There May Be Many Mushroom Clouds in Our Future
The success of the Bush regime's propaganda, lies and deception with gullible and inattentive Americans since 9-11 has made it difficult for intelligent, aware people to be optimistic about the future of the United States. For almost eight years, the U.S. media have served as Ministry of Propaganda for a war criminal regime. Americans incapable of thinking for themselves, reading between the lines or accessing foreign media on the Internet have been brainwashed.
As the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels said, it is easy to deceive a people. You just tell them they have been attacked and wave the flag.
It certainly worked with Americans.
The gullibility and unconcern of the American people has had many victims. There are 1.25 million dead Iraqis. There are 4 million displaced Iraqis. No one knows how many are maimed and orphaned.
Iraq is in ruins, its infrastructure destroyed by American bombs, missiles and helicopter gunships.
We do not know the death toll in Afghanistan, but even the American puppet regime protests the repeated killings of women and children by U.S. and NATO troops.
We don't know what the death toll would be in Iran if Darth Cheney and the neocons succeed in their plot with Israel to bomb Iran, perhaps with nuclear weapons.
What we do know is that all this murder and destruction has no justification and is evil. It is the work of evil men who have no qualms about lying and deceiving in order to kill innocent people to achieve their undeclared agenda.
That such evil people have control over the United States government and media damns the American public for eternity.
America will never recover from the shame and dishonor heaped upon her by the neoconned Bush regime.
The success of the neocon propaganda has been so great that the opposition party has not lifted a finger to rein in the Bush regime's criminal actions. Even Barack Obama, who promises "change," is too intimidated by the neocon's success in brainwashing the American population to do what his supporters hoped he would do and lead us out of the shame in which the neoconned Bush regime has imprisoned us.
This about sums up the pessimistic state in which I existed prior to the go-ahead given by the Bush regime to its puppet in Georgia to ethnically cleanse South Ossetia of Russians in order to defuse the separatist movement. The American media, a.k.a. the Ministry of Lies and Deceit, again accommodated the criminal Bush regime and proclaimed "Russian invasion" to cover up the ethnic cleansing of Russians in South Ossetia by the Georgian military assault.
Only this time, the rest of the world didn't buy it. The many years of lies—9-11, Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, al-Qaida connections, yellowcake, anthrax attacks, Iranian nukes, "the United States doesn't torture," the bombings of weddings, funerals and children's soccer games, Abu Ghraib, renditions, Guantanamo, various fabricated "terrorist plots," the determined assault on civil liberties—have taken their toll on American credibility. No one outside America any longer believes the U.S. media or the U.S. government.
The rest of the world reported the facts—an assault on Russian civilians by American- and Israeli-trained and equipped Georgian troops.
The Bush regime, overcome by hubris, expected Russia to accept this act of American hegemony. But the Russians did not, and the Georgian military was sent fleeing for its life.
The neoconned Republican response to the Russian failure to follow the script and to be intimidated by the "unipower" was so imbecilic that it shattered the brainwashing to which Americans had succumbed.
McCain declared, "In the 21st century nations don't invade other nations." Imagine the laughs Jon Stewart will get out of this on "The Daily Show." In the early years of the 21st century, the United States has already invaded two countries and has been beating the drums for attacking a third. President Bush, the chief invader of the 21st century, echoed McCain's claim that nations don't invade other nations.
This dissonant claim shocked even brainwashed Americans, as readers' emails reveal. If in the 21st century countries don't invade other countries, what is Bush doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and what are the naval armadas and propaganda arrayed against Iran about?
Have two of the worst warmongers of modern times—Bush and McCain—called off the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran? If McCain is elected president, is he going to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, as "nations don't invade other nations," or is President Bush going to beat him to it?
We all know the answer.
The two stooges are astonished that the Americans have taught hegemony to Russians, who were previously operating, naively perhaps, on the basis of good will.
Suddenly the Western Europeans have realized that being allied with the United States is like holding a tiger by the tail. No European country wants to be hurled into war with Russia. Germany, France and Italy must be thanking God they blocked Georgia's membership in NATO.
The Ukraine, where a sick nationalism has taken hold funded by the neocon National Endowment for Democracy, will be the next conflict between American pretensions and Russia. Russia is being taught by the neocons that freeing the constituent parts of its empire has not resulted in their independence but in their absorption into the American Empire.
Unless enough Americans can overcome their brainwashed state and the rigged Diebold voting machines, turn out the imbecilic Republicans and hold the neoconservatives accountable for their crimes against humanity, a crazed neocon U.S. government will provoke nuclear war with Russia.
The neoconservatives represent the greatest danger ever faced by the United States and the world. Humanity has no greater enemy.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Entries(RSS)
Absolutely on target!................How long before the Neocons squash the internet to force U.S. Citizens to only get their news from the MSM? Would a Cuban Missle Crisis type confrontation be a justification of NSPD-51 Dictatorial powers?..............Tyrany is at the door under the guize of false fear.
The problem is that the voters tried to do this in 2004 and even more so in 2006. 2006 was the great deception by the democrats where they rode an anti-bush anti-republican sentiment. They rubber stamped the war and took impeachment off the table. Now we're supposed to buy the idea that Obama and all of his audacity (LOL!) and hope (LMFAO!) are going to make a change? Are we supposed to expect democratic politicians to have courage? Face it, the traitorous wretches that infest our federal government right now will not even blink while the white house window dressing is changed. Until they are rooted out and sent to Gitmo, we are in the same situation. And if Obama is "audacious" enough to switch gears and actually act like a populist, he'll be removed by bullet or bl**job.
It should be highlighted the international media’s puff piece reporting on the state of Kosovo in the run up to its illegal independence from Serbia.
Didn’t mention it was created by terrorism and mass ethnic cleansing of Serbs by western backed KLA terrorism and mass illegal immigration from Albania.
That is government and economy is involved in international organised crime and terrorism, with things like sex trafficking, drug smuggling, etc.
75% of Afghan opium goes through Kosovo into Europe.
NED actually openly holds counter Kremlin meetings and organisations in Russia.
Has no one ever thought that the media and government are trying to conduct a campaign to destabilise Russia and regain it under there control like the 90’s.
Just before the fall of communism western banks set up shop in Russia put pressure on the Russian government to break banking regulations which was keeping the country afloat at that time. Loans from the US and banking institutes like the IMF, World Bank where deposited into western banks were there front men in Russia where able to buy up the Russian state for cheap.
The same banking dynasties that financed, organise the over through of the Czar and installed communism in Russia were still in control of Russia’s economy during the 90’s mainly Lord Rothschild of London.
12345
Matthew Raphael Johnson did a good piece on the 2004 Ukrainian elections http://www.rusjournal.com/ukr_election.html
That such evil people have control over the United States government and media damns the American public for eternity.
America will never recover from the shame and dishonor heaped upon her by the neoconned Bush regime.
Even allowing for the most immoderate hyperbole, this is a rather monstrous indictment.
Shame and dishonor are merely temporary stains on the American "character". The passage of time will obliterate them as it does everything else.
With respect to Ukraine's 2004 election as outlined in the article james linked to, the wikipedia article about that election is quite instructive. The data contradicts the myth that the pro-Russian Yanukovich's initial victory was legitimate. It shows 96.3% voting for him in his eastern stronghold of Donetsk, and an increase in turnout of 15-19% between the first and second rounds in his region (not very unrealistic). In the invalid second round, according to the Ukrainian Central Election commision website, official voter turnout in pro-Russian Donetsk was 96.65%! Indeed, "miraculously" turnout increased significanly in the pro-Yanukovich regions but not at all in the pro-Yushchenko regions. Such trickery was easily enough to give Yanukovich his illegitimate 3% victory.
The ultimate result matched that of future parliamentary elections (including those described as fair by the Kremlin itself) in giving the Orange side a small victory.
I think it rather unfortunate that in opposition to neoconservatives some find it necessary to follow the line of the Kremlin no matter how unrealistic. Is that the true nature of paleoconservatism? Just a knee-jerk reaction to whatever neoconservatives choose to support? Otherwise how does one explain the consideration of Putin, a man correctly described by Otto von Hapsburg as "the typical very intelligent, very aggressive bureaucrat — at the bottom of his heart, a totalitarian person " as some sort of hero, or the seemingly automatic vilification of whomever Putin happens to oppose.
To add to my comment - the result of attitudes that are nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to neoconervative attitudes produces a very comparable reflection. The neocons hypocritically support and excuse the violation of Serbia's territory by NATO while condemning the violation of Georgian territory by Russia. The mirrored hypocrisy is to oppose Serbia's dismemberment while supporting Georgia's dismemberment. Ukraine's modern nationalism is described as "sick" even though Ukraine is not threatening any of its neighbors, while that of Russia is, apparently, acceptable. The most Catholic and traditional nation in Europe, Poland, and its traditionalist current president, are villified (has anyone read the article about Poland placed on the lewrockwell website?) while a former KGB officer who on national television using prison-slang boasted about killing his enemies in toilets becomes a sort of hero. This sort of behavior becomes possible when someone bases their beliefs or attitudes not on principles but on whatever the unprincipled neocons do.
It is worth reminding ourselves that the revered Ronald Reagan created and empowered the National Endowment for Democracy.
@7Andrei Vidal
"former KGB officer who on national television using prison-slang boasted about killing his enemies in toilets"
When did this happen? Sounds like more anti-Putin propaganda.
Do you have the video of this?
When he was in the KGB he was an intelligence analysis on West German economy he didn't kill or torture anyone.
Arial Sharon was elect PM of Israel and he was directly involved in the Sabra and Shatilla massacre.
The coloured revolutions were partly financed by organised crime boss Boris Berezovsky by money he stole who has publicly stated than he is trying to over through Putin by force.
“Ukraine is not threatening any of its neighbours”
What about NATO? Ukrainian mercenaries were used on the assault on Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Georgia attacked South Ossetia and killed a number of peacekeeping troops first under a ceasefire agreement than hours latter did Russia respond.
Russia has no wish to divide Georgia but it will not let the two regions be susceptible to Georgian attack like the Serbs were in Bosnia.
It was western banks and foreign press assault on the Czar that helped install communism in Russia in the first place. The first communist government in Russia most of the commissars came from New York financed by Jacob Schiff.
So when they put NATO on all of its borders and target a missile shield against her then she might be upset.
I do think there is a genuine risk that a President McCain could precipitate nuclear war with Russia. Probably only a 20-30% chance, but there's no reason to run that risk when Russia no longer seeks world empire - unlike the neocon-ruled US.
Let's not get too nutzoid here. Remember that the Empire has resource limitations; it will be hard-pressed to send any more conventional troops anywhere as long as it is tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even if all the occupying troops left Iraq tomorrow (which is unlikely in the extreme), there will be limits on where they can be sent.
Those limits, of course, will be financial---and THAT is where the Throne City crowd's difficulties lie. Since the demands of domestic Empire will be skyrocketing over the course of the next 20-30 years or so, there just will not be the money to send many Imperial troops anywhere outside our own borders.
Thank Heaven.
Your servant,
Lord Karth
Any real change is unlikely to come this election cycle. We probably will not elect a president or a congress after the mould of Robert Taft, Ron Paul, or Calvin Coolidge style non-interventionism until our nation is either in smoking ruins (and at that point, the victors - whoever they may be - will not likely allow us the liberty to choose our own leaders that we have so foolishly taken for granted, nor held to a short account, on shorter leashes).
One can hope that The Annointed One (Obama) will so shipwreck himself as President that the GOP will either revive to its once proud, old, non-interventionist conservatism, because I really do not see it happening under McCain.
As much as I would like to see a third party arise, such as the Constitution Party (Dr. Chuck Baldwin, the CP presidential candidate, is like a refreshing breeze in a sea of neocon chicanery from the GOP and outright foolishness from the Democrats)... the dreaded tyranny of the (two-) party system that General Washington warned us about has been systematically hobbling and undoing this Republic.
I think what we have failed to notice is that while we have dismantled, strained and weakened our military, Russia has paid a great deal of attention, redisciplined, rearmed, and is much stronger than it was during the Cold War. We could have easily defeated the Soviet Army, but the Russian Army is far more professional and better equipped, yet it seems in Washington as though they think it is still the cold war and Russia can be easily brushed aside, and every one else bought off by the dollar or NATO membership.
Democrats have played both sides of the street on the issue of going after terrorists.
One is tempted to think that they deliberately urged Bush into
Iraq voting for the war, expecting that the short attention span of Americans would turn them against the President before the conflict could be brought to a satisfactory end.
>
Democrats on Saddam's WMD I
" One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov.10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an elicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force-if necessary-to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is calculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
While democrats embrace what they think is the "Messenger Of Peace", few even know who his Foreign Advisor is? The "Cold War Master himself-ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKY and his offspring of new cold War enthusiasts!
"Missle Defense: Washington and Poland just moved the world closer to WAR." by F. William Engdahl.
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9836
Obama want's that International Banker Zionist money as bad as the others.
In response to James' post #9,
Putin's speech about drowing his enemies in toilets was on Russian televison and is widely known. My father-in-law was so shocked that a prime minister would use the slang of prisoners that he called us from Moscow when he saw it. Just google the words "Putin" "speech" and "drown." You would be hard pressed to find a Russian who did not know of this. The fact that Sharon may have a much worse background does not change who Putin is.
With respect to Berezovsky's financial contributions to the Orange Revolution - sure, he is a criminal, which means that a criminal provided some of the financing for the Orange side. Do you know Yanukovich's background or that of his supporters? Yanukovich himself was convicted and imprisoned for assault and robbery (the convictions were erased by a corrupt Brezhnev-era communist official so as not to impede Yanukovich's subsequent rising career) while Yanukovich's principal financial backer Rinat Akhmetov, the richest man in Ukraine, arose from Donetsk after a series of car bombings, contract killings etc. Timoshenko made billions off gas corruption, but there is no whiff of murder around her. One can hardly compare the extent of criminality on the Orange side to that of Yanukovich.
But this brings me to an interesting point: the general villification of western "Orange" Ukraine and sympathy for eastern pro-Russian Ukraine shown by many paleoconservatives lately. For the record, eastern Ukraine has the lowest rates of church attendence, lowest birth rates, and highest rates of abortion, AIDS, drug abuse and prostitution within Ukraine. It is a region where the people in the last several elections have voted for either Yanukovich, the Communist Party, or the neo-Stalinist Progressive Socialist party. Western Ukraine, in contrast, is generally Church-going (the Pope attracted a crowd of 100,000s during his visit), a birth rate that in some regions is higher than that of any nominally Christian nation in Europe, low number of abortions, AIDS, etc. If you have the time, all of these facts can be confirmed through google. They mirror my own experiences. On a visit to my family's defunct estate in a Western Ukrainian village, the peasants greeted me with the words "Glory to Jesus Christ." (Slava Isusu Khristu"). I have been to rural "Yanukovich" Ukraine - the story is quite different there.
I think that conservatives, Christians, or traditonalists, who take the side of Eastern Ukraine versus Western Ukraine, or Russia versus Poland ought to examine their motivations a bit more carefully. The approach of "because neocons happen to be on their side, so therefore we must side with their enemies" leads to some very unpleasant bedfellows.
Andrei,
Your review of Ukrainian politics simply confirms, for me at least, that NATO/The US/The West has no business getting involved in Slavic, Balkan or Caucasian politics or territorial disputes.
You may have a point that many (?) people support Putin just to spite Bush & Co, just as leftists support Chavez for the same reasons, but it's not always the case.
And when people talk about the poor Poles and Ukrainians and Georgians and so on (as if none of them were Communists), and the awful Russians, I'm almost ready to vomit.
Also, there's a lot of talk about how NATO has to help this country or that region. What do these people -- like the Georgians or Ukrainians or "Kosovans" -- have to offer NATO? Besides endless headaches and eternal bickering, and devious, belligerent, back-stabbing leaders...
@16Andrei Vidal
Googled “Putin” “speech” and “drown" didn't find anything do you have an actual link, a video would be preferable.
Is this reliable as his statement that "the USSR was a geopolitical disaster” which is not what he said and taken out of context or Iran’s leaders “wipe Israel of the map” quote that he never even said.
“The threat of cutting of IMF support is particularly ironic given that fact that when Yushchenko was chairman of the central bank, he assisted in the laundering of millions in IMF cash through the agency of the then prime minister, Paul Lazarenko. The IMF lent the Ukrainian government more money than it normally would have at that time largely because Yushchenko falsified the amount of cash reserves on hand at the bank, thus making Ukraine look more credit worthy than it actually was. This money, once laundered through front companies located in the west, was used by the likes of Tymoshenko and her various lovers to buy up the natural gas transport systems in Ukraine. Ukraine watchers normally refer to this as the Lazarenko affair, a criminal conspiracy suspiciously left out of U.S. government posturing over Ukraine’s elections”.
Yushchenko isn’t exactly innocent either.
Berezovsky isn’t just criminal he’s a billion dollar criminal linked to various organised crime gangs in Russia.
The Jewish Russian mafia operate in Eastern Ukraine like the infamous Moglevich the world most powerful gangster.
Here's former dissident Vladimir Bukovsky's take on "drowning in an outhouse."
I found it on Google.
@16Andrei Vidal
I think you being dishonest and putting meaning to the phrase out of context.
His opponents you talk about are Chechen terrorism not political opponents. Remember before the 99 invasion and massacres in Dagestan Khattab publicly declared he was going to cleanse the whole caucus region of ethnic Russians.
Meaning of the phrase like what Bush said after 9/11 were ever terrorists seek sanctuary to plot finance and kill Russians Russia with get them.
Actually phrase “drown them in THERE outhouse”.
Evidently Khattab was “drowned” in his outhouse in Azerbajin.
Putin would have not have known this has any reference to Soviet prison slang as he was stationed in Germany gathering economic intelligence data and analysis.
In the Russian language, the negative nature of certain slang or words has been retained to an extent not imaginable to native English-speakers for a couple generations. Remember the controversy of the use of "damn" in Gone with the Wind in the 1930's? Russia is sort of still there lingustically (for example, no Russian movie no mater how violent or sxualized used the "f-word"). This does not mean that Russians don't swear - especially those of certain classes do so often. But it is shockingly unacceptable, like public indecency, in Russia for this sort of stuff to be broadcast publicly. So while "drowning in their outhouse" might seem innocuous to Western ears, it shows a significant coursening, brutality, and vulgarization within the Russian cultural context no matter against whom it is directed. Putin is a KGB man who brings the language of the Russian gutter and prison to the highest level of Russian society. Is he a hero compared to the Catholic traditionalist Polish president?
With respect to Timoshenko's corruption, I agree. I'm just pointing out that money laundering and embezzlement is not in the same league as the gangland style contract killings that her and Yushchenko's opponents were invovled in as they crawled their way to the top.
What is with this love fest for Russia? People who wage war, murder innocents, and thwart acts of secession by people wanting to be free from tyranny are un-Christian. Period. The U.S. shouldn't be invloved in any of it, on either side. End of Story. Why some of you are fawning over Putin is beyond me. He is just as evil as Bush or the next dictatorial thug.
@21Andrei Vidal
When Putin was in the KGB he was an analysis of west German economy no relation to those who ran the prison service or military he would not have known the context of the statement.
Berezovsky has been involved in "gangland" mafia style disputes including murder.
Paul Kleibnakov wrote a whole book about this mafia godfather and was about to write another book about him at the time he was killed.
Um, why should we believe a KGB cover story? If a neoconservative-backed, Soros-funded NGO in Georgia claimed it was involved merely in "analysis of the the Georgian economy," would you believe them? So why should anyone believe a KGB officer when he claims that he was involved merely in analysis of the the West German economy? Archduke Otto claims that at the time of the liberation of Eastern Europe, refugees told him that Putin was indeed involved in political suppression: http://www.charlestonmercury.com/articles/2008/08/12/news/doc488f51c00f823182575839.txt
@24Tobias
Is there any documented evidence of this? After the fall of communism in East Germany hundreds of files were available if his job was more than he said it was there would be documented evidence.
Why has he not made theses revelations before the current crisis does he have any evidence to back up his claims.
His claims of "democratic force" falls short with there sponsership and support of Kosovo an Islamo-mafia state run by terrorists.
And what about Gamar Rudolph, Ernst Zundel, etc.
Sounds like more BS propaganda.
Soros and co have a clear paper trail you can follow.
Actually I just found out that George Soros funds Human Rights Watch.
"Is there any documented evidence of this? After the fall of communism in East Germany hundreds of files were available if his job was more than he said it was there would be documented evidence."
James, this is fatuous. He is a *recent* KGB agent, and since then he has become President and Prime Minister of Russia. Yes, I'm really sure that they would have let sensitive information about him be declassified . . .
"His claims of “democratic force” falls short with there sponsership and support of Kosovo an Islamo-mafia state run by terrorists.
And what about Gamar Rudolph, Ernst Zundel, etc."
Some of your writing is not entirely clear. "His" -- are you referring to Archduke Otto? "There" is misspelled, and to whom does it refer? You have gone from the singular "his" to the plural "their." "Sponsorship" is misspelled. Wait, who is supporting Kosovo? Otto, or the "democratic force"? The revisionist's name is "Germar" Rudolph, not Gamar Rudolph. Are you saying that these revisionists should be released, or that democratic countries do not engage in censorship? I get the impression that English is not your first language.
The difference between Soros and the KGB is that the KGB can destroy its paper trail and murder its opponents.
@26Tobias
English is my first and only language.
Of course they should be released what danger these people pose, except challenging the official version of history. They have never incited hatred
If his argument is wrong why don’t they debate his findings?
Israel has received billions of dollars from Germany since WW2 and was a major factor in support of the creation of Israel so there is definitely a political motive for keeping the official version of history alive.
So you believe Germar Rudolph should be locked up in a maximum security prison because he had intellectual questions about the Holocaust and decided to do a scientific report on it and published his work for discussion.
Ernst Zundel, a Canadian citizen was deported to Germany for publishing his writing on the Holocaust on his website before that he was held in solitary confinement for years.
Even his lawyer was arrested and sentenced to jail.
“His” I was referring to his concept of western countries constituting a democratic force “their sponsorship” is the western countries support of the KLA a group the US state department themselves listed as a terrorist group in 98.
Documents shown during the Milosevic trail proved that the KLA and NATO were working together.
“James, this is fatuous. He is a *recent* KGB agent, and since then he has become President and Prime Minister of Russia. Yes, I’m really sure that they would have let sensitive information about him be declassified . . .”
He left the KGB in 93/94. I think you are the one being fatuous.
There are hundreds of anti-Putin books and the deposed oligarchs and NED (a CIA front) has spent millions of dollars on anti-Putin projects like running websites, research grants and they have not found anything.
You need evidence to back up your claim.
Can “Otto’s” eyewitnesses stories be confirmed as true with facts?
Can Otto’s witnesses confirm who, where and when with those involved?
There would have been some evidence, guilt by association is not good enougth we need facts to his confirm this story is true.
By that logic you could say George Bush lit 9/11 happen as he has business relations with the Bin Laden family and he’s the president so it would be easy for him to cover up the fact.
“The difference between Soros and the KGB is that the KGB can destroy its paper trail and murder its opponents.”
George Soros help promote and lobby for the KLA a group linked to international terrorism and organised crime ran anti-Milosevic media in the Balkans.
Through various NGO’s and his billions of dollars he is able to influence the internal politics of countries like Serbia, Ukraine, Georgia and Russia in the 90’s.
He has links to western intelligence and built an international network of NGO’s, media, civil rights fronts. He is even the main financier of Human Rights Watch.
He has more influence then the KGB ever had.
James: I highly recommend that when you write you proofread for 1) run-on sentences, 2) misspellings, and 3) grammatical errors. They lower my opinion of you and tempt me to reply with derision. If English is your sole and native tongue, please treat it with respect, even on a blog.
I never said that the revisionists should be in jail. I asked you what *your* position was. If you care so much for their cause, you should at least know how to spell their names.
It is absolutely fatuous to take a KGB cover story at face value. Sixty years have passed since the Venona transcriptions were made, and only now do we know about them. Yet somehow you think that we would have access to all the necessary information on a KGB officer who *supposedly* quit some 14-odd years ago. I do not need *any* evidence in order to *suspect* Putin's story; we already know that the KGB was a massively evil bureaucratic machine designed to prop up a monstrosity called the USSR. Do I really need "hard evidence" to *doubt* the testimony of a KGB agent? The organization was formally and officially evil. On the other hand, there is nothing inherently wrong with trading with foreigners, even infidels and relatives of a criminal, such as the Bin Laden family. The two cases are not similar.
My major point was that we should not merely take a KGB officer's word that he was merely a student of the West German economy. Archduke Otto's testimony (why did you put his name in scare quotes?) is merely anecdotal evidence, which you can take or leave.
Soros vs. the KGB. Soros vs. the KGB. Which would you prefer -- a country with a liberal democratic government, or life in a Siberian GULAG? Or maybe a bullet in the back of the head in the basement of the Lubyanka? Or maybe assassination at the hands of nationalist/socialist rebels in some Third World country where the KGB funded the revolutionaries?
@28Tobias
Maybe you should research how communism actually came to Russian how it was an invasion rather than a revolution.
Communism was not Russian. It was financed and organised abroad mainly in New York and preceding the “revolution” there was a western backed campaign in media and government circles against the Czar.
When Bolsheviks were killing millions of Russian’s where was the international criticism like that levelled at the Czar.
The KGB was not created by an ethnic Russians, the same can be said of other Soviet apparatus like the Gulags.
Hers a list of how un-Russian early communism was and how its mass murderers were not Russian. http://www.russians.org/communist.html
The whole Soviet system would not have been able to run without high interest loans from the Federal Reserve in the US including Stalin’s 5 year plan industrial project.
One of its shareholders Jacob Schiff was the main financier of the “revolution” in the first place.
Is Kosovo a "liberal" democracy?
You don’t have any evidence that it was a cover story.
There is evidence that that was his job, even his critics don’t dispute this fact.
What about Putin’s KGB critics who affiliated with western think tanks who moved over to the US after the fall of communism are they evil to?
The Bin Laden family have been financing terrorism worldwide since 89 in Bosnia and I'm not talking about Osama.
Abdullahs NGO the Benevolence Fund helped finance the 9/11 stay in the US.
A document was found in 2002 called the golden chain letter were terrorist themselves listed there major financial contributors which include Omar and Abdullah Bin Laden. Abdullah is a major shareholder in the Carlyle Group along with George Bush Sr and George Soro’s.
Tobias,
While at first I've found some of your posts irritating, thanks to James I see where you're coming from.
I'd only note that you may have been misled if you're under the impression that paleoconservatives in general view Putin with the adoration of a wistful schoolgirl with a crush on the football team captain.
Some do, I suppose -- but just as many do not.
IMO, the man is no better nor worse than a ruthless nationalist gangster who lives on the other side of the world, and whose doings are only marginally my business, at best.
As a ruthless nationalist gangster far, far away, Putin is considerably less of a headache for me than the self-righteous abstractionist ideologues who are despoiling and ruining my own homeland. Like the leaders of Oceania, ideologues keep in power by continually finding some demonized Other against whom to direct the aggressive political energies of the people.
Consider Mr. Roberts' closing sentences.... of course, I don't know about "humanity".
But I do know that the most dreadful enemy & greatest threat to the American family farmer & to small-town communities & sure's hell isn't Putin, any more than it was Hussein.
Thank you, G.S. I have frequently been edified by your posts.
"Like the leaders of Oceania, ideologues keep in power by continually finding some demonized Other against whom to direct the aggressive political energies of the people."
My own opinion is that Dr. Roberts long ago slid into irrational ideology. George Bush is his "Other." I also fear that some paleoconservatives have latched onto neocons as the "Other," to the point where "being most opposed to neoconservatism" is the summum bonum of the paleconservative movement. Just give me a good old-fashioned "conservative," not one with a chip on his shoulder.
My own opinion is that Dr. Roberts long ago slid into irrational ideology. George Bush is his “Other.”
I believe that Dr. Roberts hates bush because he feels that Bush has ruined his life's work. Dr. Roberts spent his entire life working for the Republican party to win office so it could push save America from liberalism. Now that the party has had its' chance at controlling all three branches of government it has instead used the opportunity to push for greater government power and is destroying the American people. Dr. Roberts probably feels that he has wasted his life.
J.D.,
As bad -- or evil, even -- as the Georgian government is, I don't think it's right to describe Georgia as "un-Christian."
Please reconsider this sentence of yours:
"People who wage war, murder innocents, and thwart acts of secession by people wanting to be free from tyranny are un-Christian."
@33Ronduck
While I worked as a volunteer for Bush's election in 2000 and 2004, I'm now forced to ask myself why I did it. While we do have enemies from without, there's more than one way to destroy a country (especially from within), and it looks as if Bush hit on many of them.
In 2000 Jimmy Carter had been the worst President in my lifetime. In 2008 I'm no longer certain.