NWO by Conquest
We have all been witness to the conquest part of this endeavour. For more than 100 years now the Khazarian Maffia has done its utmost to get us into a one world government by force. Two world wars and a massive amount of ‘Revolutions’ and ‘Regime Change’ operations:
The USA is the enforcer but the master mind is the Khazarian Maffia, headquartered in Occupied Palestine, called Israel.
The NWO is based on the communist principles. The 10 Commandments to be read here.
The way to achieve this, is first to set up regional unions ( EU, African, Asian, American) in which the rights of national governments are taken away. Once the communist regional blocs are established it is easy to consolidate the power in a supreme centralist communist government overseeing the regional blocs.
Somehow the conquest route is not really working fast enough, because there are still many countries resisting this form of being overtaken.
NWO by Consent
For many years now, invisible for most people, China has been very busy to establish a firm base in Africa. They cooperate on an ‘equal’ base, meaning they don’t care about national politics, including human rights policies, or lack thereof. They have done a magnificent job of gaining trust on the continent by not only taking from Africa but give something back, mostly infrastructure. No need for violence or coercion.
However, the other continents are not so favourable for the China route or the USA route, so they came up with another route by consent: Russia.
Russia is the wise man in the world, the word of reason against the aggression of the USA and has managed to convince a large part of the world that they have left behind their communist roots. Putin has managed to get most of the alternative sector on his hand by throwing bits and pieces of truth, which convinces most people he is on ‘our’ side. Plus, of course, in Syria he is on the right side of the conflict.
In their adoration nobody seems to care that he did NOT stop NATO’s aggression in Serbia, Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq, just to mention a few. Nobody seems to care that Putin is a great admirer of Stalin and Lenin, the communist mass murderers of 100+ million people, mostly christians. He is a fervent opponent to anybody daring to question or revise the Hollywood version (meaning Stalin’s version) of WWII, telling everybody that revising the history of WWII is a danger to the world. Well yes, for the NWO project. He is pro-Israel and most probably a crypto-jew Khazar himself. All in all, he is a communist and controlled opposition.
In the western media Putin gets constant criticism about his handling of the opposition of the left, almost every day. Painting a picture that Putin is a right wing man. Which he isn’t, he is a communist. His real fears are for the nationalist party in Russia, who are being treated way worse than the left, but we never hear about that. For more info read:
The problem they had with Russia as controlled opposition is that Russia’s economy and power fell apart after the dismantling of the USSR. For many years Putin tried to make Russia stronger but what he lacks is the possibility to strengthen the internal market. Now in the NWO meme we are in, nationalism and protectionism are the most dangerous concepts in the world and should not be allowed to exist. Of course Putin agrees because we have to keep up the lie that the Nationalist party of Germany, who protected their internal market against international finance, is to blame for all the misery in Europe.
This is a Tweet from the Minister for Foreign affairs of Norway:
Nationalism & protectionism is a poison that destroyed Europe in the 20th century. It must not destroy the entire world in the 21st century.
8:05 AM – 17 Jun 2017
They destroyed Germany thoroughly as a warning to everybody never to make that ‘mistake’ again. ‘Mistake’ being dismantling the Rothschild Central Bank, confiscate its assets and starting to issue government money without usury so the economy will flourish.
All the nationalist parties in EU nowadays are all, without exception, Israeli paid controlled opposition, spreading islamophobia and protecting Israel. A real nationalist party will not get off the ground anywhere.
So, Russia needs to become stronger but without the concepts of nationalism or protectionism. How do you do that?
Well, you let other countries put sanctions on the country. Not only makes that Putin the victim of US and EU aggression, good for the ratings, but it is using protectionism to create an internal market without protectionism. The sanctions are disguised protectionism. How brilliant is that?
Now, the war in Syria has been very helpful. Not only could they test all the weaponry they have been inventing and make improvements and adjustments, the whole world could see their awesome murder gear and are lining up now to order weapons from Russia. It is the biggest arms show ever seen and business is booming.
The economy in Russia is getting stronger and more resilient so they will have to lean less on oil and gas incomes. Despite the sanctions, the big deals are still going strong, it is only what Russia could produce itself that is being banned. Russians have started to pick up all these sectors and the internal economy is growing. The real victims of these sanctions are the producers in the EU who have lost a big part of their export business.
And now we see a propaganda campaign being launched to put Putin in the spotlights as the saviour of the world against the evil NWO empire by another Khazar: Oliver Stone. Watching the interviews it cannot escape you how very superficial the questions and answers are. Oliver is in such an awe of his hero, he doesn’t dare to go pushing for the underlying current of all the bla bla. He may be a good filmmaker but he is the worst interviewer ever.
So, where brings all this theorizing us? To be honest: No Clue.
Based on history, we have: The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, we have Albert Pike:
We have the enormous effort in, on the one hand, creating islamophobia with the help of NATO’s Gladio B False Flag attacks with muslim patsies and the enormous influx into Europe of aggressive and violent muslims, and, on the other hand, the total shut down of all information on the truth of WWII, Israel, Zionism, NWO, Agenda 21 and everything even remotely related to jews. Tell the truth about whatever, whichever and you are an anti-semite, even being critical about vaccines makes you a holocaust denier these days.
My guess: something is cooking, because they can’t keep up with this very much longer before it becomes so ridiculous that even the 90% who are still vast asleep will start to smell the fish and then it could be too late to start the final phase.
Tensions in Syria are heating up at this moment with threatening language from the US that they will start bombing either over the hoax of April 4 in Khan Sheikhoun or over a new hoax to come. In the meantime, the preparations for a serious conflict between Saudi Arabia and Qatar are still on going. The ultimate aim of course is the war on Iran, that will be WWIII and can be triggered via Syria or Qatar or both.
I think that Russia and China are going to stay out of the way and will become the saviours of the world. Its them who will usher in the New World Order, which will get another name but will be based on the same communist concepts. People will agree with these peaceful nations, just to get away from the violent influence of the US.
BTW, did I mention Putin was meeting Kissinger?:
Meeting with Henry Kissinger
Vladimir Putin received American political scientist and former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger at the Kremlin.
June 29, 2017 20:00 The Kremlin, Moscow
Former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger. With former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger.
Henry Kissinger is in Russia to attend the Primakov Readings International Forum.
Earlier, the President sent a message of greetings to forum participants and guests to mark its opening.
There are many things I could say about Kissinger but ‘political scientist’ never crossed my mind.
To rap this up:
I think it will be by consent, when we all see the total destruction caused by WWIII people will look up to the only leaders who were opposed to the violence and the NWO: China and Russia. It will be an easy transition and only too late people, especially the ones in the alt. news, will realize they made a capital mistake by trusting the controlled opposition.
As extra information on the subject, from a different point of view, this video. Although I don’t believe in religion, in my opinion it is as destructive as governments, I do see the need to understand religions in order to understand the world. These 2 guys have a very interesting look on the war in the Middle East and its worth listening to them. Have fun.
And that, my dear readers, was ‘My Thought Of The Day’
Simone Veil: a woman of many firsts
(For embedded video go to Source)
Simone Veil, noted feminist and former European Parliament president, has passed away. Parliament pays tribute to her great contribution to European integration
A survivor of the Nazi concentration camps and central figure of feminism in Europe, Simone Veil became the first president of the directly elected European Parliament in 1979 and the first woman to hold the post. She passed away on 30 June 2017.
Paying tribute, European Parliament President Antonio Tajani referred to her as “the great president of the European Parliament, conscience of the EU, campaigner against anti-Semitism and defender of women’s rights”. “Her message on women and anti-Semitism remains relevant to this day,” he said in a statement.
Veil was born on 13 July 1927 to a Jewish family in Nice, France. With her family, she was arrested in 1944 and sent to the Nazi concentration camps in Auschwitz-Birkenau, Bobrek and finally Bergen-Belsen. Her parents and brother died in the camps.
Already a renowned politician in France, where she became minister for health in 1974, Veil was elected member of the European Parliament at the first direct elections in 1979. The new Parliament elected her as its president for a period of two-and-a-half years. She thus became the first president of the directly-elected European Parliament and the first woman president of any EU institution.
Speaking at the constitutive meeting of the new Parliament, she said: “I intend to devote my entire time and energies to the task before us. I am convinced that the pluralist nature of our assembly can serve to enrich our work and not act as a brake on the continuing construction of Europe.”
Veil also served as chair of the legal affairs committee and as a member of the environment, political affairs, foreign affairs and security committees as well as the subcommittee on human rights. In addition she was a member of the special committee on German reunification established in 1990.
During her time at the Parliament she also held the positions of chair and vice-chair of the Liberal and Democratic Group, which later became the Liberal and Democratic Reformist Group. Having served as a member of the European Parliament for 14 years, she returned to French politics in 1993.
In 1981 Veil was awarded the prestigious Charlemagne Prize. Her name also appears on the esplanade in front of the main European Parliament building in Brussels, named Agora Simone Veil in 2011.
By Darius Shahtahmasebi
(ANTIMEDIA) — Late last week, Saudi Arabia and other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) that are involved in attempting to isolate Qatar sent the tiny Gulf nation a list of 13 demands. They are insisting that Qatar meet these demands within ten days or face unspecified further action.
The list of demands includes Qatar shutting down Al-Jazeera and its affiliate stations; shutting down other news outlets that Qatar funds, including Middle East Eye; curbing diplomatic ties with Iran and expelling members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard; terminating the Turkish military presence in Qatar; consenting to monthly audits for the first year following acceptance of the demands, and aligning itself entirely with the other Gulf and Arab countries militarily, politically, socially, and economically – to name but a few.
The most ludicrous of the demands is that Qatar must end its interference in sovereign countries’ internal affairs. Qatar does interfere in a number of countries, including Libya and Syria, but as the German Foreign Minister explained, this list of demands directly challenges Qatar’s sovereignty. Who is interfering with whose sovereignty, exactly?
Unsurprisingly, Qatar has dismissed the list of demands as neither reasonable nor actionable. Surely, the Saudi-led anti-Qatar alliance is aware of this. It would be tantamount to asking Great Britain to shut down the BBC and expel American troops – it just wouldn’t happen. All of the world’s major newspapers are complicit in running state-sanctioned propaganda, and singling Al-Jazeera out is hardly fair or practical.
In that context, Saudi Arabia and its friends have given Qatar a list of demands they cannot conceivably meet and imposed a ten-day deadline to concede or face unspecified further action. Qatar was essentially doomed from the start of this rift, and it’s only just beginning. As Newsweek lamented, “the demands are designed to be impossible to comply with.”
The UAE has warned that Qatar is now facing indefinite isolation and that the economic and political sanctions are likely to become permanent. Taken together with the recent promotion of the Saudi King’s son, Mohammed bin Salman, now first in line to the throne, things are indeed heating up against Qatar. Prince Salman is widely regarded as one of the main proponents behind the Saudi-Qatar rift.
The ultimate agenda of the Saudi-led alliance is to deter Qatar from continuing its relationship with Iran, Saudi Arabia’s regional arch rival. But even the Guardian notes that “cutting ties to Iran would prove incredibly difficult,” as Iran and Qatar share a massive offshore natural gas field that supplies Qatar with much of its wealth. In fact, Iran immediately came to Qatar’s aid and began supplying the country with food after the Saudi-led sanctions created a shortage within the country. Shaking off Iran and Turkey —the two countries that have stood by Qatar’s side during this feud — is almost unthinkable. Qatar would be left without a single ally on either side of the Middle East region.
Qatar was initially among a handful of countries, including Turkey and Saudi Arabia, that wanted to install a natural gas pipeline through Syria and into Europe. Instead, the Syrian government turned to Iran and Iraq to run a pipeline eastward and cut out the formerly mentioned countries completely. This is precisely why Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey have been among some of the heaviest backers of the Syrian opposition fighters. This pipeline dispute pitted the Sunni Gulf States against the Shia-dominated bloc of Iran, Iraq, and Syria (Syria’s president is from a minority denomination of the Shia sect of Islam). Although Iran and Qatar shared this lucrative gas field, they were directly at odds in regard to how the field should have been utilized.
Not long after Bashar al-Assad’s proposed deal with Iran and Iraq was announced, foreign fighters began to flood the country. Syria was demonized at the outset, even though then-Secretary of State John Kerry dined with Assad two years before the conflict erupted. It should be clear that Washington’s issues with Assad are not rooted in human rights concerns considering the dictator had been in power for 11 years and was notorious for human rights abuses in the period before the so-called revolution began.
Though Qatar has been heavily involved in arming the Syrian opposition and calling for Assad’s departure (Assad being an integral Iranian ally), Qatar actually maintains an independent foreign policy agenda of its own. Over the past two years, Qatar has conducted over $86 billion worth of transactions in Chinese Yuan and has signed other agreements with China that encourage further economic cooperation.
This is incredibly important because Qatar shares its major natural gas reserve with Iran, and Iran also conducts its oil-related business deals with China in Yuan. Shortly after the nuclear accord reached in 2015, the Islamic Republic sought to capitalize on these economic opportunities by ramping up production on their share of the Iran-Qatari gas reserve. In November 2016, Iran signed a deal with France’s Total, a multinational integrated oil and gas company, to develop this project. Iran is expected to surpass Qatar’s gas production by next year, and Qatar was left with little choice but to join the venture. It lifted a self-imposed ban on developing the gas field in April of this year.
If Iran and Qatar continue down this path, the U.S.’ self-asserted hegemony over the world’s financial markets will directly come under attack, and rising economic and military powers like Russia and China will continue to reap the benefits.
Remember that Hillary Clinton’s leaked emails confirmed that the U.S. and France were so concerned with attacking Muammar Gaddafi in Libya not out of humanitarian concern, but rather, out of fear of his plan to unite Africa under a single gold-backed currency that would be used to buy and sell oil on the global markets.
Remember that in 2000, Saddam Hussein announced he would sell Iraqi oil in euros, and the Guardian reported in 2003 that Iraq had actually netted a handsome profit in doing so — at least until the U.S. invaded not long after and immediately switched the sale of oil back to U.S. dollars.
Perhaps it sounds like a conspiracy theory (even with Clinton’s leaked emails as evidence), but it’s important to ask why Saudi Arabia is so concerned with Qatar, if not for economic reasons? Because of Qatar’s support for terrorism? Hillary Clinton’s leaked emails also revealed that both Saudi Arabia and Qatar financially sponsored ISIS – making such a rationale hypocritical beyond belief.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
The push to oust Assad in Syria has almost all but failed, and Qatar, learning from its mistakes, is not relying on Assad’s departure to maintain its vast supply of wealth (though it would probably still welcome such a move). As Counterpunch explains:
“The failure of this insurgency, however, has spelled the death of this proposal, leaving Qatar bound to look East to Asia – already their biggest customers – for their LNG markets. But most of the existing Eastbound LNG pipeline infrastructure is controlled by Iran. For Qatar, then, cutting its Iran links would be cutting off its nose to spite its face. This is why the Saudis aim to demonstrate that the alternative is having their entire face cut off.”
How far in Saudi Arabia’s face-cutting agenda against Qatar these Gulf State adversaries will go is unclear, but Qatar has already seen some heavy-handed treatment in the early stages of this conflict. Further complicating the issue is the fact that Qatar hosts the largest U.S. military base in the region, with 11,000 troops currently stationed there.
Further, the U.S. just recently implemented a policy to target Iran for regime change. President Trump met with Saudi Arabia and the GCC nations earlier this year and sword-danced and sabre-rattled his way down a warpath with Iran. Trump’s military has been striking down Iranian drones and Iranian-backed troops in Syria, and the White House has just launched fresh accusations against the Syrian government regarding an attack that hasn’t even happened yet.
Clearly, Qatar cannot meet Saudi Arabia’s demands, and Saudi Arabia must be completely aware of this. As we have seen in Yemen and Syria, Saudi Arabia almost always resorts to outright brutality in order to bully non-compliant states into submission. As we have also seen in America’s treatment of Iraq and Libya, countries that depart from the U.S. dollar are not met kindly by the American military, either.
In this context, expect this rift to heat up on multiple fronts. We may very well be witnessing Qatar’s denigration into a Syrian or Yemeni-style battlefield in the months to come.
Let’s hope this is not the case.
Sarin gas victim in Syria, as reported in April 2017. | Ninian Reid / Flickr
Scott Ritter takes on White House Syria attack claims.
On the night of June 26, the White House Press Secretary released a statement, via Twitter, that, “the United States has identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime that would likely result in the mass murder of civilians, including innocent children.” The tweet went on to declare that, “the activities are similar to preparations the regime made before its April 4 chemical weapons attack,” before warning that if “Mr. Assad conducts another mass murder attack using chemical weapons, he and his military will pay a heavy price.”
A Pentagon spokesman backed up the White House tweet, stating that U.S. intelligence had observed “activity” at a Syrian air base that indicated “active preparation for chemical weapons use” was underway. The air base in question, Shayrat, had been implicated by the United States as the origin of aircraft and munitions used in an alleged chemical weapons attack on the village of Khan Sheikhun on April 4. The observed activity was at an aircraft hangar that had been struck by cruise missiles fired by U.S. Navy destroyers during a retaliatory strike on April 6.
The White House statement comes on the heels of the publication of an article by Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh in a German publication, Die Welt, which questions, among many things, the validity of the intelligence underpinning the allegations leveled at Syria regarding the events of April 4 in and around Khan Sheikhun. (In the interests of full disclosure, I had assisted Mr. Hersh in fact-checking certain aspects of his article; I was not a source of any information used in his piece.) Not surprisingly, Mr. Hersh’s article has come under attack from many circles, the most vociferous of these being a UK-based citizen activist named Eliot Higgins who, through his Bellingcat blog, has been widely cited by media outlets in the U.S. and UK as a source of information implicating the Syrian government in that alleged April chemical attack on Khan Sheikhun.
Neither Hersh nor Higgins possesses definitive proof to bolster their respective positions; the latter draws upon assertions made by supposed eyewitnesses backed up with forensic testing of materials alleged to be sourced to the scene of the attack that indicate the presence of Sarin, a deadly nerve agent, while the former relies upon anonymous sources within the U.S. military and intelligence establishments who provide a counter narrative to the official U.S. government position. What is clear, however, is that both cannot be right—either the Syrian government conducted a chemical weapons attack on Khan Sheikhun, or it didn’t. There is no middle ground.
The search for truth is as old as civilization. Philosophers throughout the ages have struggled with the difficulties of rationalizing the beginning of existence, and the relationships between the one and the many. Aristotle approached this challenge through what he called the development of potentiality to actuality, which examined truth in terms of the causes that act on things. This approach is as relevant today as it was two millennia prior, and its application to the problem of ascertaining fact from fiction regarding Khan Sheikhun goes far in helping unpack the White House statements regarding Syrian chemical preparations and the Hersh-Higgins debate.
According to Aristotle, there were four causes that needed to be examined in the search for truth — material, efficient, formal and final. The material cause represents the element out of which an object is created. In terms of the present discussion, one could speak of the material cause in terms of the actual chemical weapon alleged to have been used at Khan Sheikhun. The odd thing about both the Khan Sheikhun attack and the current White House statements, however, is that no one has produced any physical evidence of there actually having been a chemical weapon, let alone what kind of weapon was allegedly employed. Like a prosecutor trying a murder case without producing the actual murder weapon, Syria’s accusers have assembled a case that is purely circumstantial — plenty of dead and dying victims, but nothing that links these victims to an actual physical object.
Human Rights Watch (HRW), drawing upon analysis of images brought to them by the volunteer rescue organization White Helmets, of fragments allegedly recovered from the scene of the attack, has claimed that the material cause of the Khan Sheikhun event is a Soviet-made KhAB-250 chemical bomb, purpose-built to deliver Sarin nerve agent. There are several issues with the HRW assessment. First and foremost, there is no independent verification that the objects in question are what HRW claims, or that they were even physically present at Khan Sheikhun, let alone deposited there as a result of an air attack by the Syrian government. Moreover, the KhAB-250 bomb was never exported by either the Soviet or Russian governments, thereby making the provenance of any such ordinance in the Syrian inventory highly suspect.
Sarin is a non-persistent chemical agent whose military function is to inflict casualties through direct exposure. Any ordnance intended to deliver Sarin would, like the KhAB-250, be designed to disseminate the agent in aerosol form, fine droplets that would be breathed in by the victim, or coat the victim’s skin. In combat, the aircraft delivering Sarin munitions would be expected to minimize its exposure to hostile fire, flying low to the target at high speed. In order to have any semblance of military utility, weapons delivered in this fashion would require an inherent braking mechanism, such as deployable fins or a parachute, which would retard the speed of the weapon, allowing for a more concentrated application of the nerve agent on the intended target.
Chemical ordnance is not intended for precise strikes against point targets, but rather delivery of the agent to an area. For this reason, they are not dropped singly, but rather in large numbers. (The ab-250, for instance was designed to be delivered by a TU-22 bomber dropping 24 weapons on the same target.) The weapon itself is not complex—a steel bomb casing with a small high explosive tube—the burster charge—running down its middle, equipped with a nose fuse designed to detonate on contact with the ground or at a pre-determined altitude. Once detonated, the burster charge causes the casing to break apart, disseminating fine droplets of agent over the target. The resulting explosion is very low order, a pop more than a bang—virtually none of the actual weapon would be destroyed as a result, and its component parts, readily identifiable as such, would be deposited in the immediate environs. In short, if a KhAB-250, or any other air delivered chemical bomb, had been used at Khan Sheikhun, there would be significant physical evidence of that fact, including the totality of the bomb casing, the burster tube, the tail fin assembly, and parachute. The fact that none of this exists belies the notion that an air-delivered chemical bomb was employed by the Syrian government against Khan Sheikhun.
Continuing along the lines of Aristotle’s exploration of the relationship between the potential and actual, the efficient cause represents the means by which the object is created. In the context of Khan Shiekhun, the issue (i.e., object) isn’t the physical weapon itself, but rather its manifestation on the ground in terms of cause and effect. Nothing symbolized this more than the disturbing images that emerged in the aftermath of the alleged chemical attack of civilian victims, many of them women and children. (It was these images that spurred President Trump into ordering the cruise missile attack on Shayrat air base.) These images were produced by the White Helmet organization as a byproduct of the emergency response that transpired in and around Khan Sheikhun on April 4. It is this response, therefore, than can be said to constitute the efficient cause in any examination of potential to actuality regarding the allegations of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government there.
The White Helmets came into existence in the aftermath of the unrest that erupted in Syria after the Arab Spring in 2012. They say they are neutral, but they have used their now-global platform as a humanitarian rescue unit to promote anti-regime themes and to encourage outside intervention to remove the regime of Bashar al-Assad. By White Helmet’s own admission, it is well-resourced, trained and funded by western NGOs and governments, including USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development), which funded the group $23 million as of 2016.
A UK-based company with strong links to the British Foreign Office, May Day Rescue, has largely managed the actual rescue aspects of the White Helmet’s work. Drawing on a budget of tens of millions of dollars donated by foreign governments, including the U.S. and UK, May Day Rescue oversees a comprehensive training program designed to bring graduates to the lowest standard—”light,” or Level One—for Urban Search and Rescue (USAR). Personnel and units trained to the “light” standard are able to conduct surface search and rescue operations—they are neither trained nor equipped to rescue entrapped victims. Teams trained to this standard are not qualified to perform operations in a hazardous environment (such as would exist in the presence of a nerve agent like Sarin).
The White Helmets have made their reputation through the dissemination of self-made videos ostensibly showing them in action inside Syria, rescuing civilians from bombed out structures, and providing life-saving emergency medical care. (It should be noted that the eponymously named Oscar-nominated documentary showing the White Helmets in action was filmed entirely by the White Helmets themselves, which raises a genuine question of journalistic ethics.) To the untrained eye, these videos are a dramatic representation of heroism in action. To the trained professional (I can offer my own experience as a Hazardous Materials Specialist with New York Task Force 2 USAR team), these videos represent de facto evidence of dangerous incompetence or, worse, fraud.
The bread and butter of the White Helmet’s self-made reputation is the rescue of a victim—usually a small child—from beneath a pile of rubble, usually heavy reinforced concrete. First and foremost, as a “light” USAR team, the White Helmets are not trained or equipped to conduct rescues of entrapped victims. And yet the White helmet videos depict their rescue workers using excavation equipment and tools, such as pneumatic drills, to gain access to victims supposedly pinned under the weight of a collapsed building. The techniques used by the White Helmets are not only technically wrong, but dangerous to anyone who might actually be trapped—the introduction of excavators to move debris, or the haphazard drilling and hammering into concrete in the immediate vicinity of a trapped victim, would invariably lead to a shifting if the rubble pile, crushing the trapped victim to death. In my opinion, the videos are pure theater, either staged to impress an unwitting audience, or actually conducted with total disregard for the wellbeing of any real victims.
Likewise, the rescue of victims from a hazardous materials incident, especially one as dangerous as one involving a nerve agent as lethal as Sarin, is solely the purview of personnel and teams specifically equipped and trained for the task. “Light” USAR teams receive no hazardous materials training as part of their certification, and there is no evidence or even claim on the part of the White Helmets that they have undergone the kind of specialist training needed to effect a rescue in the case of an actual chemical weapons attack.
This reality comes through on the images provided by the White Helmets of their actions in and around Khan Sheikhun on April 4. From the haphazard use of personal protective equipment (either non-existent or employed in a manner that negates protection from potential exposure) to the handling of victims and so-called decontamination efforts, everything the White Helmets did was operationally wrong and would expose themselves and the victims they were ostensibly treating to even greater harm. As was the case with their “rescues” of victims in collapsed structures, I believe the rescue efforts of the White Helmets at Khan Sheikhun were a theatrical performance designed to impress the ignorant and ill-informed.
I’m not saying that nothing happened at Khan Sheikhun—obviously something did. But the White Helmets exploited whatever occurred, over-dramatizing “rescues” and “decontamination” in staged theatrics that were captured on film and rapidly disseminated using social media in a manner designed to influence public opinion in the West. We don’t see the actual rescue at the scene of the event—bodies pulled from their homes, lying in the streets. What we get is grand theater as bodies arrive at the field hospital, with lots of running to and fro and meaningless activity that would actually worsen the condition of the victims and contaminate the rescuers.
Through their actions, however, the White Helmets were able to breathe life into the overall narrative of a chemical weapons attack, distracting from the fact that no actual weapon existed and thus furthering the efficient cause by which the object—the non-existent chemical weapon—was created.
Having defined the creation of the object (the non-existent chemical weapon) and the means by which it was created (the flawed theatrics of the White Helmets), we move on to the third, or formal cause, which constitutes the expression of what the object is. In the case of Khan Sheikhun, this is best expressed by the results of forensic testing of samples allegedly taken from victims of the chemical attack, and from the scene of the attack itself. The organization responsible for overseeing this forensic testing was the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, or OPCW. Through its work, the OPCW has determined that the nerve agent Sarin, or a “Sarin-like substance,” was used at Khan Sheikhun, a result that would seemingly compensate for both the lack of a bomb and the amateurish theatrics of the rescuers.
The problem, however, is that the OPCW is in no position to make the claim it did. One of the essential aspects of the kind of forensic investigation carried out by organizations such as the OPCW—namely the application of scientific methods and techniques to the investigation of a crime—is the concept of “chain of custody” of any samples that are being evaluated. This requires a seamless transition from the collection of the samples in question, the process of which must be recorded and witnessed, the sealing of the samples, the documentation of the samples, the escorted transportation of the samples to the laboratory, the confirmation and breaking of the seals under supervision, and the subsequent processing of the samples, all under supervision of the OPCW. Anything less than this means the integrity of the sample has been compromised—in short, there is no sample.
The OPCW acknowledges that its personnel did not gain access to Khan Sheikhun at any time. However, the investigating team states that it used connections with “parties with knowledge of and connections to the area in question,” to gain access to samples that were collected by “non governmental organizations (NGOs)” which also provided representatives to be interviewed, and videos and images for the investigating team to review. The NGO used by the OPCW was none other than the White Helmets.
The process of taking samples from a contaminated area takes into consideration a number of factors designed to help create as broad and accurate a picture of the scene of the incident itself as well as protect the safety of the person taking the sample as well as the integrity of the crime scene itself (i.e., reduce contamination). There is no evidence that the White Helmets have received this kind of specialized training required for the taking of such samples. Moreover, the White Helmets are not an extension of the OPCW—under no circumstances could any samples taken by White Helmet personnel and subsequently turned over to the OPCW be considered viable in terms of chain of custody. This likewise holds true for any biomedical samples evaluated by the OPCW—all such samples were either taken from victims who had been transported to Turkish hospitals, or provided by non-OPCW personnel in violation of chain of custody.
Lastly, there is Aristotle’s final cause, which represents the end for which the object is—namely, what was the ultimate purpose of the chemical weapons attack on Khan Sheikhun. To answer this question, one must remain consistent with the framework of examination of potential to actuality applied herein. In this, we find a commonality between the four causes whose linkage cannot be ignored when assessing the truth of what happened at Khan Sheikhun, namely the presence of a single entity—the White Helmets.
There are two distinct narratives at play when it comes to what happened in Khan Sheikhun. One, put forward by the governments of the United States, Great Britain, France, and supported by the likes of Bellingcat and the White Helmets, is that the Syrian government conducted a chemical weapons attack using a single air-delivered bomb on a civilian target. The other, put forward by the governments of Russia and Syria, and sustained by the reporting of Seymour Hersh, is that the Syrian air force used conventional bombs to strike a military target, inadvertently releasing a toxic cloud from substances stored at that facility and killing or injuring civilians in Khan Sheikhun. There can be no doubt that the very survival of the White Helmets as an organization, and the cause they support (i.e., regime change in Syria), has been furthered by the narrative they have helped craft and sell about the events of April 4 in and around Khan Sheikhun. This is the living manifestation of Aristotle’s final cause, the end for which this entire lie has been constructed.
The lack of any meaningful fact-based information to back up the claims of the White Helmets and those who sustain them, like the U.S. government and Bellingcat, raises serious questions about the viability of the White House’s latest pronouncements on Syria and allegations that it was preparing for a second round of chemical attacks. If America has learned anything from its painful history with Iraq and the false allegations of continued possession of weapons of mass destruction on the part of the regime of Saddam Hussein, it is that to rush into military conflict in the Middle East based upon the unsustained allegations of an interested regional party (i.e., Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress) is a fool’s errand.
It is up to the discerning public to determine which narrative about the events in Syria today they will seek to embrace—one supported by a Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist who has made a career out of exposing inconvenient truths, from My Lai to Abu Ghraib and beyond, or one that collapses under Aristotle’s development of potentiality to actuality analysis, as the manufactured story line promoted by the White Helmets demonstratively does.
TOKYO, June 30 (Xinhua) — Three former Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) executives on Friday pleaded not guilty to professional negligence related to the fatal meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in March 2011.
The three former executives, Tsunehisa Katsumata and former Vice Presidents Ichiro Takekuro and Sakae Muto took the stand at the Tokyo District Court, marking the first criminal trial over the disaster.
Tsunehisa Katsumata who was chairman of TEPCO when the Daichi plant was hit by a massive earthquake-triggered tsunami which knocked out the plant’s key cooling systems leading to multiple core meltdowns, told the court, “It was impossible to predict the accident.”
As well as offering apologies, the two former vice-presidents also pleaded not guilty as widely expected based on former defense counsels who have argued that there was no way to predict that such a colossal tsunami would cripple the power plant in the devastating way it did.
But while a number of investigations on the cause and potential blame for the worst commercial nuclear disaster in history have been launched and concluded by TEPCO and third party entities, the Fukushima residents plaintiffs’ group believe that the three executives showed professional negligence.
Specially appointed lawyers at the hearing are basing their arguments around the idea that the officials could have anticipated that the plant might be hit and subsequently inundated by a huge tsunami, with this scenario being based on a simulation that a TEPCO subsidiary produced in March 2008.
According to data from the test, the nuclear facility could theoretically be hit by a tsunami of almost 16 meters in height, with TEPCO’s subsidiary, according to the lawyers, proposing to the utility in May 2008 specific procedures necessary, such as building a sea wall, to be carried out to better prepare the plant’s defenses against such an occurrence.
“We will argue that the three clearly failed to perform their duty of care by showing they downplayed the significance of the estimate, neglected information-gathering and sharing, and were not aware of the need to take measures,” the lawyers said.
They added that at a subsequent meeting, the three executives had also been made aware of the dangers presented by a 14-meter high tsunami striking the plant and the need to build a sizable sea wall to protect the plant.
This vital piece of information came from Masao Yoshida who at the time was in charge of nuclear equipment issues.
The data on the impending danger of possible tsunamis striking the plant were conveyed to Takekuro and Muto at the time, the lawyers said, although Katsumata told prosecutors that he had “no memory of being briefed about the information.”
“The three should have been able to predict that the plant would be hit by tsunami on a scale that would overwhelm the site,” the lawyers said.
Prior to this, a criminal case in the past has not been successfully pursued based on the assumption that the nuclear disaster could not have been avoided, regardless of whether or not the three former executives had taken preemptive defensive measures based on the two sets of data that had urged them to do so.
Following moves to take TEPCO executives and government officials to court from 2012, public prosecutors in 2013 decided not to file criminal charges against a number of officials, but Katsumata, Takekuro and Muto were indicted in February 2016 by court-appointed lawyers, in line with the decision by a prosecution inquest panel of randomly selected citizens.
According to official accounts, they are accused of professional negligence resulting in the deaths of 44 people, including hospital patients who were forced to stay at evacuation shelters for long periods of time.
The six-reactor plant, located on ground 10 meters above sea level on the coast of the Pacific Ocean in Fukushima Prefecture, was battered by a 9.0-magnitude earthquake-triggered tsunami on March 11, 2011, which flooded key power supply facilities including essential backup cooling equipment.
The Number 1 to Number 3 reactors suffered fuel meltdowns as a result of the crippled cooling systems and three units were vastly damaged by hydrogen explosions.
The disaster caused at least 150,000 people in Fukushima to flee their homes to escape the increasingly high levels of radiation in the air, initially, but which also went on to affect the land and the sea.
Only recently have residents begun returning to their homes in the prefecture while TEPCO, which was bailed out by the government, grapples with the lengthy task of decommissioning the still unstable plant and carries out ongoing decontamination and radiation cleanup work which is likely to take decades.
A report by the Institute of International Finance (IIF) in the US has revealed that global debt levels have surged to US$217 trillion in the first quarter of 2017. This is 327 percent of the world’s annual economic output (GDP).
It is believed that the surging debt was driven by emerging economies (EM), which has led to an increase in borrowing of US$3 trillion to US$65 trillion. This amounts to 218 percent of their combined economic output, which is five percent higher than the previous year.
“Growth in global debt has slowed over the past several years, particularly in mature economies. However, with EM economies borrowing more heavily, global debt has set a new record high of US$217 trillion (over 327 percent of GDP) in early 2017,” the IFF report states.
The IIF report also states that the biggest contributor was China with US$2 trillion, in June 2017 the International Monetary Fund urged Beijing to tackle this escalating debt and they describe it as “unusually high for a developing economy.” Some estimates say China’s debt stands at 260 percent of its GDP.
Advanced economies have cut debt levels by US$2 trillion over the past year. However, the US is approaching US$20 trillion, almost 10 percent of global debt.
“Rising debt may create headwinds for long-term growth and eventually pose risks for financial stability,” the report said.