[Прст_у_ока_латиници]

http://web-tribune.com/u_fokusu/procurel...lete-video

---

http://web-tribune.com/u_fokusu/ameri-po...e-pokazali

[ЈВуО-КГ]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon

шностра.

[Прст_у_ока_латиници]

Украјинска фабрика „Малишев“ испоручиће Сједињеним Америчким Државама један тенк „оплот“, пишу медији, позивајући се на неименоване изворе.
Снајпер
© SPUTNIK/ УЛЬЯНА СОЛОВЬЕВА
Украјина чека оружје против „руских снајпера“
Испоруку ће извршити државна компанија-специјални извозник, јавио је магазин „Војно-индустријски курир“, позивајући се на представника украјинског војног бизниса.

Извор је назвао испоруку перспективном. По његовом мишљењу, америчка страна на такав начин проучава украјинску технологију што ће дати могућност војно-техничке сарадње САД и Украјине.

Руски војни експерт Виктор Мураховски објаснио је шта ће Американцима украјински тенк.

„Американци су купили један тенк као што су куповали по једну јединицу старих модификација совјетске производње: један авион, један тенк, једну ракету. Они ће расклопити технику, извршити тестирања, проверити параметре заштите, видљивост у различитим условима итд“, објаснио је Мураховски.

Иако је база тенка „Оплот“ добро позната совјетска машина Т-64, Американце су интерсовале и њене даље модификације. Они су, на пример, купили и тенк Т-80УД и другу оклопну технику, навео је експерт.

Дивизантне акције?

[Прст_у_ока_латиници]

Почиње ли рат у свемиру

11:59 04.03.2018

Оливера Икодиновић

Пентагон је саопштио да је питање времена када ће почети рат у свемиру, будући да је неопходно да САД стекну надмоћ у космичком простору, али руски експерти упозоравају да би то могло да доведе до „уништења човечанства“.
Астронаут у свемиру

САД планирају да започну рат у свемиру?
Према писању „Спејс њуза“, начелник штаба америчке војске Дејвид Голдфејн је на 34. годишњем симпозијуму Војно-ваздухопловне асоцијације и сајму технологије на Флориди изјавио да САД морају да постигну супериорност у свемиру.

Како је рекао, Америка ће за неколико година почети да наноси нападе из свемира, али како би се појачала борбена моћ америчке војске потребно је интегрисати и обавештајну службу, као и комуникационе могућности у ваздуху, копну, мору и космосу.

„То је оно што је потребно нашој земљи“, истакао је Голдфејн.

Он је оценио и да је америчкој војсци потребна нова генерација команданата како би одговорила на све актуелне изазове широм света.

Међутим, руски војни експерт и пуковник у пензији Виктор Литовкин упозорава да би такав сценарио означио „крај човечанства“.

„Сматрам да је рат у свемиру у принципу немогућ, јер би то могло да означи крај човечанства. Због тога Русија и Кина покушавају да у Уједињеним нацијама прогурају резолуцију о забрани распоређивања оружја у космосу. Изјаве америчких генерала и адмирала по том питању говоре само о једном — код њих непрестано расту апетити. Америчка армија је ионако добила рекордни буџет, али они би хтели још“, рекао је Литовкин за Спутњик.

НАСА-ина капсула Орион на ракети Делта IV током лансирања са Кејп Канаверала на Флориди.
© AP PHOTO/ MARTA LAVANDIER
Србија мора да уђе у свемирску трку
Према његовим речима, амбиције за остваривање светске хегемоније до сада се никада нису добро завршиле.

„Такви апетити америчке војске потврђују да они и даље желе да задрже статус хегемона, доминантне силе која би да влада свим земљама. Они истовремено желе да буду и полицајци, и судије, и тужиоци и џелати. Ми знамо како се завршавају такви покушаји — историјско искуство показује да се то може завршити катастрофом за оне који су све то започели. Али данас амерички официри о томе не размишљају“, сматра Литовкин.

Како наводи „Спејс њуз“, буџет америчке војске за програме у свемиру у 2018. години износи 7,75 милијарди долара, што је 20 одсто више него прошле, док се за 2019. годину планира рекордна сума од 8,5 милијарди.

[Прст_у_ока_латиници]

ЕВО ЗАШТО ЈЕ РУСИЈА ОБЈАВИЛА ПРЕТЊУ ОРУЖЈЕМ: Британија се сада званично припрема за рат против Русије
03/05/2018 09:37 Фокус 8 Свет Планета

Крајем фебруара, британски министар одбране, конзервативац Гавин Вилијамсон, најавио је да Уједињено Краљевство мења своју фундаменталну стратегију одбране, са оне која је усмерена против терориста (Ал Каида, итд.), на ону која је уместо тога, усмерена против три земље: Русије, Кине и Северне Кореје, извештавају британски медији.


Британска војска (Фото: army.mod.uk)

Он је признао да ће за то бити потребан огроман пораст војне потрошње и да ће се “штедња“ морати пронаћи у другим областима владине потрошње, као што су нпр. здравствене услуге.

Наслов у “Лондон Тајмусу” 22. фебруара је био “Русија је већа претња нашој безбедности него терористи“. Њихов уредник одбране, Дебора Хејнс, је известила:

“Претња Британији из држава као што су Русија и Северна Кореја је већа од оне коју представља тероризам, изјавио је јуче секретар за одбрану, обележавајући значајну промену у политици безбедности.“

“Гавин Вилијамсон је сугерисао посланицима да би у склопу прегледа одбране било потребно још новца и промена у структури оружаних снага, како би се суочили са сукобима на државном нивоу, а то је нешто што Британија већ генерацијама није узимала у обзир…“

“То је одступање од стратегије националне безбедности објављене 2015. године, која је прво навела међународни тероризам, и слагање са одлуком САД да прогласе за “стратешку конкуренцију“ земље попут Кине и Русије, као свој главни фокус уместо контратероризма…“

“Он је описао “повећану агресивност“ Кремља, као што је десетоструко повећање активности подморница у северном Атлантику, растуће присуство Руса у медитеранском региону, и њихово учешће у рату у Сирији. “Али онда видите нове нације које почињу да играју већу улогу у свету, као што је Кина…““

“На питање да ли је Вилијамсон прихватио да би ово могло имати домино ефекат на то како је британска војска структуирана и њену спремност за рат, он је одговорио потврдно.“

Баш као што се догодило када је британски премијер Тони Блер своју земљу начино кученцетом америчког председника Џорџа Буша, у инвазији на Ирак 2003. године, британска премијерка Тереза Меј своју земљу сада чини кученцетом америчког председника Доналда Трампа за инвазије које долазе, на Северну Кореју, Русију и Кину.

Штампа у САД и њиховим савезничким земљама (као што је Велика Британија), би могла имати проблем да убеди своје становништво у проширивање војних трошкова како би се освојиле Русија, Кина и Северна Кореја – а амерички председник Трамп жели да укључи и Иран (али ће вероватно искористити свог савезника Израел за ту операцију – јер је, на пример, истог дана, 22. фебруара, “Галуп” известио да од 59% до 37% Американаца не одобрава Трампа по питању “Односа са Русијом“, а 23. марта 2017. године, је “Паблик Интегрити” објавио наслов “Јавност се залаже за смањење трошкова одбране, а не додавање још додантих милијарди, открива ново истраживање“, и известио:

“Предложени буџет председника Трампа за 2018. годину не прати мишљење јавности. Истраживање, Програма за јавну консултацију (ППЦ) Универзитета у Мериленду, открило је да иако је Трамп предложио повећање федералне потрошње за војску у износу од 54 милијарде долара, већина Американаца преферира смањење од 41 милијарде доалра. Иако је Трамп предложио повећање од 2,8 милијарде долара за безбедност домовине, већина Американаца фаворизује смањење од 2 милијарде долара…“

“Трампови предлози су били у супротности са приоритетима и републиканаца и демократа…“

“Већина испитаника ГОП-а је рекла да би желели да задрже такозвани “основни“ или главни буџет одбране на садашњем нивоу, иако су фаворизовали смањење од 5 милијарди долара потрошње из буџета за “непредвиђене операције у иностранству“, нарочито у Авганистану и Ираку.“

“Ови резултати су, заузврат, били изузетно слични закључцима истраживања из 2012. године од стране Центра за јавни интегитет, ППЦ-а и Стимсон центра, непрофитне студијске групе у Вашингтону. Када су испитаници у том истраживању упитани шта би урадили са Обаминим основним буџетом за одбрану, већина је била за то да се смањи за најмање 65 милијарди долара, са 562 милијарде долара на 497 милијарде долара…“

Ситуација је вероватно још тежа у Великој Британији где, према “Галуп-овом” истражавању 2017. године, су становници Велике Британије, на питање: “Да ли одобравате или не одобравате радни учинак руководства Сједињених Држава?“, са 63% одговорили да “Не одобравају“, а 33% њих “Одобрава“, а укупно одобравање (-30%) је опало на 26% од претходног рејтинга председника Обаме (-4%) 2016. године.

Сходно томе, како би лидери то учинили, мораће да дође до потпуног раздвајања чак и од тврдње да су “демократија“, јер, у таквој значајној одлуци о томе да ли би требало да дође до Трећег светског рата или не (и ако да, да ли Иран треба да буде мета у њему), ићи против огромне већине јавности ,не би било могуће.

Још увек није јасно када ће – и да ли ће икада – “демократске“ земље Запада (САД и њихови савезници, милијардери) достићи границе своје империјалне похлепе. Али, ако је свет њихова граница, онда нема никаквих ограничења, јер ће се сам свет окончати, пре него што се та граница достигне. А сада, није само Доналд Трамп тај који води тај пут, већ му се придружила и Тереза Меј.

Стејт департмент дао зелено светло за продају оружја Украјини, критикује Путина због новог нуклеарног оружја. Више о томе читајте ОВДЕ.

Извор: webtribune.rs

Али ГАС у два наврата може да прође?

[Прст_у_ока_латиници]

Спремају ли се Русија и Кина за рат у космосу против АмерикеCC0 / Pixabay
КОМЕНТАРИ И АНАЛИТИКА
20:52 07.03.2018
Оливера Икодиновић

Док многи независни експерти наводе да су САД те које милитаризују космос и претварају га у ново бојно поље, амерички генерали за то оптужују Русију и Кину, тврдећи да те две силе стварају „космичке убице“. С друге стране, руски војни експерти истичу да Русија „штанцује“ таква средства само у одбрамбене сврхе и да нема намеру никога да напада.
Директор Обавештајне управе Пентагона генерал Роберт Ешли изјавио је да Русија и Кина „раде на средствима за борбу против америчких сателита", те да то подразумева и њихово „онеспособљавање са земље".

Оружана битка за космос: Америка креће у свемирски рат
Како је рекао, обе земље знају у којој мери САД зависе од космоса и раде на средствима којима ће моћи да се супротставе Американцима у космосу.

„Морамо рачунати и на нападе на наше сателите и на њихово избацивање из функције без напада на сâм сателит. И у Русији и у Кини су таква средства тренутно у фази конструкције“, додао је он.

Денијел Коутс, директор Националне обавештајне заједнице САД, изјавио је да Москва и Пекинг „развијају своје шпијунске, комуникационе и навигационе могућности у космосу“, како би смањиле ефикасност америчких и њених савезничких оружаних снага.

Међутим, руски војни експерти сматрају да Вашингтон нема права да се буни што друге светске силе предузимају мере заштите, с обзиром да су Американци ти који се доследно противе склапању било каквих споразума о демилитаризацији космоса.

„Када амерички генерали говоре о претњама водећих војних сила, као што су Русија и Кина, то значи да им је потребан новац и то је оно што је главно. Познато је да су, почев још од осамдесетих година, Сједињене Америчке Државе одбиле све предлоге о демилитаризацији космоса. Друго, они у оквиру стварања новог оружја развијају веома озбиљне космичке програме. Постоје званичне изјаве америчких генерала о томе да ће до 2030. године Америка имати космичку флоту. Треће, савремена америчка теорија рата је такозвана ’теорија глобалног напада‘. То, између осталог, подразумева и уништавање земаља-противника из космоса. Због тога се и тај део налази у њиховим програмима наоружања“, рекао је за Спутњик војни експерт, генерал-мајор у резерви Владимир Богатирјов, оцењујући истовремено да су „САД су изгубиле апсолутно лидерство у развоју оружја будућности“.

Мирослав Лазански
Империја на реци Потомак (видео)
С друге стране, Владимир Тучков, војни коментатор „Слободне пресе“, каже да у Русији постоје „званична средства“ за борбу против сателита, али да се то сматра њиховом „другостепеном функцијом“.

„Постоје снажни системи противракетне одбране који су предвиђени за одбијање напада балистичких ракета. На пример, систем ПРО Москве А-135 ’Амур‘ сада ће заменити моћнији систем А-235 ’Нудољ‘ са ракетом која је у стању да обара летелице на висини од 650 километара. Другим речима, тај пројектил може да се користи за уништавање сателита. У таквом облику ’Нудољ‘ треба да уђе у нови ударни систем за борбу против сателита ’Рудолф‘, који се, према саопштењима руског Министарства одбране, развија у оквиру новог државног програма наоружавања за период од 2018. до 2027. године“, каже Тучков.

Он подсећа да је у припреми и нови мобилни ракетни систем С-500 „Тријумф“, који ће, између осталог, моћи да уништи сателите ниске орбите, свемирске уређаје за уништавање и орбитално оружје.

„Ракете тог система могу да лете у орбиту на висину од 500 километара, а на тој орбити су углавном концентрисани војни сателити“, додао је експерт.

Тучков је издвојио и ракету Р37-М коју носи ловац пресретач МиГ-31БМ.

„Домет тог пројектила је 300 километара, а тај ловац је најбржи на свету и достиже брзину од три хиљаде километара на сат. Тај ’двојац‘ такође може да обара сателите ниске орбите“, навео је Тучков.

Ратови звезда: Американци нападају Месец — Руси спремили космички контраудар роботима
Он сматра да ће обарање сателита ракетама у догледној будућности „отићи у историју“, а, како наводи, сада се у те сврхе интензивно развија електромагнетно и ласерско оружје.

„У говору пред Федералном Скупштином прошле недеље Владимир Путин је показао моћан ласерски систем копненог базирања, који се у свемиру још не може користити, али ја не искључујем могућност да ће се у будућности прилагодити и за космичке циљеве. Ласерско оружје је ефикасније средство за борбу против сателита — оно је мање опасно с тачке гледишта екологије, пошто уништавање сателита ракетама прави облак космичког отпада, што смета космичкој навигацији“, објаснио је Тучков.

Осим тога, како је додао, Русија води и тајна тестирања малогабаритног сателита, који у будућности такође може бити коришћен за борбу са сателитима.

Коментаришући оптужбе америчких генерала, Тучков каже да је то један од начина на који они „избијају“ паре из буџета за стварање свог новог наоружања.

„Американци сасвим сигурно развијају противсателитске системе, раде у области ласерског и електромагнетног оружја, а уз то имају и орбитални авион X-37 који наводно ради за агенцију НАСА, али њега контролишу америчке Оружане снаге. Та беспилотна летелица редовно излази на орбиту, а постоји разлог да се верује да је то повезано са развојем противсателитског оружја.“

Тучков наглашава да Русија своје оружје ствара искључиво у одбрамбене сврхе.

Mинистар америчког ваздухопловства Хедер Вилсон и начелник штаба америчког ваздухопловства генерал Дејвид Голдфин

САД: Свемир — нови полигон за рат
„Да ли ћемо ми први запуцати? У доктрини Руске Федерације не стоји агресивно освајање света и све што се данас ради у Русији — ради се у одбрамбене сврхе, пошто су САД изашле из договора о ПРО и почеле да се приближавају ка нашим границама, правдајући то ’иранском претњом‘“.

С друге стране, Космичке снаге Кине у свом арсеналу већ имају противсателитско оружје, ометаче и ласере, који су у стању да „ослепе“ сателит и ометају његов рад.

---

НАТО најавио велике војне вежбе у близини руске границе

Земље НАТО-а планирају да у октобру ове године одрже велике војне вежбе у близини границе с Русијом. У вежбама ће учествовати 45.000 људи, саопштио је командант Корпуса морске пешадије САД, генерал Роберт Нелер.
Амерички војник у депресији

„На јесен, у октобру, биће одржане велике вежбе НАТО-а, највероватније најобимније вежбе у којима ће учествовати и амфибије 'Тридент џанкчер‘, познате из времена када је Хладни рат био на врхунцу. Могуће је учешће 45.000 војника НАТО-а и десетина бродова и авиона, који ће вежбати борбу против симулиране опасности код обала Норвешке“, рекао је Нелер на расправи у Представничком дому САД.

Генерал није прецизирао где ће се тачно одржавати вежбе, али је јасно да ће то бити недалеко од границе с Русијом, пошто ће она, уверен је командант, реаговати на њих.

„Уверен сам да ће Руска Федерација слати демарше. Мислим, међутим, да то показује озбиљност стратегије САД, да наши савезници из НАТО-а желе да нас виде тамо (у Европи) као своје заштитнике“, рекао је Нелер.

САД и земље НАТО-а су 2014. године усвојиле Европску иницијативу за обуздавање након догађаја на Криму и на истоку Украјине, чији је циљ „обуздавање агресивних дејстава Русије“ и заштита европских савезника.

[Прст_у_ока_латиници]

US Continues Massive Military Build Up

America's “inward turn” is in fact an invention of the mainstream media

By Shane Quinn
Global Research, March 08, 2018
Region: USA
Theme: History, Militarization and WMD

Less than a year into his second term as president, Barack Obama addressed the nation by saying “for nearly seven decades the United States has been the anchor of global security”. Among his first words, Obama highlighted Syria and “where we go from here… against the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad”.

Obama accused (without a shred of evidence) the Assad government of having “gassed to death over a thousand people”, lamenting “the terrible nature of chemical weapons” which are “a crime against humanity”. Obama neglected to mention how, 25 years before, American policies made possible the most destructive gas attack of the post-World War II period – Saddam Hussein‘s assault on the Kurds of Halabja, northern Iraq, which killed at least 5,000 people.

In March 1988, Halabja – just nine miles from Iran’s border – was targeted by the US-sponsored Iraqi army, due to the city being under the control of the Tehran-allied Kurdish guerrillas. The Reagan administration was heavily supporting Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988). Iranian nationalists had previously overthrown the US-backed dictatorship of the Shah in 1979, which was at the root of the ensuing war between the neighbors.

The Americans knew as early as 1983 that the Iraqi despot was utilizing chemical and biological warfare upon Iran. It went on for years. Rick Francona, a retired US Air Force colonel, said later that

“the Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn’t have to. We already knew”.

Despite this knowledge, the US continued providing significant military aid to the Iraqi dictatorship.

Not mentioned by Obama either was America’s chemical and biological attacks on Cuba, which lasted for many years. In the early 1960s, during Operation Mongoose, the CIA inflicted illnesses upon Cuba’s sugar cane workers by spreading chemicals along the crop fields. During the same period, American agents repeatedly contaminated Cuban sugar exports, a key commodity of the Caribbean island’s industry.

In 1971, the US introduced African swine fever to Cuba, the first such outbreak in the Western hemisphere. It led to the country’s entire pig population being put down, pork being a fundamental of the Cuban diet, which was thereafter unavailable for months.

A decade following that, a virulent form of dengue fever was transmitted to Cuba, resulting in 273,000 people being infected on the island. The disease claimed 158 lives, with over 100 of those dying being children. Other diseases such as sugar cane rust, tobacco blue mold, and hemorrhagic conjunctivitis were also introduced by the US. However, none of these actions come under the “violation of the laws of war” that Obama outlined in his national address.

Elsewhere, America utilized chemical weapons en masse during its attacks on Korea in the 1950s, and later, during the war against Vietnam and the rest of Indochina. In the Korean War, the US released over 32,000 tons of napalm, an incendiary liquid, on available targets.



During the invasions of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos (in the 1960s and 70s), US aircraft dropped over 20 million gallons of “Agent Orange” – lethal carcinogens such as dioxin. This cowardly form of warfare only became a moral issue back home, when the poisonous fluids were accidentally sprayed upon tens of thousands of Americans soldiers operating in the areas.

Indeed, many US troops were at the time oblivious to the dangers these deadly chemicals posed. It would be the Vietnamese and their neighbors who would endure the greatest suffering, however. As a result of the chemical warfare, deaths continue rising today in this part of Asia – while birth defects and deformed children are another side effect.

Among Obama’s “anchors of global security” in Europe, is the US-led organization NATO. In reality, this aggressive military alliance is having the opposite effect as it destabilizes entire regions near Russia’s frontiers.

As long ago as 1960, James P. Warburg, the former financial adviser to president Franklin D. Roosevelt, described NATO as “an outmoded instrument for the pursuit of free world interests”. Warburg, who wrote various books on US foreign policy, felt NATO could be used only as “a bargaining counter for an eventual peace settlement in Europe”. However, the First World War veteran and acclaimed banker felt that “it may be too late to use NATO for even this purpose”. With NATO 11 years in existence, Warburg felt it had run its course.

Nor was he alone in his views. As first supreme commander of NATO in the early 1950s, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was no dove, had already placed a 10-year time-span on the organization. In his farewell address in 1961, after serving two terms as president, Eisenhower said

“we must guard against the unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex”.

Just over 20 years ago, his granddaughter, Susan Eisenhower, signed an open letter to president Bill Clinton along with 49 military, political and academic leaders. They were protesting against plans by NATO to expand, describing any such actions as “a policy error of historic proportions”. To no avail.

In the time since, a further 13 countries have joined NATO, including two that are situated along Russia’s borders (Estonia and Latvia). Montenegro, in southern Europe, was the latest to ally itself to NATO in June 2017, bringing its membership to 29 states.

One could only imagine the American reaction had Canada and Mexico joined the USSR-dominated Warsaw Pact during the Cold War. The former US ambassador and historian, George Kennan, wrote in 1997 that

“Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the post-Cold War era”, which would “impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking”.

At a NATO summit in Bucharest [Romania] in April 2008, it was made clear that Georgia and the Ukraine “will become members of NATO”. This was not lost on the Russians. Much to the West’s indignation, Russia has inevitably responded to these serious threats near its doorstep.

Vladimir Putin‘s August 2008 intervention in Georgia was designed to prevent that country gaining NATO membership. Georgia is, after all, situated on Russia’s frontier, along the Caucasus. Georgia’s northern border is only 500 miles from Stalingrad [today, Volgograd], and what many consider the turning point of World War II as the Nazis’ elite forces were surrounded.

The Ukraine also shares a border with Russia, the latter looking on aghast as US-sponsored forces illegally overthrew Viktor Yanukovych‘s democratic government in 2014. The following year, Obama himself admitted the US had “brokered a deal” in the Ukraine, which has seen Russia understandably intervene in the east of the country.

Kennan’s prophetic words from two decades ago, regarding Russia’s turn in “directions decidedly not to our liking”, have rung true. As US/NATO policies in Europe have become increasingly hostile, the Russians have emerged stronger on the other side. Russia is in a far more commanding position today than it was 20 years ago, when NATO enlargement began to accelerate.

On the far side of the world, US forces are attempting to encircle and intimidate China, their other coming foe. The establishment of over 400 American military bases – located from Japan, South Korea and onto India – have encircled China whose influence still continues to rise, even in Europe. America’s “pivot to Asia” was not Donald Trump’s initiative, but was announced in 2011 by the supposedly non-interventionist Obama.

The mainstream widely reports that America is “turning inward”, while simultaneously the superpower continues the largest build up of its military forces since 1945, primarily directed at China. The American military outlay for 2016 dwarfed any other nation, which contradicts the assertions of a country withdrawing from the world.

вероватно из чиштог фер плеја, сви чекају да се наслага све своје фигура да нешто почне......

јели ту има нека нека успрећаване планове, где се ова кататрофа може да се избегне?

---

oday, people are finally waking up to the dangers of a world war, which might emanate from the highest levels of the US government.

We are no longer dealing with a hypothetical scenario. The threat of World War III is real. Public opinion has become increasingly aware of the impending dangers of an all out US-NATO led war against Iran, North Korea and the Russian Federation.

WW III has been contemplated by the U.S. and its allies for well over fifteen years as revealed in Michel Chossudovsky’s 2012 best-seller: “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War“

Excerpt below



The US has embarked on a military adventure, “a long war”, which threatens the future of humanity. US-NATO weapons of mass destruction are portrayed as instruments of peace. Mini-nukes are said to be “harmless to the surrounding civilian population”. Pre-emptive nuclear war is portrayed as a “humanitarian undertaking”.

click book cover image to order directly from Global Research

While one can conceptualize the loss of life and destruction resulting from present-day wars including Iraq and Syria, it is impossible to fully comprehend the devastation which might result from a Third World War, using “new technologies” and advanced weapons, until it occurs and becomes a reality. The international community has endorsed nuclear war in the name of world peace. “Making the world safer” is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.

Nuclear war has become a multi-billion dollar undertaking, which fills the pockets of US defense contractors. What is at stake is the outright “privatization of nuclear war”.

The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest. The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the world simultaneously.

Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. A good versus evil dichotomy prevails. The perpetrators of war are presented as the victims. Public opinion is misled.

Breaking the “big lie”, which upholds war as a humanitarian undertaking, means breaking a criminal project of global destruction, in which the quest for profit is the overriding force. This profit-driven military agenda destroys human values and transforms people into unconscious zombies.

The object of this book is to forcefully reverse the tide of war, challenge the war criminals in high office and the powerful corporate lobby groups which support them.

[Прст_у_ока_латиници]

Why Russia’s New Strategic Capabilities Come as a Shock to the US Intelligence Community

By Philip Giraldi
Global Research, March 11, 2018
Strategic Culture Foundation 8 March 2018
Region: Russia and FSU, USA
Theme: Intelligence, Militarization and WMD

The United States of America spends something like $80 billion annually on intelligence gathering and analysis. When the CIA was founded by the National Security Act in 1947 the intention was to create a mechanism that would warn about an imminent threat. The memory of Pearl Harbor in 1941, when Japan attacked the U.S. naval base was still fresh, and the legislation was popularized by the slogan “no more Pearl Harbors.”

In spite of the dedication of considerable resources and manpower, there have been some major intelligence failures in the past seventy years, starting with the inability to anticipate the breakout of the Korean War and including the embrace of false intelligence on Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. But the most recent failure is perhaps more consequential than either Korea or Iraq.

On March 1st, Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke before his country’s Federal Assembly plus a large group of both local and foreign journalists, outlining his plans for the economy and also dealing with other domestic issues should he be reelected later this month. The final third of the presentation was on national defense and, in its substance, was clearly directed at a global audience, particularly the United States.

He explained

“During all these years since the unilateral U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty [in 2001] we have been working intensively on advanced equipment and arms, which allowed us to make a breakthrough in developing new models of strategic weapons.”

He was referring to the RS-28 Sarmat ballistic missile, which has almost unlimited range and ultra-high speed, enabling it to employ trajectories including strikes coming over the South Pole that can defeat existing American Anti-Ballistic Defense systems. Russia has also produced and deployed a hypersonic glider weapon system Avangard.

But the real game changer is the Russian ability to negate America’s ability to project power through its navy. The already deployed air-launched Kinzhal anti-ship missile has a range of 2000 kilometers and a hyper-sonic speed that makes it nearly impossible to intercept. The development has made America’s thirteen aircraft carrier groups obsolete. President Putin made clear that Russia now has an overwhelming military advantage in cruise and ballistic missiles that are capable of penetrating U.S. defenses.

The new reality may or may not impel policymakers in Washington to approach Moscow and seek a new round of negotiations for arms control, but the real shock deriving from the Putin announcement is the failure of the intelligence community to anticipate the developments and advise their significance. Some of the new systems were hardly secret, with development of the Sarmat, for example, known to western governments for a number of years.

There will no doubt be a blame game in Washington over the inability to learn of Russia’s arms programs, but the questions that probably will not be asked relates to the intelligence agencies themselves and their capabilities, or lack thereof. It is no secret that organizations like the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) have seen their basic missions change since 2001. An organization that used to pride itself on its ability to conduct classic espionage operations involving recruiting and running spies suddenly heard from policymakers that those skills were no longer in demand. Many officers who were made redundant or forced to retire were precisely those individuals who had cut their teeth on running operations directed against the old Soviet Union. They had the language and cultural skills necessary to collect information on Russia. With their departure, those capabilities also largely vanished.

Instead of spying, American intelligence agencies working mostly against what was broadly described as “terrorism,” used technology to locate potential targets and kill them. The CIA’s Clandestine Services, once the haven of its spies, became under President Barack Obama, a largely paramilitary operation focused on military solutions rather than espionage. This process was accelerated under Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan, who worked assiduously to reduce the influence of the former spies within the Agency. Brennan reportedly had once wanted to become a spy but was kicked out of the training program as “unsuitable.”

So, has America learned that its intelligence agencies are doing all the wrong things and that the national defense strategy is unsustainable because the Russian-American relationship is now on a new footing? Possibly, but it is perhaps more likely that Washington will avoid asking the hard questions.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest.

---

The Pentagon’s “Ides of March”: Best Month to Go to War

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, March 01, 2018
Global Research 12 March 2013
Theme: US NATO War Agenda

First published on March 13, 2013, updated March 1, 2018.

Is it a coincidence?

In recent history, from the Vietnam war to the present, the month of March has been chosen by Pentagon and NATO military planners as the “best month” to go to war.

With the exception of the War on Afghanistan (October 2001) and the 1990-91 Gulf War, all major US-NATO and allied led military operations over a period of more than half a century –since the invasion of Vietnam by US ground forces on March 8, 1965– have been initiated in the month of March.

The Ides of March (Idus Martiae) is a day in the Roman calendar which broadly corresponds to March 15. The Ides of March is also known as the date on which Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC.

Lest we forget, the month of March (in the Roman Calendar) is dedicated to Mars (Martius), the Roman God of War.

For the Romans, the month of March (Martius) marked “the time to start new military campaigns.”

As in the heyday of the Roman Empire, the US Department of Defense has a mandate to plan and implement a precise “timeline” of military operations.

Does the month of March –identified by the Romans as a “good time” to initiate new military undertakings–, have a bearing on contemporary military doctrine?

Throughout history, seasons including the transition from Winter to Spring have played a strategic role in the timing of military operations.

Do Pentagon military planners favor the month of March?

Do they also –in some mysterious fashion– “idolize” Mars, the Roman God of War?

March 23 (which coincides with the beginning of Spring) was the day “Romans celebrated the start of the military campaign and war fighting season.”

“Homage was paid to Mars the god of war with festivals and feasting. … For the Romans March 23 was a huge celebration known as Tubilustrium”.

Under these festivities which celebrated the Roman god of war, a large part of the month of March “was dedicated to military celebration and preparedness.”

Timeline of March Military Interventions (1965- 2017)

Recent history confirms that with the exception of Afghanistan (October 2001) and the 1990-91 Gulf War, all major US-NATO led military operations over a period of almost half a century –since the invasion of Vietnam by US ground forces on March 8, 1965– have been initiated in the month of March.

The Vietnam War

The US Congress adopted the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which authorized President Lyndon Johnson to dispatch ground forces to Vietnam on March 8, 1965.

On 8 March 1965, 3,500 U.S. Marines were dispatched to South Vietnam marking the beginning of “America’s ground war”.

NATO’s War on Yugoslavia

NATO’s war on Yugoslavia was launched on March 24, 1999.

The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia code-named by the US Operation “Noble Anvil”. started on March 24, 1999 and lasted until June 10, 1999.

The Iraq War

The War on Iraq was launched on March 20, 2003. (Baghdad time)

The US-NATO led invasion of Iraq started on 20 March 2003 on the pretext that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

(The 1991 Gulf War on Iraq began on 17th January. However, after the 28th February ceasefire was agreed and signed – following the Basra Road massacre of withdrawing soldiers and fleeing civilians on 26th/27th February – the US 24th Mechanised Infantry Division slaughtered thousands on 2nd March.“)

The Covert War on Syria

The US-NATO Covert War on Syria was initiated on March 15, 2011 with the incursion of Islamist mercenaries and death squads in the southern city of Daraa on the border with Jordan. The terrorists were involved in acts of arson as well as the killings of civilians. This incursion of terrorists was from the very outset supported covertly by the US, NATO and its Persian Gulf allies: Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

NATO’s “Humanitarian” R2P War on Libya

NATO commenced its bombing of Libya on March 19, 2011. The United Nations Security Council passed an initial resolution on 26 February 2011 (UNSC Resolution 1970), (adopted unanimously).

A subsequent United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 was adopted on 17 March 2011. It authorized the establishment of “a no-fly zone” over Libya, and the use “all necessary measures” “to protect the lives of civilians”.

Libya was bombed relentlessly by NATO warplanes starting on March 19, 2011 for a period of approximately seven months.

Yemen

On 25 March 2015, an international coalition led by Saudi Arabia and supported by the US launched air strikes against the Huthi armed group in Yemen.

**

March 2018

The US and its NATO allies, not to mention Israel, are on a war footing.

Several military scenarios in March 2018 are on the drawing board of the Pentagon including Lebanon, Syria (military escalation scenario), North Korea and Iran.

Russia is threatened and so is China.

We cannot speculate, however, regarding US-NATO war plans pertaining to the Ides of March 2018.

A vast media propaganda campaign has been launched to provide legitimacy to the US-led military adventure, upholding acts of war as humanitarian peace-making initiatives. In the course of the month of March, fake news has reached a new threshold: US mini nukes are heralded as peacemaking bombs.

Here is the latest New York Times (Feb 27) “authoritative” analysis of how North Korea is helping the Syrian government to wage a chemical war against the Syrian people. Nice and not fake, timely (Ides of March) and of course “carefully documented” by the Newspaper of Record.

---

Entering the Ring of War Propaganda

By Mark Taliano
Global Research, March 08, 2018
Region: Middle East & North Africa
Theme: Media Disinformation, Terrorism, US NATO War Agenda
In-depth Report: SYRIA

Western populations are inundated with war propaganda, and all of the MSM is guilty. It serves to promote criminal warfare rather than peace.

Once we enter the ring of propaganda fabricated by western agencies of deception, we start to lose, since it is at that point that we become entwined in the convoluted narratives. Intelligence agencies are specialists at creating such fake narratives.[1]

Fundamental lies and omissions persist because we insist on using them as talking points despite the preponderance of evidence that negates them.

There are, for example, no “moderate terrorists”[2] in Syria. The term itself is an oxymoron and quite ridiculous. All of the terrorists in Syria are there precisely because the West and its allies are waging a supremely illegal war against the Syrian government. They are all proxies for the West.

The War on Terror is a fraud and the West is not waging war against ISIS either.[3] ISIS are monsters, but they are not Frankenstein monsters who have turned on their masters in Syria. They remain Western assets, sometimes expendable[4], but assets nonetheless. They served to deliver key strategic areas to the West and they still serve that function, as outlined in the 2012 DIA document.

The ring of propaganda includes Hollywood. The 2018 Oscars featured Bana al-Abed[5], falsely conflating her with feminism and freedom. Omitted from the spectacle is the fact that Bana’s father worked for both al Qaeda and ISIS[6], and that Western terrorist supporters and propagandists are exploiting her to create illegal war propaganda.

The White Helmets[7] fall into the same category. They are terrorist-auxiliaries, and they exploit children, and murder children, to create fake narratives centered around their heroic “humanitarian” deeds. The White Helmets are not a legitimate source of information for news.

Also omitted from MSM narratives is that terrorists in East Ghouta[8] murder civilians who try to escape occupied areas, just as terrorists murdered civilians trying to flee occupied Aleppo. Civilians continue to be used as human shields. Most do not stay in terrorist-occupied areas of their own volition.

The choice in Syria is not between two monsters. The Western terrorists are monsters, but the elected Syrian government is not a monster. All of the demonization campaigns against Assad have proven false. The Saydnaya torture evidence is fraudulent[9]. The Caesar “kills his own people”[10] photo evidence is fraudulent, and Assad does not gas his own people either.

The only monsters in the whole dirty war are the West and their allies. We are the ones committing the Supreme international crime, we are the ones fabricating the war narratives, and we the people are accomplices in our governments’ crimes when we fail to denounce them.

*

Notes

[1] Mark Taliano, “ ‘Stories within Stories’ ”: The CIA’s Strategies to Dupe the American Public.” Global Research. 24 July, 2016. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/stories-wi...ic/5537635) Accessed 7 March, 2018.

[2] Mark Taliano, “U.S–Led NATO’s Tree Of Lies.” Global Research. 17 May, 2017. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-led-na...es/5590456) Accessed 7 March, 2018.

[3] Makia Freeman, “ISIS Is a US-Israeli Creation. Top Ten ‘Indications’. Global Research, 7 March, 2018/The Freedom Articles, 5 April, 2016. “(https://www.globalresearch.ca/isis-is-a-...ns/5518627)

Accessed 7 March, 2017.

[4] Tim Anderson, “U.S. ATTEMPTED TO CREATE SUNNI-SHIA RIFT IN THE MIDDLE EAST: TIM ANDERSON.” Interview, Shiafollowers. 25 February, 2018. (https://shiafollowers.com/index.php/2018...-anderson/) Accessed 7 March, 2018.

[5] “HOLLYWOOD CAUGHT EXPLOITING EIGHT YEAR OLD DAUGHTER OF TERRORIST AT OSCARS 2018 CEREMONY.”

clarityofsignal1. 6 March 2018. (https://www.bitchute.com/video/jTaAySeZSQfZ/) Accessed 7 March, 2018.

[6] “Beeley: Bana Alabed’s dad worked for ISIS.” RT UK. 17 October, 2017.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4QDXpjo...ture=share) Accessed 7 March, 2018.

[7] Vanessa Beeley, “WHITE HELMETS ‘Manufacturing Consent’ for War in Syria.” 6 March, 2018. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMdtfVCA...ture=share) Accessed 7 March, 2018.

[8] “Militants shell & shoot at escapees from E. Ghouta, may use them as human shields – Syrian nun to RT.”

RT Question More. 5 Mar, 2018. (https://www.rt.com/news/420506-ghouta-re...ssion=true) Accessed 7 March, 2018.

[9] Rick Sterling, “Amnesty International’s ‘Kangaroo Report’ on Human Rights in Syria.” Global Research. 12 February, 2017. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/amnesty-in...ia/5574195) Accessed 7 March, 2018.

[10] Rick Sterling, “The Caesar Photo Fraud that Undermined Syrian Negotiations.” Dissident Voice. 3 March, 2016. (https://dissidentvoice.org/2016/03/the-c...otiations/) Accessed 7 March, 2018

Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

---

“Fake News” and World War III. The Danger of Nuclear Annihilation

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, March 09, 2018
Theme: Crimes against Humanity, US NATO War Agenda
In-depth Report: Nuclear War

We are at a dangerous crossroads in our history.

The dangers of a Third World War are routinely obfuscated by the media. A world of fantasy permeates the mainstream media which tacitly upholds the conduct of nuclear war as a peace-making endeavor.

World War III is terminal. Albert Einstein understood the perils of nuclear war and the extinction of life on earth, which has already started with the radioactive contamination resulting from depleted uranium, not to mention Fukushima.

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

The media, the intellectuals, the scientists and the politicians, in chorus, obfuscate the untold truth, namely that war using nuclear warheads destroys humanity.

“Fake News” has become “Real News”.

And “Real News” by the independent online media is now tagged as Russian propaganda.

In turn, the independent media (including Global Research) is the object of censorship via the search engines and social media.

What we are dealing with is a War against the Truth. Objective reporting on the dangers of a Third World war is being suppressed. Why?

The future of humanity is at stake. The danger of nuclear annihilation is not front-page news.

The unfolding consensus among Pentagon war planners is that a Third World War is “Winnable”.

Nuclear War as an “Instrument of Peace”

Concepts are turned upside down. Political insanity prevails.



A diabolical discourse is unfolding. The so-called “more usable” tactical nuclear weapons (B61-11, B61-12) with an explosive capacity between one third and twelve times a Hiroshima bomb are heralded (by scientific opinion on contract to the Pentagon) as “peace-making” bombs, “harmless to the surrounding civilian population because the explosion is underground”.

These are the weapons which are contemplated for use against North Korea (or Iran) in what is described by the Pentagon as “a bloody nose operation”, with limited civilian casualties. And the corporate media applauds.

Fake News: these nuclear bombs are WMD. The “Bloody Nose” (“safe for civilians”) Concept is “Fake News”

Lest we forget, when the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima (see image below), 100,000 people died within the first seven seconds following the explosion. Needless to say, today’s nuclear weapons are far more advanced than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.



When war becomes peace, the world is turned upside down. Conceptualization is no longer possible. Insanity prevails. The institutions of government are criminalized and so is the media.

The Pentagon and NATO are beating the drums of war. What is at stake is a Worldwide media disinformation campaign in support of a Third World War, which almost inevitably would lead to nuclear annihilation.

In the words of Fidel Castro: “In a nuclear war the “collateral damage” would be the life of all humanity”.

“The use of nuclear weapons in a new war would mean the end of humanity. …

Today there is an imminent risk of war with the use of that kind of weapon and I don’t harbour the least doubt that an attack by the United States and Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran would inevitably evolve towards a global nuclear conflict.

…

There would be “collateral damage”, as the American political and military leaders always affirm, to justify the deaths of innocent people.

In a nuclear war the “collateral damage” would be the life of all humanity.

Let us have the courage to proclaim that all nuclear or conventional weapons, everything that is used to make war, must disappear!” (Complete text and video recording, October 2010 Interview with Fidel Castro by Michel Chossudovsky)

When the lie becomes the truth there is no turning backwards.

When war is upheld as a humanitarian endeavor endorsed by the self proclaimed international community, pacifism and the antiwar movement are criminalized. yet it should be noted that in the course of the last 15 years, the anti-war movement has largely become defunct, civil society organizations have been coopted.

How do we reverse the tide: a cohesive grassroots counter-propaganda campaign

The Road Ahead

There are no easy solutions. What is required is the development of a broad based grassroots network which seeks to disable patterns of authority and decision making pertaining to war. This is by no means an easy and straightforward undertaking.

This network would be established nationally and internationally at all levels in society, towns and villages, work places, parishes. Trade unions, farmers organizations, professional associations, business associations, student unions, veterans associations, church groups would be called upon to integrate the antiwar organizational structure. Of crucial importance, this movement should extend into the Armed Forces as a means to breaking the legitimacy of war among service men and women.

The first task would be to disable war propaganda through an effective campaign against media disinformation. (including support of the online independent and alternative media).

The corporate media would be directly challenged, leading to boycotts of major news outlets, which are responsible for channelling disinformation into the news chain. This endeavor would require a parallel process at the grass roots level, of sensitizing and educating fellow citizens on the nature of the war and the global crisis, as well as effectively “spreading the word” through advanced networking, through alternative media outlets on the internet, etc. It would also require a broad based campaign against the search engines involved in media censorship on behalf of the Pentagon.

The creation of such a movement, which forcefully challenges the legitimacy of the structures of political authority, is no easy task. It would require a degree of solidarity, unity and commitment unparalleled in World history. It would require breaking down political and ideological barriers within society and acting with a single voice. It would also require eventually unseating the war criminals, and indicting them for war crimes.

Abandon the Battlefield: Refuse to Fight

The military oath taken at the time of induction demands unbending support and allegiance to the US Constitution, while also demanding that US troops obey orders from their President and Commander in Chief:

“I,____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God”

The President and Commander in Chief has blatantly violated all tenets of domestic and international law. So that making an oath to “obey orders from the President” is tantamount to violating rather than defending the US Constitution.

“The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the “lawful command of his superior officer,” 891.ART.91 (2), the “lawful order of a warrant officer”, 892.ART.92 (1) the “lawful general order”, 892.ART.92 (2) “lawful order”. In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.” (Lawrence Mosqueda, An Advisory to US Troops A Duty to Disobey All Unlawful Orders,

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MOS303A.html,

See also Michel Chossudovsky, “We the People Refuse to Fight”: Abandon the Battlefield! March 18, 2006 )

The Commander in Chief is a war criminal. According to Principle 6 of the Nuremberg Charter:

“The fact that a person [e.g. Coalition troops] acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”

Let us make that “moral choice” possible, to enlisted American, British, Canadian and US-NATO Coalition servicemen and women.

Disobey unlawful orders! Abandon the battlefield! … Refuse to fight in a war which blatantly violates international law and the US Constitution!

But this is not a choice which enlisted men and women can make individually.

It is a collective and societal choice, which requires an organizational structure.

Across the land in the US, Britain, Canada and in all coalition countries, the new anti-war movement must assist enlisted men and women to make that moral choice possible, to abandon the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now in Syria and Yemen.

This will not be an easy task. Committees at local levels must be set up across the United States, Canada, Britain, Italy, Japan and other countries, which have troops engaged in US led military operations.

We call upon veterans’ associations and local communities to support this process.

This movement needs to dismantle the disinformation campaign. It must effectively reverse the indoctrination of coalition troops, who are led to believe that they are fighting “a just war”: “a war against terrorists”, a war against the Russians, who are threatening the security of America.

The legitimacy of the US military authority must be broken.

What has to be achieved:

Reveal the criminal nature of this military project,
Break once and for all the lies and falsehoods which sustain the “political consensus” in favor of a pre-emptive nuclear war.
Undermine war propaganda, reveal the media lies, reverse the tide of disinformation, wage a consistent campaign against the corporate media
Break the legitimacy of the war-mongers in high office.
Dismantle the US sponsored military adventure and its corporate sponsors.
Bring Home the Troops
Repeal the illusion that the State is committed to protecting its citizens.
Expose the “fake crises” such as the global flu pandemic as a means to distract public opinion from the dangers of a global war.
Uphold 9/11 Truth. Reveal the falsehoods behind 9/11 which are used to justify the Middle East Central Asian war under the banner of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT)
Expose how a profit driven war serves the vested interests of the banks, the defense contractors, the oil giants, the media giants and the biotech conglomerates
Challenge the corporate media which deliberately obfuscates the causes and consequences of this war,
Reveal and take cognizance of the unspoken and tragic outcome of a war waged with nuclear weapons.
Call for the Dismantling of NATO
Implement the prosecution of war criminals in high office
Close down the weapons assembly plants and implement the foreclosure of major weapons producers
Close down all US military bases in the US and around the World
Develop an antiwar movement within the Armed Forces and establish bridges between the Armed Forces and the civilian antiwar movement
Forcefully pressure governments of both NATO and non-NATO countries to withdraw from the US led global military agenda.
Develop a consistent antiwar movement in Israel. Inform the citizens of Israel of the likely consequences of a US-NATO-Israeli attack on Iran.
Confront Target the pro-war lobby groups including the pro-Israeli groups in the US
Dismantle the homeland security state, call for the repeal of the PATRIOT legislation
Call for the removal of the military from civilian law enforcement. Call for the enforcement of the Posse Comitatus Act
Call for the demilitarization of outer space and the repeal of Star Wars
People across the land, nationally and internationally, must mobilize against this diabolical military agenda, the authority of the State and its officials must be forcefully challenged.

This war can be prevented if people forcefully confront their governments, pressure their elected representatives, organize at the local level in towns, villages and municipalities, spread the word, inform their fellow citizens on the implications of a nuclear war, initiate debate and discussion within the armed forces.

What is required is the development of a broad and well organized grassroots antiwar network which challenges the structures of power and authority, the nature of the economic system, the vast amounts of money used to fund the war, the shear size of the so-called defense industry.



Click book cover to order Michel Chossudovsky’s latest book directly from Global Research

What is required is a mass movement of people which forcefully challenges the legitimacy of war, a global people’s movement which criminalizes war.

What is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media lies and distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US Administration and of those governments which support it, its war agenda as well as its so-called “Homeland Security agenda” which has already defined the contours of a police State.

The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has embarked on a military adventure, “a long war”, which threatens the future of humanity.

It is essential to bring the US war project to the forefront of political debate, particularly in North America and Western Europe. Political and military leaders who are opposed to the war must take a firm stance, from within their respective institutions. Citizens must take a stance individually and collectively against war.

We call upon people across the land, in North America, Western Europe, Israel, The Arab World, Turkey and around the world to rise up against this military project, against their governments which are supportive of US-NATO led wars, against the corporate media which serves to camouflage the devastating impacts of modern warfare.

The military agenda supports a profit driven destructive global economic system which impoverishes large sectors of the world population.

This war is sheer madness.

The Lie must be exposed for what it is and what it does.

It sanctions the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children.

It destroys families and people. It destroys the commitment of people towards their fellow human beings.

It prevents people from expressing their solidarity for those who suffer. It upholds war and the police state as the sole avenue.

It destroys both nationalism and internationalism.

Breaking the lie means breaking a criminal project of global destruction, in which the quest for profit is the overriding force.

This profit driven military agenda destroys human values and transforms people into unconscious zombies.

Let us reverse the tide.

Challenge the war criminals in high office and the powerful corporate lobby groups which support them.

Break the American inquisition.

Undermine the US-NATO-Israel military crusade.

Close down the weapons factories and the military bases.

Bring home the troops.

Members of the armed forces should disobey orders and refuse to participate in a criminal war.

---

The Illusion of War Without Casualties

America’s wars in the post-9/11 era have been characterized by relatively low U.S. casualties, but that does not mean that they are any less violent than previous wars, Nicolas J.S. Davies observes.

By Nicolas J. S. Davies
Global Research, March 11, 2018
Consortiumnews 9 March 2018
Theme: History, Media Disinformation, US NATO War Agenda

Featured image: Coffins of dead U.S. soldiers arriving at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware in 2006. (U.S. government photo)

Last Sunday’s Oscar Awards were interrupted by an incongruous propaganda exercise featuring a Native American actor and Vietnam vet, featuring a montage of clips from Hollywood war movies.

The actor, Wes Studi, said that he “fought for freedom” in Vietnam. But anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of that war, including for instance the millions of viewers who watched Ken Burns’ Vietnam War documentary, knows that it was the Vietnamese who were fighting for freedom – while Studi and his comrades were fighting, killing and dying, often bravely and for misguided reasons, to deny the people of Vietnam that freedom.

Studi introduced the Hollywood movies he was showcasing, including “American Sniper,” “The Hurt Locker” and “Zero Dark Thirty,” with the words,

“Let’s take a moment to pay tribute to these powerful films that shine a great spotlight on those who have fought for freedom around the world.”

To pretend to a worldwide TV audience in 2018 that the U.S. war machine is “fighting for freedom” in the countries it attacks or invades was an absurdity that could only add insult to injury for millions of survivors of U.S. coups, invasions, bombing campaigns and hostile military occupations all over the world.

Wes Studi’s role in this Orwellian presentation made it even more incongruous, as his own Cherokee people are themselves survivors of American ethnic cleansing and forced displacement on the Trail of Tears from North Carolina, where they had lived for hundreds or maybe thousands of years, to Oklahoma where Studi was born.

Unlike the delegates at the 2016 Democratic National Convention who broke out in chants of “no more war” at displays of militarism, the great and the good of Hollywood seemed nonplussed by this strange interlude. Few of them applauded it, but none protested either.

From Dunkirk to Iraq and Syria

Perhaps the aging white men who still run the “Academy” were driven to this exhibition of militarism by the fact that two of the films nominated for Oscars were war movies. But they were both films about the U.K. in the early years of the Second World War – stories of British people resisting German aggression, not of Americans committing it.

Like most cinematic paeans to the U.K.’s “finest hour,” both these films are rooted in Winston Churchill’s own account of the Second World War and his role in it. Churchill was roundly sent packing by British voters in 1945, before the war was even over, as British troops and their families instead voted for the “land fit for heroes” promised by the Labour Party, a land where the rich would share the sacrifices of the poor, in peace as in war, with a National Health Service and social justice for all.

Churchill reportedly consoled his cabinet at its final meeting, telling them,

“Never fear, gentlemen, history will be kind to us – for I shall write it.”

And so he did, cementing his own place in history and drowning out more critical accounts of the U.K.’s role in the war by serious historians like A.J.P. Taylor in the U.K. and D.F. Fleming in the U.S.

If the Military Industrial Complex and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences are trying to connect these Churchillian epics with America’s current wars, they should be careful what they wish for. Many people around the world need little prompting to identify the German Stukas and Heinkels bombing Dunkirk and London with the U.S. and allied F-16s bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen, and the British troops huddled on the beach at Dunkirk with the destitute refugees stumbling ashore on Lesbos and Lampedusa.

Externalizing the Violence of War

In the past 16 years, the U.S. has invaded, occupied and dropped 200,000 bombs and missiles on seven countries, but it has lost only 6,939 American troops killed and 50,000 wounded in these wars. To put this in the context of U.S. military history, 58,000 U.S. troops were killed in Vietnam, 54,000 in Korea, 405,000 in the Second World War and 116,000 in the First World War.

But low U.S. casualties do not mean that our current wars are less violent than previous wars. Our post-2001 wars have probably killed between 2 and 5 million people. The use of massive aerial and artillery bombardment has reduced cities like Fallujah, Ramadi, Sirte, Kobane, Mosul and Raqqa to rubble, and our wars have plunged entire societies into endless violence and chaos.


At the start of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, President George W. Bush ordered the U.S. military to conduct a devastating aerial assault on Baghdad, known as “shock and awe.” (Source: Consortiumnews)

But by bombing and firing from a distance with very powerful weapons, the U.S. has wreaked all this slaughter and destruction at an extraordinary low rate of U.S. casualties. The U.S.’s technological war-making has not reduced the violence and horror of war, but it has “externalized” it, at least temporarily.

But do these low casualty rates represent a kind of “new normal” that the U.S. can replicate whenever it attacks or invades other countries? Can it keep waging war around the world and remain so uniquely immune from the horrors it unleashes on others?

Or are the low U.S. casualty rates in these wars against relatively weak military forces and lightly armed resistance fighters giving Americans a false picture of war, one that is enthusiastically embellished by Hollywood and the corporate media?

Even when the U.S. was losing 900-1,000 troops killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan each year from 2004 to 2007, there was much more public debate and vocal opposition to war than there is now, but those were still historically very low casualty rates.

U.S. military leaders are more realistic than their civilian counterparts. General Dunford, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has told Congress that the U.S. plan for war on North Korea is for a ground invasion of Korea, effectively a Second Korean War. The Pentagon must have an estimate of the number of U.S. troops who are likely to be killed and wounded under its plan, and Americans should insist that it makes that estimate public before U.S. leaders decide to launch such a war.

The other country that the U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia keep threatening to attack or invade is Iran. President Obama admitted from the outset that Iran was the ultimate strategic target of the CIA’s proxy war in Syria.

Israeli and Saudi leaders openly threaten war on Iran, but expect the U.S. to fight Iran on their behalf. American politicians play along with this dangerous game, which could get thousands of their constituents killed. This would flip the traditional U.S. doctrine of proxy war on its head, effectively turning the U.S. military into a proxy force fighting for the ill-defined interests of Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Iran is nearly 4 times the size of Iraq, with more than double its population. It has a 500,000 strong military and its decades of independence and isolation from the West have forced it to develop its own weapons industry, supplemented by some advanced Russian and Chinese weapons.

In an article about the prospect of a U.S. war on Iran, U.S. Army Major Danny Sjursen dismissed American politicians’ fears of Iran as “alarmism” and called his boss, Defense Secretary Mattis, “obsessed” with Iran. Sjursen believes that the “fiercely nationalistic” Iranians would mount a determined and effective resistance to foreign occupation, and concludes, “Make no mistake, U.S.military occupation of the Islamic Republic would make the occupation of Iraq, for once, actually look like the ‘cakewalk’ it was billed to be.”

Is This America’s “Phony War”?

Invading North Korea or Iran could make the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan look in hindsight like the German invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland must have looked to German troops on the Eastern front a few years later. Only 18,000 German troops were killed in the invasion of Czechoslovakia and 16,000 in the invasion of Poland. But the larger war that they led to killed 7 million Germans and wounded 7 million more.

After the deprivations of the First World War reduced Germany to a state of near starvation and drove the German Navy to mutiny, Adolf Hitler was determined, like America’s leaders today, to maintain an illusion of peace and prosperity on the home front. The newly conquered people of the thousand-year Reich could suffer, but not Germans in the homeland.

Hitler succeeded in maintaining the standard of living in Germany at about its pre-war level for the first two years of the war, and even began cutting military spending in 1940 to boost the civilian economy. Germany only embraced a total war economy when its previously all-conquering forces hit a brick wall of resistance in the Soviet Union. Could Americans be living through a similar “phony war”, one miscalculation away from a similar shock at the brutal reality of the wars we have unleashed on the world?

How would the American public react if far greater numbers of Americans were killed in Korea or Iran – or Venezuela? Or even in Syria if the U.S. and its allies follow through on their plan to illegally occupy Syria east of the Euphrates?

And where are our political leaders and jingoistic media leading us with their ever-escalating anti-Russian and anti-Chinese propaganda? How far will they take their nuclear brinksmanship? Would American politicians even know before it was too late if they crossed a point of no return in their dismantling of Cold War nuclear treaties and escalating tensions with Russia and China?

Obama’s doctrine of covert and proxy war was a response to the public reaction to what were in fact historically low U.S. casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq. But Obama waged war on the quiet, not war on the cheap. Under cover of his dovish image, he successfully minimized the public reaction to his escalation of the war in Afghanistan, his proxy wars in Libya, Syria, Ukraine and Yemen, his global expansion of special operations and drone strikes and a massive bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria.



Syria, after six years of U.S.-manufactured war. (Source: VENEZUELAPHOTO: PRENSA LATINA | INTERNET@GRANMA.CU \SANA)

How many Americans know that the bombing campaign Obama launched in Iraq and Syria in 2014 has been the heaviest U.S. bombing campaign anywhere in the world since Vietnam? Over 105,000 bombs and missiles, as well as indiscriminate U.S., French and Iraqi rockets and artillery, have blasted thousands of homes in Mosul, Raqqa, Fallujah, Ramadi and dozens of smaller towns and villages. As well as killing thousands of Islamic State fighters, they have probably killed at least 100,000 civilians, a systematic war crime that has passed almost without comment in the Western media.

“…And It Is Late”

How will the American public react if Trump launches new wars against North Korea or Iran, and the U.S. casualty rate returns to a more historically “normal” level – maybe 10,000 Americans killed each year, as during the peak years of the American War in Vietnam, or even 100,000 per year, as in U.S. combat in the Second World War? Or what if one of our many wars finally escalates into a nuclear war, with a higher U.S. casualty rate than any previous war in our history?

In his classic 1994 book, Century of War, the late Gabriel Kolko presciently explained,

“Those who argue that war and preparation for it is not necessary to capitalism’s existence or prosperity miss the point entirely: it simply has not functioned in any other way in the past and there is nothing in the present to warrant the assumption that the coming decades will be any different…”

Kolko concluded,

“But there are no easy solutions to the problems of irresponsible, deluded leaders and the classes they represent, or the hesitation of people to reverse the world’s folly before they are themselves subjected to its grievous consequences. So much remains to be done – and it is late.”

America’s deluded leaders know nothing of diplomacy beyond bullying and brinksmanship. As they brainwash themselves and the public with the illusion of war without casualties, they will keep killing, destroying and risking our future until we stop them – or until they stop us and everything else.

The critical question today is whether the American public can muster the political will to pull our country back from the brink of an even great

[регул]

Која је сврха засеравања форума километарским текстовима на енглеском,а и на српском?

ПОСТОЈИ ПОДФОРУМ НА ЕНГЛЕСКОМ!!!

[Прст_у_ока_латиници]

Експлозија у складишту муниције у Немачкој © AP Photo/ Amel Emric
ВЕСТИ
16:53 16.03.2018(освежено 17:14 16.03.2018)
Експлозија се десила у објекту за одлагање муниције у савезној држави Бранденбургу на истоку Немачке, преноси служба за медије у округу Даме Шпревалд.
Једна особа се сматра несталом.

Тренутно ситуацију из ваздуха надгледа полицијски хеликоптер. Подручје око складишта је евакуисано. Још нема информација о повређенима.

---

Russian nuclear subs quietly reached US coast & left undetected – Navy officer
Published time: 16 Mar, 2018 08:13
Edited time: 16 Mar, 2018 10:31
Get short URL
Russian nuclear subs quietly reached US coast & left undetected – Navy officer
A file picture taken in Brest harbor, western France, on September 21, 2004, shows the Russian nuclear submarine of Shchuka-B type / FRED TANNEAU / AFP
Russian nuclear-powered submarines conducted an exercise near American military bases with the objective of avoiding detection as they came close to the US coast, a submarine squadron commander told a Russian military TV channel.
The stunning revelation was made in a military TV series set to air on Zvezda (‘Star’), the Russian Defense Ministry’s official broadcaster. The episode focuses on Akula-class Shchuka-B nuclear-powered attack submarines.

Read more
© RuptlyRussia increases nuclear sub fleet, combat patrols reach Soviet-era levels
According to a submarine officer filmed in the show, the Navy command ordered to take position in the vicinity of US military bases during exercises.

“This mission has been accomplished, the submarines showed up in the set location in the ocean and returned to base,” the commander of the submarine squadron, Sergey Starshinov, told Zvezda.

Asked if the submarines had managed to stay off the radar during the mission, Starshinov replied: “Yes. This is our objective – to come and go undetected.” The Navy commander said the Russian vessels came “close enough” to American shores but did not violate US maritime borders, remaining in neutral waters.

The date and location of the covert mission have not been disclosed, but the channel said the Russian nuclear-powered submarines “reached the very coastline of the US.”

Shchuka-B submarine has been commissioned for the Soviet Navy in 1986. The nuclear-powered sub is capable of launching Kalibr or Granat cruise missiles, engaging underwater targets with its 553mm torpedoes, and staying submerged for up to 100 days, according to open sources.

As with many Russian nuclear submarines, the information of their status as well as current and past deployments is sparse. It is understood that several submarines of this class are being operated by the Russian Navy or undergoing modernization. One Shchuka-B submarine was leased to India, where it entered service under the name INS ‘Chakra’.

In 2016, a senior US Navy official complained the military branch cannot ensure full awareness of Russian submarine deployments which were at the level unseen since the Cold War.

“The submarines that we're seeing are much more stealthy,” Admiral Mark Ferguson, commander of US Naval Forces in Europe at the time, told CNN. The Russians “have more advanced weapons systems, missile systems that can attack land at long ranges,” and their operational capabilities were getting better “as they range farther from home waters.”

[Прст_у_ока_латиници]

One British and two US nuclear submarines are taking part in a joint naval exercise currently underway in the icy waters of the Arctic Ocean.
Armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles and Spearfish heavy torpedoes, the HMS Trenchant is the first British nuclear sub to be deployed under the Arctic ice in a decade.

It joined a pair of the US Navy’s fast attack submarines the USS Hartford and USS Connecticut, both of which surfaced in the Arctic Circle on March 10 as part of the multinational maritime Ice Exercise 2018.

Dreadnought, 3,500 tons, Britain's first nuclear powered submarine, is shown in the water after her launching in the Vickers-Armstrongs dockyard at Barrow-in-Furness, Lancashire on October 21, 1960.
© AP PHOTO/ RIS
Fear and 'Dreadnought': UK's New Nuclear Submarine Will 'Deter' Extreme Threats
The biennial drill, meant to improve the submarines’ combat capabilities in extreme cold-water conditions, comes amid growing tensions with Russia, exacerbated by London’s accusations of Moscow being allegedly behind the recent poisoning of a Russian ex-intelligence officer in Britain.
Russian officials have strongly denied the accusations, with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov saying that Moscow is ready to cooperate in the probe but needs to look at the samples of the substance in question.

On March 4, Sergei Skripal, who was accused of espionage on behalf of London and later granted asylum in the United Kingdom after a US-Russia spy exchange, and his daughter were found unconscious on a bench at a shopping center in Salisbury.

Both of them remain in critical condition and are being treated for suspected exposure to a nerve agent.

---

US Senate Warns Russia of Sanctions if S-400 Sold to Any Foreign Nations © Sputnik/ Grigoriy Sisoev
US
03:34 17.03.2018Get short URL6216135
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - A group of US lawmakers led by Senator Bob Menendez told the State Department in a letter that any sale of Russian S-400 air defense system should lead to new punitive measures as stipulated in the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA).
"We are writing today to specifically inquire about reported negotiations between Russia and certain countries over sales of the Russian government’s S-400 air defense system and whether these reported deals could trigger mandatory CAATSA sanctions," the letter said on Friday. "Under any circumstance, a S-400 sale would be considered a 'significant transaction' and we expect that any sale would result in designations."

The lawmakers also requested that the State Department provide detailed analysis on the current status of Russian S-400 talks with China, Turkey, India, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and any other country.

The senators based their letter on a report produced by the Congressional Research Service, which showed that Russia has been working on potential defense deals with different countries.

An S-400 air defence missile system at the Hmeymim airbase
© SPUTNIK/ DMITRIY VINOGRADOV
Indian Air Force Lists Russian S-400 Air Defense System as Top Priority
Menendez and co-signers demanded information on how the State Department is trying to prevent the sales of S-400 being finalized and reiterated Washington's accusations of Russia's aggression in Ukraine and meddling in democratic process in foreign states.
The request comes just a day after the Treasury Department used the CAATSA legislation, along with an Executive Order that was amended by CAATSA, to impose sanctions on five entities and 19 individuals.

Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB), Main Intelligence Directorate and six Russian individuals were sanctioned under the CAATSA legislation.

The US Congress passed CAATSA last summer in response to allegations that Russia sought to influence the 2016 US presidential election. Trump signed it into law on August 2.

[Прст_у_ока_латиници]

Triggering War. A Manufactured “Catalytic Event” Which Will Initiate An All Out War? Are We Going to Let this Happen Again?

The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand on June 28, 1914 led to the outbreak of World War I. The Gulf of Tonkin incidents on August 2 and August 4, 1964 enabled what we call the Vietnam War

By Prof. Graeme McQueen
Global Research, March 18, 2018
Theme: History, US NATO War Agenda

GR Editor’s Note

Russi-Gate, Novichok, Eastern Ghouta, False Flags?

This carefully research article by Professor Graeme McQueen presents a timely historical viewpoint which is routinely “censored” by the mainstream media as well by the search engines. The danger of World War III is not front-page news.

Kindly consider forwarding it Professor McQueen’s article to your friends and colleagues, crosspost it on alternative media and blog sites.

The threat of World War III is real, yet there is no anti-war movement in sight. In the US, Canada and the EU, the peace movement is defunct, ignorant of the broader implications of nuclear war.

This is why, dear readers, we call upon your support and endorsement. There is a real “conspiracy” to trigger war. That’s the truth. Establish community networks, spread the word, organize at the grassroots level.

In the words of Prof. McQueen:

“Our task is clear. We must mobilize both our investigative resources and our communication resources to nullify the efforts of those who specialize in the construction and encouragement of war triggers and who wish to keep the war system robust. We lost over 100 million people to war in the 20th century. Are we really going to let this happen again?”

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research Editor, March 18, 2018

***

As we watch Western governments testing their opponents – today Iran, the next day the DPRK, and then Russia and China – we hold our breaths. We are waiting with a sense of dread for the occurrence of a catalytic event that will initiate war. Now is the time to reflect on such catalytic events, to understand them, to prepare for them.

The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand on June 28, 1914 in Sarajevo led to the outbreak of World War I. The Gulf of Tonkin incidents on August 2 and August 4, 1964 enabled what we call the Vietnam War.

Both events were war triggers. A “war trigger”, as I am using the term, is an event that facilitates an outbreak or expansion of hot war–that phase of the war system in which active killing takes place.

War triggers can lead affected populations to cast aside their critical faculties and their willingness to dissent from government narratives. They can also disable moral values and ideological commitments. At the outbreak of World War I the peace movement, the women’s movement and the socialist movement were all shattered.

Image result for Rosa Luxemburg

While there is debate among scholars today about the extent of the frenzy in Europe as World War I began, it is difficult to dismiss sophisticated eyewitnesses such as Rosa Luxemburg (image on the right), who referred to what she saw as:

“mad delirium”; “patriotic street demonstrations”; “singing throngs”; “the coffee shops with their patriotic songs”; “the violent mobs, ready to denounce, ready to persecute women, ready to whip themselves into a delirious frenzy over every wild rumour”; “the atmosphere of ritual murder”. (Luxemburg, 261)

What Luxemburg described was a subjective state produced by a successful war trigger, in which a population becomes extremely lethal as it readies itself to rush at its foe while simultaneously battering anyone in its own ranks that dares to dissent.

Luxemburg herself dared to dissent. This led to two and a half years in a German prison cell. During this time she wrote the Junius Pamphlet, criticizing Europe’s socialist leaders for having been captured by the spirit of war, and pointing to the consequences of their folly:

“the cannon fodder that was loaded upon the trains in August and September is rotting on the battlefields of Belgium and the Vosges…Cities are turned into shambles, whole countries into deserts, villages into cemeteries, whole nations into beggars, churches into stables; popular rights, treaties, alliances, the holiest words and the highest authorities have been torn into scraps”. (Luxemburg, 261-2)

Luxemburg’s anger had a solid basis in what has become known as “the August madness” that struck Europe. For example, on August 3, 1914, when the war had just begun, the following call went out to university students from the most senior officials in the Bavarian universities:

“Students! The muses are silent. The issue is battle, the battle forced on us for German culture, which is threatened by the barbarians from the East, and for German values, which the enemy in the West envies us. And so the furor teutonicus bursts into flame once again. The enthusiasm of the wars of liberation flares, and the holy war begins”. (Keegan, 358)

In response to this hysterical appeal, the German university students volunteered in large numbers. Untrained, they were thrown into battle. In the space of three weeks 36,000 of them were killed.

Germany was not unique, of course, in its vulnerability. Randolph Bourne, in an unfinished essay generally known as “War is the Health of the State”, described what he saw somewhat later in the United States as that country flipped from anti-war to pro-war and joined in the global disaster. He observed that once the executive branch had made the decision to go to war the entire population suddenly changed its mind. “The moment war is declared… the mass of the people, through some spiritual alchemy, become convinced that they have willed and executed the deed themselves.”

Therefore, the people, “with the exception of a few malcontents, proceed to allow themselves to be regimented, coerced, deranged in all the environments of their lives, and turned into a solid manufactory of destruction.”

It is true that war madness of the kind that accompanied WWI has been less common in the years since then, partly because that war turned out to be an unprecedented catastrophe. But I believe it is entirely wrong to think that in today’s era of high technology and digitalized war the arousing of the spirit of war in a population is no longer sought or needed. A highly influential analysis of American Vietnam War strategy, carried out by one Col. Harry Summers, concluded some years ago that a chief cause of the US downfall was the failure of leaders to arouse their population’s emotions. The American people, said Summers, had been forced to fight that war “in cold blood”, which they found intolerable. In fact, this failure to arouse the war spirit was taken by many US analysts to have led to the “Vietnam syndrome” – a reluctance to intervene in the affairs of other countries militarily. This was a timidity unsuitable, they felt, for an imperial power.

One of the purposes of the September 11, 2001 operation, in my view, was precisely to change that situation – to arouse intense feelings of unity, aggression and support for government in order to banish once and for all the Vietnam Syndrome and to launch with great energy the new global conflict formation (the “War on Terror”) so that the 21st century, with the military leading the way, would become another American Century.

Still, war triggers are not all the same, and we need to create categories. We can distinguish three broad types: accidental war triggers, managed war triggers and manufactured war triggers.

An accidental war trigger is an event that triggers hot war in the absence of intention. The pressure of events, random clashes, the everyday quest to satisfy physical needs – all these may, in the absence of warlike intent, produce a war trigger. After the event occurs it may lead, again without conscious plotting, directly to a hot and violent conflict between contending parties.

No doubt many war triggers throughout history fit the category of accidental war trigger. However, the more I have studied recent human wars the less ready I have become to promote the triggering events as accidental.

Image result for assassination of Archduke Ferdinand

Years ago when I gave talks on war triggers I used to give the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand as an example of an accidental war trigger. True, I understood that the assassin of the Archduke did not act alone: Gavrilo Princip, the young Serbian nationalist, was certainly not a “lone wolf”; he was one of several armed men stationed along the route of the Archduke’s carriage, and although he was committed to this plan it is also pretty clear that he was deliberately used by a group with high-level connections to carry out the assassination. But I felt that the planners were unlikely to have sought the large-scale conflagration they ended up getting, and I was impressed by the variety of elements in the “Balkan cauldron” that seemed to defy rational planning. Likewise, I was impressed by the numerous systemic factors operative in the wake of this event that led to a major war, ranging from a flourishing arms industry, through genuinely deluded ruling classes and entangling state alliances, to systems such as railways that gave an advantage to the first party to mobilize. All in all, I felt that non-deliberate factors outweighed deliberate factors, so I called this an accidental war trigger.

Recent reading, however, has made me less confident of this position. Especially since encountering Docherty and McGregor’s book, Hidden History: the Secret Origins of the First World War, I am inclined to reclassify the World War I war trigger as a managed trigger.

A managed war trigger is one in which a party of influence consciously acts to increase the chances of hot war, either by deliberately creating conditions where a war trigger is likely to arise, or by seizing an event after the fact and shaping it into a war trigger.

If World War I’s war trigger must be moved from accidental to managed, this increases the number of cases in this already well-stuffed category. The Pearl Harbor attack that caused the US entry into World War II was certainly managed. The factors that would increase the chances of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, thereby overcoming the US population’s resistance to entering this war, were studied and made part of a deliberate program. The Japanese advance on Pearl Harbor was consciously allowed to proceed. The declaration of war on Japan was the immediate fruit of this managed attack.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident also falls into this category. This was no accidental dustup in the Gulf of Tonkin. US leaders had created a systematic program of naval raids on the coast of North Vietnam (the DESOTO raids) intended to stimulate responses. While there is still debate about the degree to which this incident was planned, I am on the side of those who see it as highly deliberate provocation by US leaders, constructed and used to create hot war. The North Vietnamese response to the intrusion of the Maddox and the Turner Joy was remarkably mild, but it was magnified and distorted by US Cold Warriors so that it could be portrayed as “communist aggression” that required violent response.

The success of these last two managed war triggers can be seen in the record of voting in the US Congress. On December 8, 1941 there was only one vote in Congress against the declaration of war on Japan. On August 7, 1964 the House voted unanimously in favour of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, while in the Senate the vote was 88-2.

These voting statistics are sobering. The readiness of the group mind to revert to a pre-rational state—to take aggressive action with dire consequences without seeking any serious confirmation of the facts of the matter—puts humanity in a state of profound risk.

A manufactured war trigger carries the manipulation of populations even further. Here, deliberateness is extreme: it is not simply a matter of increasing the chances that this or that incident will occur, or making a mountain out of a molehill after the event. Here, those desirous of war write the script, choreograph the action, plan the output, and carry out, or subcontract, the actual event. Typically, they will also prepare to demonize and marginalize anyone who dares to challenge the narrative they present to the world.

The War on Terror is a master class in manufactured and managed war triggers. My own studies have concentrated on the two-part operation of the fall of 2001 – the September 11 airplane incidents and the immediately following anthrax letter attacks. These were manufactured war triggers, and they were successful in winning the support of both the US population and its representatives for foreign wars and restrictions on domestic civil rights.

A Washington Post-ABC poll initiated on the evening of 9/11 reportedly found that:

“nearly nine in 10 people supported taking military action against the groups or nations responsible for yesterday’s attacks even if it led to war. Two in three were willing to surrender ‘some of the liberties we have in this country’ to crack down on terrorism”. (MacQueen, 36)

Meanwhile, on September 11 cowed members of Congress fled for their lives on receiving information that a plane was headed toward the Capitol. That evening they assembled on the Capitol steps to sing God Bless America and to begin what was, in effect, their complete capitulation to those who had manufactured this war trigger.

On September 14, 2001 the Authorization for Use of Military Force was passed with a vote of 98-0 in the Senate and 422-1 in the House.

By late October members of Congress had begun to recover somewhat, and the USA Patriot Act, restricting domestic civil rights, met more opposition in the House than had the rush to war, passing by a vote of 357-66. Its fate in Senate, however, was more typical of such cases: 98 to 1.

These outcomes in Congress demonstrate the remarkable success, in the short term, of the manufactured war triggers of the fall of 2001. The effects of such operations, however, are temporary, so the perpetrators have had no choice but to continue managing and manufacturing war triggers to maintain the fraudulent War on Terror. The FBI (and parallel federal police agencies in other Western countries) busily entrap and recruit young people as fodder for the War on Terror, while in other cases False Flag attacks are carried out using wholesale invention. These initiatives have had a mixed success. For example, the official account of the Boston Marathon bombing is widely accepted despite its contradictions and absurdities; but the story of the Syrian chemical weapons attack of 2013 failed to accomplish its apparent aim of greatly expanded direct US military involvement in Syria. Likewise, sceptics of the recent claim of Russian “novichok” use in the UK are already vocal.

We would do well to remember that the on-going production of managed and manufactured war triggers takes great resources and cannot forever remain leak-proof. It carries serious risks for war planners. The successful and definitive exposure of even one of these frauds before the people of the world could affect the balance of power overnight.

Our task is clear. We must mobilize both our investigative resources and our communication resources to nullify the efforts of those who specialize in the construction and encouragement of war triggers and who wish to keep the war system robust. We lost over 100 million people to war in the 20th century. Are we really going to let this happen again?

*

Graeme MacQueen is a former Director of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster University, a member of the 9/11 Consensus Panel, and a past co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

Professor McQueen is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Sources

The Junius Pamphlet: The Crisis in the German Social Democracy, in Rosa Luxemburg Speaks, edited by Mary-Alice Waters. New York: Pathfinder Press, 1970.

John Keegan, A History of Warfare. New York: Alfred Knopf, 1993.

Randolph Bourne, “The State (‘War is the Health of the State’)”, 1918.

Col. Harry Summers, On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War. Presidio Press, 1982.

Gerry Docherty and Jim MacGregor, Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War. Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing, 20taken him out for a walk boo

Robert B. Stinnett, Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor. New York: Touchstone, 2001.

Graeme MacQueen, The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy. Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2014.

Занимљиво да су изабрали Србин, Сарајево и Први Светски Рат!

[регул]

Овде се врло упорно засерава форум енглеским!Сврха?

[Прст_у_ока_латиници]

https://sputniknews.com/science/20180320...fo-battle/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJEYzrrGt4Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGAk5gRD-t0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2la4pIyXOEQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW77hVqux10




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtF1R4p_9TI&frags=wn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl4eudWsVUo



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwP1aW1q-k4


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHwGiWLkxaE