vast energy resources at its disposal to exert political pressure on its allies and rivals.
Mild reaction from Europe
Putin was quite conscious that his criticisms of Washington would find a resonance in conference dominated by European security officials. His speech was sharply criticised by American conference delegates, but the reaction of their European counterparts—whose governments have held back from open criticism of Washington—was remarkably mild.
The White House declared it was “surprised and disappointed,” and that the charges made by Putin were “false.” Senator John McCain, a likely Republican presidential candidate in 2008, blasted Moscow for taking an “autocratic turn” and charged that its foreign policy is “opposed to the principles of the Western democracies.”
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates declared that common problems and challenges must be handled “in partnership with other countries including Russia,” but expressed surprise that Russia seemed “to partly work against international stability,” through “weapon supplies or the attempts to use energy resources as a source of political pressure.” NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer declared Putin’s comments to be “disappointing.”
The German government, however, made a point of asserting that Putin’s speech should not be regarded as a “relapse into the Cold War.” A government spokesman in Berlin described the meeting in Munich as a tried and tested framework for such an open discussion.
The co-ordinator for German-Russian co-operation, Andreas Shockenhoff (Christian Democratic Union, CDU), praised Putin for opening up a public and critical discussion while making a number of constructive proposals. The chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the German parliament, Ruprecht Polenz (CDU), stated that Putin had raised legitimate concerns, and Social Democratic defence spokesman Rainer Arnold commented that, while Putin’s speech flouted usual diplomatic niceties, he was justifiably disturbed by the stationing of missiles and additional US soldiers close to the Russian border.
French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin and Foreign Minister Douste Blazy had criticized US Middle East policy prior to the Munich conference. They demanded a date for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and demanded that Iran and Syria be included in any solution of the region’s conflicts.
Along with Russia, the German and French governments fear the consequences of a US military strike against Iran. Both countries have extensive economic ties with Iran and strategic interests at stake. Trade with Iran is flourishing with the active support of European states.
In the first half of 2006, goods valued at 2.3 billion euros were exported to the Islamic Republic. In 2005, the German government granted a total of 5.4 billion euros for Iranian trade and business. This figure was only exceeded by Italy. Iran also has broad trade links with France, its second most important business partner in the European Union after Germany.
During her Middle East trip last week, German Chancellor Angela Merkel conducted a form of diplomacy aimed at preventing any abrupt US military action against Iran by establishing numerous bilateral pacts and relations. Berlin does not dare to take an open stand against its powerful US partner.
Imperialist conflicts
Although Putin’s criticisms of Washington are entirely justified, they should not be confused with a progressive or even pacifist criticism of the Bush administration’s criminal policy.
Many of the accusations made by Putin could be equally addressed to the policy of his own regime. The second Chechnya war, which took place under Putin’s presidency, cost the lives of hundreds of thousands—according to independent estimates one quarter of the Chechen population has been wiped out.
Russia’s internal situation is characterized by a turn to authoritarian forms of rule and spiralling social divisions. While the wealth of a narrow layer of oligarchs defies description, the mass of the ordinary population is conducting a daily struggle to survive.
Putin is attacking Washington from the standpoint of Russia’s interests as a great power, i.e., the interests of the ruling layer of oligarchs. The same criteria apply to European governments, which are also defending their own imperialist interests. This also determines the methods they employ. They react to American militarism by rattling their own sabres and expanding their international military operations.
On February 8, Russia’s Defence minister Sergei Ivanov announced a large increase in the Russian defence budget, with an extra $189 billion to be spent over the next eight years to improve military infrastructure, including a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear submarines and improvements to its early-warning radar system.
Addressing the Russian parliament, Ivanov announced that the military would get many more ballistic missiles this year compared with recent years. He also stated that Russia planned to deploy 34 new silo-based Topol-M missiles and control units and 50 such missiles mounted on mobile launchers by 2015.
Such attempts to expand the Kremlin’s nuclear arsenal and improve its manoeuvrability are clearly motivated by Washington’s provocative missile shield, whose only credible targets are Russia and China. With a military budget just one-twentieth the size of the Pentagon’s, Moscow is attempting to develop mechanisms to maintain a functioning nuclear retaliatory capability in the face of Washington’s increasingly sophisticated ability to strike and disable more fixed Russian nuclear missile batteries.
The situation increasingly recalls the start of the last century when mounting tensions between imperialist powers finally exploded in the form of the slaughter of the First World War. A war against Iran would utterly destabilise the entire international power structure. Not only would such a war inflict horrors upon the population of the entire region—it would inevitably lead to direct confrontations between major powers with strategic interests in the region.
The fight against imperialism and war can only be carried out on the basis of an international movement of the working class. Its aim must be overcoming the capitalist system worldwide, which threatens to once again plunge mankind into the abyss of war and reaction. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aren't there allegations of 'false flag terrorism' against Putin? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thermate
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 13 Nov 2006
Posts: 445
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 8:53 pm Post subject: Re: Putin against the 'War on Terror'? |
|
|
| conspirator wrote: | Chavez has already stated that 9/11 is dodgy.
The Russians may soon do that as well. |
They've already more or less said so on the Pravda http://english.pravda.ru/ site, which I recommend by the way, for an alternate angle on the news 
Interesting article on Putin's speech here http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/070212_putin.htm copied below:
| Quote: | Doesn’t Putin Have a Point?
By Patrick J. Buchanan
"A soft answer turneth away wrath," teaches Proverbs 1:15.
Our new secretary of defense, Roberts Gates, seems familiar with the verse. For his handling of Saturday's wintry blast from Vladimir Putin at the Munich security conference was masterful.
"As an old Cold Warrior, one of yesterday's speeches almost filled me with nostalgia for a less complex time," said Gates, adding, "Almost."
A former director of the CIA, Gates went on to identify with Putin: "I have, like your second speaker yesterday ... a career in the spy business. And I guess old spies have a habit of blunt speaking.
"However, I have been to re-education camp, spending the last four-and-a-half years as a university president and dealing with faculty. And as more than a few university presidents have learned in recent years, when it comes to faculty it is either 'be nice' or 'be gone.'" (Gates calls for partnership with Russia in security matters, CNN.com, February 11, 2007)
Gates added he would be going to Moscow to talk with the old KGB hand, who will be retiring as Russia's president around the time President Bush goes home to Crawford.
Excellent.
For one of the historic blunders of this administration has been to antagonize and alienate Russia, the winning of whose friendship was a signal achievement of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. And one of the foreign policy imperatives of this nation is for statesmanship to repair the damage.
What did we do to antagonize Russia?
When the Cold War ended, we seized upon our "unipolar moment" as the lone superpower to seek geopolitical advantage at Russia's expense.
Though the Red Army had picked up and gone home from Eastern Europe voluntarily, and Moscow felt it had an understanding we would not move NATO eastward, we exploited our moment. Not only did we bring Poland into NATO, we brought in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, and virtually the whole Warsaw Pact, planting NATO right on Mother Russia's front porch.
Now, there is a scheme afoot to bring in Ukraine and Georgia in the Caucasus, the birthplace of Stalin.
Second, America backed a pipeline to deliver Caspian Sea oil from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey, to bypass Russia.
Third, though Putin gave us a green light to use bases in the old Soviet republics for the liberation of Afghanistan, we now seem hell-bent on making those bases in Central Asia permanent.
Fourth, though Bush sold missile defense as directed at rogue states like North Korea, we now learn we are going to put anti-missile systems into Eastern Europe. And against whom are they directed?
Fifth, through the National Endowment for Democracy, its GOP and Democratic auxiliaries, and tax-exempt think tanks, foundations and "human rights" institutes such as Freedom House, headed by ex-CIA director James Woolsey, we have been fomenting regime change in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet republics and Russia herself.
U.S.-backed revolutions have succeeded in Serbia, Ukraine and Georgia, but failed in Belarus. Moscow has now legislated restrictions on the foreign agencies that it sees, not without justification, as subversive of pro-Moscow regimes.
Sixth, America conducted 78 days of bombing of Serbia for the crime of fighting to hold on to her rebellious province, Kosovo, and for refusing to grant NATO marching rights through her territory to take over that province. Mother Russia has always had a maternal interest in the Orthodox states of the Balkans.
These are Putin's grievances. Does he not have a small point?
Joe Lieberman denounced Putin's "Cold War rhetoric." But have we not been taking what cannot unfairly be labeled Cold War actions?
How would we react if China today brought Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela into a military alliance, convinced Mexico to sell oil to Beijing and bypass the United States, and began meddling in the affairs of Central America and Caribbean countries to effect the electoral defeat of regimes friendly to the United States?
How would we react to a Russian move to put anti-missile missiles on Greenland?
Gates says we have been through one Cold War and do not want another. But it is not Moscow moving a military alliance right up to our borders or building bases and planting anti-missile systems in our front and back yards.
Why are we doing this? This country is not going to go to war with Russia over Estonia. With our Army "breaking" from two insurgencies, how would we fight? By bombing Moscow and St. Petersburg?
Just as we deluded ourselves into believing the Iraq war would be a "cakewalk," that democracy would break out across the Middle East, that we would be beloved in Baghdad, so America today has undertaken commitments, dating to the Cold War and since, we do not remotely have the resources or will to fulfill.
We are living in a world of self-delusion.
Somewhere in this presidential campaign, someone has to bring us back to earth. The halcyon days of American Empire are over. |
_________________
Make love, not money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just joined Pravda yersterday. Looks good. No 'rodin' left so dissential it is (when I get round to it)
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:26 pm Post subject: Re: Yes, Putin authorised false flag attacks |
|
|
| TonyGosling wrote: | Yes there is clear evidence that Putin authorised false flag attacks that started the second Chechen War back in 1999 when Berezovsky was his adviser.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_apartment_bombings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Berezovsky
Now the two have fallen out and it looks like Putin's distancing himself from those decisions and from the diabolical US/Israeli/NATO modus operandi in general - ie. he's finally grasped the whole War On Terror plan and decided it's a disaster and he's not up for it.
Bit of a geezer to have such a change of heart I'd say - even though he did slag me off in a recent NTV documentary 
Putin may also have been involved in the 1996 assassination of Dudayev which kicked off the first Chechen War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dudayev#Assassination
Tony |
Dudayev was assassinated on the 19,000 th day of his life.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tony G - who did Beslan?
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | According to Russian General, 9/11 was a Globalist Inside Job
“The organizers of the 9/11 attacks were the political & business circles interested in destabilizing the world order
by Kurt Nimmo
Global Research, January 23, 2006
One Day in the Empire
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&articleId=1 788
It’s ironic General Leonid Ivashov, former Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces, delivers the truth on globalism and this truth, unavailable in the corporate media of the “free world,” is published in a newspaper in Las Tunas, Cuba. Ivashov tells us so-called international terrorism “is not something independent of world politics but simply an instrument, a means to install a unipolar world with a sole world headquarters, a pretext to erase national borders and to establish the rule of a new world elite” and “is a phenomenon that combines the use of terror by state and non-state political structures as a means to attain their political objectives through people’s intimidation, psychological and social destabilization, the elimination of resistance from power organizations and the creation of appropriate conditions for the manipulation of the countries’ policies and the behavior of people.”
Ivashov hits the nail square on the head. “The organizers of [the nine eleven] attacks were the political and business circles interested in destabilizing the world order” because they “were not satisfied with the rhythm of the globalization process or its direction.” As others have explained—most notably Andreas von Bulow, Bundestag member of a parliamentary commission which oversaw the three branches of the German secret service—only “secret services and their current chiefs” (or retired staff with “influence inside the state organizations”) have the “ability to plan, organize and conduct an operation of such magnitude. Generally, secret services create, finance and control extremist organizations. Without the support of secret services, these organizations cannot exist—let alone carry out operations of such magnitude inside countries so well protected.” Thus the obvious patsy “Osama bin Laden and ‘Al Qaeda’ cannot be the organizers or the performers of the September 11 attacks” because they “do not have the necessary organization, resources or leaders” (or the military and intelligence experience and knowledge required). Instead, “a team of professionals had to be created and the Arab kamikazes are just extras to mask the operation.”
According to General Ivashov, the covert operation nine eleven was effective because it turned “the people’s demands to a struggle of undefined goals against an invisible enemy … destroying basic international norms and changing concepts such as: aggression, state terror, dictatorship or movement of national liberation” and also depriving “peoples of their legitimate right to fight against aggressions and to reject the work of foreign intelligence services.”
Here in America and likely much of Europe, General Ivashov’s message is all but invisible, since the corporate media assiduously ignores any discussion of nine eleven that does not take the fantastical Straussian neocon version of events as gospel truth. As an example of this, run a Google News search on General Ivashov—it will return the sole link to the Cuban newspaper above, peroid.
In order to combat the globalist agenda to reduce the planet to a “free trade” gulag, General Ivashov suggests the creation of “a geo-strategic organization (perhaps inspired in the Cooperation Organization of Shanghai comprised of Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan) with a set of values different to that of the Atlantists,” that is to say the neolib-neocon faction (in Russia, many political analysts call defenders of “unipolar globalism” Atlantists, or as A. Dugin of the International Eurasian Movement describes it, “strategists of the Western civilization and their conscious supporters in other parts of the planet, aiming at putting the whole world under control and imposing the social, economic and cultural stereotypes typical of the Western civilization to all the rest of mankind…. The atlantists are the builders of the ‘new world order’—the unprecedented world system benefiting an absolute minority of the planet’s population”).
If General Ivashov’s vision of a “geo-strategic organization” comes to pass, it will mean “total war” under the absolutist and demented neocon rubric, since the Straussian neocons, as elucidated in their principle PNAC document, will not tolerate “competitors” and will respond in drastic fashion, more than likely with nuclear weapons (as they appear likely to do under far less provocation in Iran).
The only way to stop this impending nuclear conflagration is to dethrone the Straussian neocons—and soon.
In the meantime, I am wishing for a pony. |
_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2011 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I hadn't read this post when I replied to another similar thread, re Russian (and Chinese) 'blinkers'.
Despite my abhorrence of Russian and Chinese Human Rights abominations, I do wish they would use their muscle to counter the US/UK/Israeli (or is it the other way round?) NWO agenda.
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Disco_Destroyer
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 6342
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| outsider wrote: | I hadn't read this post when I replied to another similar thread, re Russian (and Chinese) 'blinkers'.
Despite my abhorrence of Russian and Chinese Human Rights abominations, I do wish they would use their muscle to counter the US/UK/Israeli (or is it the other way round?) NWO agenda. |
If it was they should dispense with the lies
_________________
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
www.myspace.com/disco_destroyer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
