Things are getting serious in Syria

[Stu]

Zionist does not = jew

Many zionists are not jews and many jews are not zionists

The zionism i am talking about is run centrally by a small cabal at the top. The rothschilds are central to that.

The aim of this cabal is to dominate the worlds oil, money supply and various commodities including guns and drugs

Dude...I am from New Jersey, I know anti-semitism when I see it. I can only guess that you live in a part of the world where 95 percent of the people around you have had family in that 1000 square miles for 5,000 years.

your ignorance is outrageous.

 

[muir]

muir you seem to be pretty black and white about things-- no one is claiming that the US is good and Assad is bad... but it's really not unrealistic to assume that someone with a history of human rights abuses might be responsible for this kind of barbarism.

I haven't claimed anyone is 'good' or 'bad'...that is the language of the propagandists. remember i said above that Bush said they were 'evil'?

You on the other hand seem pretty set in your narrative about poor innocent Assad being under fire from the nasty barbaric Americans who will stop at nothing to gain absolute power... it's just not realistic.

I have not said 'poor innocent Assad' you said that

What i said was that assad is an ally of Iran and that Iran wants to set up a market that will trade Oil in non dollar currencies. I also said that Russia is one of the emerging 'BRICS' nations ie Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa' who all want to trade outside the control of the neoliberal countries

After world war two the victorious countries whose economies were controlled by the central bankers made an agreement at the Bretton Woods conference. They took hold of germanies gold and they set out to make the dollar the worlds reserve currency

The downside of this is that it has given the USA certain advantages which have helped her economy; the USA has used these advantages to build a mighty military which it uses as a stick to beat other countries into submission with. It has created a neo-imperial empire

The rest of the world is sick to its stomach of the US bullying everyone so they are wanting to trade amongst themselves.

But the USA is now desperately trying to cling to its empire so it is invading countries (killing hundreds of thousands in the process) to steal their oil

Instead of behaving in a civilised way the US and israel and UK behave like a global mafia. The next country they want to beat up is Syria. After that they will go for Iran

Russia is not willing to stand by and watch this happen because it wants to see oil traded in non dollar currencies. Also it does not want US missile bases right up against all of its borders

What the US public is often not told about the cuban missile crisis is that the reason russia was putting missiles on cuba (next to the USA) is because the USA had put missiles in Turkey (next to russia)

The cuban missile crisis is always portrayed as an american victory but the truth is that the russians pulled back from cuba becuase the US agreed to pull their missiles back from turkey

 

[muir]

Dude...I am from New Jersey, I know anti-semitism when I see it. I can only guess that you live in a part of the world where 95 percent of the people around you have had family in that 1000 square miles for 5,000 years.

your ignorance is outrageous.

Don't try and frame me for something i am not

I have jewish anscestry...do you understand? Some of my DNA make up is jewish

Jews have a long history in my country

I am not talking about jews. The people i am talking about don';t give a fuck about the torah and they don't give a fuck about common jewish workers

 

[Stu]

try a new lexicon

 

[muir]

try a new lexicon

I think its time people understood what the driving force behind zionism has been

If i had a magic wand i would create some sort of power share between the israelis and the palestineans. I think the settlements that are aggressively being pushed out at the moment are designed to destroy the two state solution. This is all going on whilst so called 'peace negotiations' are going on at camp david!!!

How can aggressive illegal settlement on palestinean land that destroys palestinean hopes of a homeland be a suitable backdrop to 'peace negotiations'?

What this is doing is putting pressure on Jordan to provide the land for the palestinean state seeing as it already has two million palestinean refugees living in it. I don't think the monarchy in Jordan is going to like that idea very much

I really don't think the current game plan is the best one for bringing security to the Israelis or the palestineans or anyone for that matter....but then i have a more egalitarian outlook than the cabal!

 

[muir]

Ok on top of the british parliaments narrow refusal to back the US military intervention in Syria is a further piece of good news

One of the cabal insiders Zbigniew Brzezinski has said to a german news station that the global awakening of the public is throwing a spanner in the works of the war mongerers!!!

This means that people talking around the world irl and on the internet is having an effect! The growing awareness of the public means that business cannot and will not continue as usual:

http://www.storyleak.com/brzezinski-global-political-awakening-making-syrian-war-difficult/

 

[muir]

 

[Gul Dukat]

WTF-- do people actually think this is the same thing?

The WMD thing didn't involve news journalists actually producing footage of victims, and it was bullshit because it was presented as a threat to the 'free world' that was unverified as opposed to an internal problem that was spiralling out of control and has been verified.

I can't understand why it's so hard for some people to believe that it might just be possible that oppressive regimes with a history of human rights abuses and terrorizing their own people in the middle of an insurgency are capable of abusing human rights and terrorizing their own people in the middle of an insurgency. Seriously... I'm not saying it isn't possible but anyone who claims that they definitely know the full story is just trying to sell you something.

 

[Stu]

The global political awakening

OP ED in NYT

[h=1]The global political awakening[/h] [h=6]By Zbigniew Brzezinski[/h] [h=6]Published: Tuesday, December 16, 2008[/h]

A new president is assuming office in the midst of a widespread crisis of confidence in America's capacity to exercise effective leadership in world affairs. That may be a stark thought, but it is a fact.
Though U.S. leadership has been essential to global stability and development, the cumulative effects of national self indulgence, financial irresponsibility, an unnecessary war and ethical transgressions have discredited that leadership. Making matters worse is the global economic crisis.
The resulting challenge is compounded by issues such as climate, health and social inequality - issues that are becoming more contentious because they have surfaced in the context of what I call "the global political awakening."
For the first time in history almost all of humanity is politically activated, politically conscious and politically interactive. Global activism is generating a surge in the quest for cultural respect and economic opportunity in a world scarred by memories of colonial or imperial domination.
This pertains to yet another fundamental change: The 500-year global domination by the Atlantic powers is coming to an end, with the new pre-eminence of China and Japan. Waiting in the wings are India and perhaps a recovered Russia, though the latter is very insecure about its place in the world.
In this dynamically changing world, the crisis of American leadership could become the crisis of global stability. Yet in the foreseeable future no state or combination of states can replace the linchpin role America plays in the international system. Without a U.S. recovery, there will be no global recovery. The only alternative to a constructive American role is global chaos.
It follows that the monumental task facing the new president is to regain U.S. global legitimacy by spearheading a collective effort for a more inclusive system of global management. Four strategically pregnant words define the essence of the needed response: unify, enlarge, engage and pacify.
To unify pertains to the effort to re-establish a shared sense of purpose between America and Europe. To that end, informal but frequent top-level consultations are badly needed, even though we are all aware that there that there is no such thing yet as a politically unified Europe. The only practical solution is to cultivate a more deliberate dialogue among the United States and the three European countries that have a global orientation: Britain, France and Germany.
For many years, Europeans have complained they are excluded from decision-making, yet they are perfectly willing to let the United States assume the burdens of implementation. Differences over Afghanistan are but the latest example of that dilemma. It is to be hoped that the new U.S. president will make a deliberate effort to revitalize the U.S.-European dialogue.
To enlarge entails a deliberate effort to nurture a wider coalition committed to the principle of interdependence and prepared to play a significant role in promoting more effective global management. It is evident, for example, that the G-8 has outlived its function. Accordingly, some formula for regular consultations ranging in composition from G-14 to G-16 should be devised to bring together countries with geopolitical significance as well as economic weight.
To engage means the cultivation of top officials through informal talks among key powers, specifically the U.S., the European Triad, China, Japan, Russia and possibly India. A regular personal dialogue, for example, between the U.S. president and the Chinese leader would be especially beneficial to the development of a shared sense of responsibility between the only superpower and the most likely next global power. Without China, many of the problems we face collectively cannot be laid to rest.
Admittedly, China is economically nationalist, but it is also a fundamentally cautious power. It was Deng Xiaoping who best articulated how China defines its international approach: "Observe calmly; secure our position; cope with affairs calmly; hide our capacities and bide our time; be good at maintaining a low profile; and never claim leadership."
This underlines a significant distinction with Russia. Like Beijing, Moscow wishes to revise international patterns, but it tends to be impatient, frustrated and sometimes even threatening. Nonetheless, it is in the interest of the United States and of Europe to engage Russia. In so doing, America should seek agreements that enhance global stability, promote nuclear weapons reduction and deal with such regional problems as Iran.
America and Europe will have to find a way of reaffirming their commitment to the integrity of Ukraine and Georgia while conveying to Russia that their interest in these two states relates to the gradual construction of a larger democratic Europe and is not designed to threaten Russia itself.
To pacify requires a deliberate U.S. effort to avoid becoming bogged down in the vast area ranging from Suez to India. Urgent decisions need to be made, with Europe's help, on several potentially interactive issues.
The Israeli-Palestinian peace process needs to be a priority. The new president should state on the record that a peaceful accommodation between the two parties must: first, involve a demilitarized Palestinian state, perhaps with a NATO presence to enhance Israel's sense of security; second, the territorial settlement has to be based on the 1967 lines with equitable exchanges permitting Israel to incorporate the more heavily urbanized settlements on the fringes of the '67 lines; third, both parties have to accept the fact that Palestinian refugees cannot return to what is now Israel, though they should be provided with some compensation and assistance for settling preferably in the independent Palestinian state; and last, the Israelis will have to accept the fact that a durable peace will require the genuine sharing of Jerusalem as the capital of two states.
The United States will also have to undertake seriously reciprocal negotiations with Iran. That means abandoning the current U.S. posture that Tehran make a one-sided concession as a precondition to talks.
Finally, America's strategy regarding Afghanistan and Pakistan needs a basic reassessment. The emphasis should be shifted from military engagement to a more subtle effort to seek a decentralized political accommodation with those portions of the Taliban who are prepared to negotiate. A mutual accommodation should involve Taliban willingness to eliminate any Al Qaeda presence in return for Western military disengagement from the pertinent territory. The process should be accompanied by intensified reconstruction.
Let me conclude on a parochial note: Unfortunately, the American public is woefully undereducated about the wider world. Barack Obama will have to strive to make Americans understand the novel dimensions of global realities. Without sounding overly partisan, I believe that he has unique intellectual and rhetorical gifts for doing just that.
So let me end my remarks by asserting simply, "Yes, we can."
Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, is trustee and counsellor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). This article is based on his 2008 John Whitehead lecture at Chatham House, London. The complete text will be published in the January issue of International Affairs (London).

The German TV interview

In a DW interview, former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski denounces what appears to be imminent military action against Syria, saying the US administration lacks a strategy for the region.
Zbigniew Brzezinski served as National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981 and is regarded as one of the preeminent US foreign policy scholars. He is currently professor of international relations at Johns Hopkins University and a counselor and trustee at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC.
DW: After the suspected large-scale chemical weapons attack against civilians it seems some sort of military action against the Assad regime is now inevitable. Do you support military action or what is your sense of it?
Zbigniew Brzezinski: My view is that that action, if it is to be taken, should be part of some broader strategy. Otherwise it may be an appropriative punitive response, but would it solve the problem? Is there a strategy for the solution of the problem? And who is part of that strategy and who is not? Those are the questions which I think people have to think about seriously before plunging into a military action which - while perhaps morally justified in view of the nature of the offense involved, namely the anti-human acts - still will have consequences that may not be all that desirable.
Do you think the Obama administration has a strategy or a grander plan for Syria and its aftermath after military action?
If it does it's a very well-kept secret.
What kind of plan would you want to see?
It seems to me that the problem in the Syrian case is part of a larger dilemma regarding the upheaval in the Middle East. The solution to that upheaval cannot be based entirely on military power nor should it be dependent almost exclusively on the Western powers. I am struck how eager Great Britain and France appear to be in favor of military action. And I am also mindful of the fact that both of these two powers are former imperialist, colonialist powers in that region.
Given the contemporary reality of what I have called in my writings "Global Political Awakening," a policy of force based primarily on Western and in some cases former colonial powers does not seem to me a very promising avenue to an eventual solution to the regional problem.
You mentioned the need for a broader coalition that should be part of any military action. What do you mean by that?
I should think at the very minimum Turkey ought to be openly and directly involved if it takes place. And I think there should be some expression of approval for it and support for it from other powers that are very much dependent on some degree of minimal stability in the Middle East for their own economic well-being. In other words, I have in mind some of the Asian powers that depend so much on energy flowing stably from a Middle East which is not entirely set aflame.
You didn't mention Russia in your list of countries. What role should Russia play in your opinion?
A sensible role by Russia would be to join the international community in defining jointly some shared standards not only for a solution of the Syrian problem, but also for a wide-ranging accommodation with Iran regarding its nuclear program and the way it can be stably and predictably legitimated, and of course active support for a solution of the Israeli-Palestinian problem which causes some of the existing tensions.
All of these things have to be dealt with in a larger context and not confined in my view to a solitary military response by a small number of Western countries some of them with not particularly constructive historical experiences.
How do you interpret the fact that the Obama administration is not really trying to include the United Nations in this effort and is basically trying to recruit NATO to take part instead?
I am not sure you are right in characterizing the Obama administration like that. I think the Obama administration would like to have UN sanction [of a military mission - Ed.], but is concerned that such an effort would be vetoed by the Russians, conceivably even by the Chinese. That to me suggests that a great deal of serious discussions ought to be undertaken with countries that one way or another feel that they might be affected by the consequences of rapidly escalating violence in the region as a whole.
The problem in a nutshell is that the issue is larger than Syria and it cannot be approached as a purely Syrian problem. And secondly that retaliatory action for a morally serious transgression such as the chemical attack has to be nonetheless still part of a larger design with strategic objectives in mind and not merely punitive.
What kind of repercussions do you expect or fear after a possible military attack against the Syrian regime? President Assad has already threatened to draw the US into a second Vietnam War. Do you take that seriously?
Every analogy has some degree of appropriateness, but also can be very misleading. I think there are many aspects to the Vietnamese problem which are very different from Syria - not the least of which is the fact that there is opposition to Assad in Syria that is quite substantial, but not all that appealing in every respect.
To sum it up then, you are currently not convinced that imminent military action against Syria is the right move at this time?
I do not see the larger strategic context for it. And I am concerned that its participants are too narrowly based, that is, it is America and former colonial powers. That seems to me to create a political problem immediately.

 

[ThisIsWhoIAm]

Muir is free again. Hell has been unleashed! Look for signs of the four horsemen.

 

[ThisIsWhoIAm]

Dude...I am from New Jersey, I know anti-semitism when I see it. I can only guess that you live in a part of the world where 95 percent of the people around you have had family in that 1000 square miles for 5,000 years.

your ignorance is outrageous.

Thanks for being sane.

 

[ThisIsWhoIAm]

That's where you and i differ. I wouldn't gas anyone

Oh you would. The Zionists would be the first ones you would gladly murder.

 

[gd65h8as7]

As hard as it may be to believe, muir is correct for the most part.

Obama is following a script that has been written long before he was put in the White House.

One of the top US Generals came forth a few years ago and stated that, 10 days after 9/11, he was told about a plan to reshape the Middle East. The plan was to knock out 7 countries in 5 years, and the countries were: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan. (this is 10 days after 9/11 mind you).

I've mentioned this a lot in the past but this is crucial. From my own research I've managed to find out that 9/11 was not in fact done by "al-Qaeda" but was a black operation primarily carried out by Israel. To say 9/11 was an "inside job" or that the "government did it" isn't the right way to describe it. I'm actually good friends with two people who've worked in the CIA/have done intelligence work for the Marine Corps that've confirmed this for me. One of them actually knew about 9/11 months before it happened, he was told by his government contacts that "the Israelis and Saudis were up to something big."

Israel and its agents have infiltrated the American political system on all levels, and over the decades have consolidated a virtual stranglehold over the legislative, judicial and executive branches via a well-established network of individuals, organisations and lobby groups. Not only is the US political system hostage to this group, but our media, which is almost entirely Zionist controlled, has pretty much mastered the art of Manufacturing Consent, and has rendered the surplus American populace utterly incapable of discerning reality from propaganda.

Israel's influence in post-9/11, Zionist-occupied Washington is so great that it has managed to mobilise the world's largest war machine to fight two proxy wars in the Middle East for the Zionist regime in Tel Aviv, both within two years of the 2001 attacks, at the expense of the lives of America's sons and daughters and its moral standing in the global community -- two bloody wars that continue to claim American, Afghani and Iraqi lives to the present day. None of it would've been possible without the 9/11 catalyst, which is testimony to the success of the project.

 

[muir]

WTF-- do people actually think this is the same thing?

They are using the same hackneyed approach but people are now seeing through it which means they will have to evolve a new strategy to deceive the public and 'manufacture consent'

The WMD thing didn't involve news journalists actually producing footage of victims, and it was bullshit because it was presented as a threat to the 'free world' that was unverified as opposed to an internal problem that was spiralling out of control and has been verified.

No there were images released of kurds that had been gassed with chemical weapons by saddam

The lie that was pushed however was that saddam had wmd's that he could launch against europe in 45 minutes....which is enough to make anyone splutter into their coffee as they read the morning newspaper

What you also have to bare in mind whenever these guys try to play the whole 'we are doing this because we are humanitarians and we don't want to see any poor people being hurt' is that these guys are a bunch of war mongering murderers. they don't give a shit about anyone on the ground.

If they wanted to stop killing and death they would lock themsleves up or at the very least tackle other countries where there are human rights issues...but they don't....they only go were the oil is

I can't understand why it's so hard for some people to believe that it might just be possible that oppressive regimes with a history of human rights abuses and terrorizing their own people in the middle of an insurgency are capable of abusing human rights and terrorizing their own people in the middle of an insurgency. Seriously... I'm not saying it isn't possible but anyone who claims that they definitely know the full story is just trying to sell you something.

Here's the issue:

The US backed by Israel wants to go to war against syria. This will mean the killing of many people and the destruction of the syrian infrastructure as the military industrial complex fires off countless bombs and bullets. Some individual missiles will cost tens of thousands of dollars EACH

Thats your taxpayers dollars. thats right one missile: boooom and $50,000 goes up in smoke. that's $50,000 that could have been spent on schools and hospitals in the USA. But its $50,000 the weapons manufacturers get to pocket instead. So you tell me who's trying to 'sell' something here cos i sure as hell have no money to make out of it all and neither do you, but i promise you some people WILL make a lot of money out of it

So back to the point....this war will be waged on the claim that Assad has used chemical weapons on his own population (when he is in fact winning the war and has no need to do that). The UN inspectors have not and cannot verify this to be true (because it isn't)

So they are going to wage war, with your taxpayers money (which they will get rich from), in which countless people will be killed and maimed, on a claim that has not and cannot be verified

 

[Nixie]

I think that anybody who is remotely familiar with the language used by racist is aware that the term "zionist" is normally used interchangeably with Jewish people and a by product of antisemitism.

From wikipedia regarding the spread of economic based antisemitism and how it normally is presented.

1. All Jews are wealthy
2. Jews are stingy and greedy
3. Powerful Jews control the business world
4. Jewish religion emphasizes profit and materialism
5. It is okay for Jews to cheat non-Jews
6. Jews use their power to benefit "their own kind"

Gerald Krefetz summarizes the myth as "[Jews] control the banks, the money supply, the economy, and businesses – of the community, of the country, of the world".

I find more often than not the "sources" that are quoted by muir contain significant elements of racism/hatred directed toward Jewish people.

 

[gd65h8as7]

A lot of this is hard to believe, but you have to understand that truth is stranger than fiction.

I think [MENTION=6801]ThisIsWhoIAm[/MENTION] is from Israel, and the overwhelming majority of Israelis have nothing to do (nor would support if they knew the truth) about the plans of the people in charge of their country. When [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] and I mention Zionists, we're talking about an EXTREMELY small percentage of people with an UNBELIEVABLE amount of power and influence.

 

[rawr]

As hard as it may be to believe, muir is correct for the most part.

Obama is following a script that has been written long before he was put in the White House.

One of the top US Generals came forth a few years ago and stated that, 10 days after 9/11, he was told about a plan to reshape the Middle East. The plan was to knock out 7 countries in 5 years, and the countries were: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan. (this is 10 days after 9/11 mind you).

I've mentioned this a lot in the past but this is crucial. From my own research I've managed to find out that 9/11 was not in fact done by "al-Qaeda" but was a black operation primarily carried out by Israel. To say 9/11 was an "inside job" or that the "government did it" isn't the right way to describe it. I'm actually good friends with two people who've worked in the CIA/have done intelligence work for the Marine Corps that've confirmed this for me. One of them actually knew about 9/11 months before it happened, he was told by his government contacts that "the Israelis and Saudis were up to something big."

Israel and its agents have infiltrated the American political system on all levels, and over the decades have consolidated a virtual stranglehold over the legislative, judicial and executive branches via a well-established network of individuals, organisations and lobby groups. Not only is the US political system hostage to this group, but our media, which is almost entirely Zionist controlled, has pretty much mastered the art of Manufacturing Consent, and has rendered the surplus American populace utterly incapable of discerning reality from propaganda.

Israel's influence in post-9/11, Zionist-occupied Washington is so great that it has managed to mobilise the world's largest war machine to fight two proxy wars in the Middle East for the Zionist regime in Tel Aviv, both within two years of the 2001 attacks, at the expense of the lives of America's sons and daughters and its moral standing in the global community -- two bloody wars that continue to claim American, Afghani and Iraqi lives to the present day. None of it would've been possible without the 9/11 catalyst, which is testimony to the success of the project.

do you have any legitimate sources for this narrative or is it all supposition?

 

[Nixie]

I think that the idea that you can sum up the Middle East in easily understood terms is basically false. The US and the rest of the world have meddled with this region for decades. Until the early 80's, Iran had a US-backed dictator.

 

[muir]

Oh you would. The Zionists would be the first ones you would gladly murder.

If you in your mind imagine everyone else to be as bloodthirsty as you then of course you will always react violently...perhaps thats the problem....perhaps you are caught in a negative feedback loop of paranoia. You have spoken about shooting people and gassing people on this forum...thats pretty messed up stuff man

I wouldn't murder anyone. What i would like to see is the workers assert themselves and to take control of society....including the israeli workers taking control of their country and recognising their shared humanity with the rest of the worlds workers

Emotions aside I also have missgivings on an intellectual level about violence as a means for revolution because i think it degrades not only the victim but also the perpetrator. The people would become the monster they are trying to fight

I do believe in self defence though

 

[muir]

I think that anybody who is remotely familiar with the language used by racist is aware that the term "zionist" is normally used interchangeably with Jewish people and a by product of antisemitism.

No the words are not interchangeable. The zionists WANT you to see the words as interchangeable but they are not

That's what chomsky would call 'an abuse of language'

So is the word 'anti-semitic'

You know that the arabs are semitic as well right? I mean you do know this right? You do know that the jews are only a small part of the 'semitic' people?

From wikipedia regarding the spread of economic based antisemitism and how it normally is presented.

1. All Jews are wealthy
2. Jews are stingy and greedy
3. Powerful Jews control the business world
4. Jewish religion emphasizes profit and materialism
5. It is okay for Jews to cheat non-Jews
6. Jews use their power to benefit "their own kind"

Gerald Krefetz summarizes the myth as "[Jews] control the banks, the money supply, the economy, and businesses – of the community, of the country, of the world".

Instead of trying to put words in my mouth why don't you actually look into the evidence i am presenting and then determine what is true and what isn't?

I've already explained VERY clearly that the cabal i'm talking about are NOT jewish. i have elsewhere elaborated on the occult element to all this. This is not a jewish thing as far as i am concerned, but i do think that the cabal exploit the religious angle for sure

I find more often than not the "sources" that are quoted by muir contain significant elements of racism/hatred directed toward Jewish people.

Can you provide some examples?

I think everyone who has been on the forum for a certain amount of time knows that you have a personal problem with me but ill try and approach your posts as objectively as i can