The US House of Representatives has joined Hillary Clinton, Obama, the neoconservatives, Washington’s vassals, and the American and European presstitutes in demonizing Russia and President Putin. The House resolution against Russia is a packet of lies, but that did not stop the resolution from passing by a vote of 411 for and 10 against.
The entire world should take note that the American people are capable of electing only ten intelligent representatives. Ten people out of 435 is 2 percent. And yet Washington declares itself to be the “exceptional,” “indispensable” country empowered to exercise hegemony over the world!
No one should be surprised to see Washington, its presstitutes and European vassal states using the same propagandistic lies against Russia and Putin as were used against Iraq and Saddam Hussein, Libya and Gaddafi, Syria and Assad, Afghanistan and the Taliban, and Iran. Washington is fearful of the rise of Russia and China, of the leadership demonstrated by Vladimir Putin, of the formation of new organizations independent of Washington, such as the BRICS. While the George W. Bush regime was sidetracked by its “six week, $70 billion war,” which turned out to be, so far, a multi-trillion dollar 13-year losing operation, Putin kicked out some of the American agents who were contaminating Russian sovereignty and rebuilt the country.
The Full Paris Match interview of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, granted in Damascus on November 28th.
Paris Match: Mr. President, three years into this war, and considering how things have turned out, do you regret that you haven’t managed things differently at the beginning, with the appearance of the first signs of the revolution in March 2011? Do you feel that you are responsible for what happened?
Bashar el Assad: Even in the first days of the events, there were martyrs from the army and the police; so, since the first days of this crisis we have been facing terrorism. It is true that there were demonstrations, but they were not large in number. In such a case, there is no choice but to defend your people against terrorists. There’s no other choice. We cannot say that we regret fighting terrorism since the early days of this crisis. However, this doesn’t mean that there weren’t mistakes made in practice. There are always mistakes. Let’s be honest: had Qatar not paid money to those terrorists at that time, and had Turkey not supported them logistically, and had not the West supported them politically, things would have been different. If we in Syria had problems and mistakes before the crisis, which is normal, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the events had internal causes.
Paris Match: Your army is blamed for its excessive use of force during this war. Why are civilians shelled?
Bashar el Assad : When a terrorist attacks you with weapons, how do you defend yourself and your people, with dialogue?! The army uses weapons when the other side uses them. For us in Syria, it is impossible to have our objective as shelling civilians. There’s no reason to shell civilians. If we are killing civilians, in other words killing our people, fighting terrorists at the same time, and fighting the states which stand against us and which support terrorists, like the Gulf countries, Turkey, and the West, how could we stand for four years? If we haven’t been defending the people, we wouldn’t have been able to stand all this pressure. Consequently, saying that we are shelling civilians doesn’t make any sense.
Paris Match: Satellite imagery of the cities of Homs and Hama show completely destroyed neighborhoods; and the United Nations, of which your country is a member, talks about 190,000 people having been killed in this war. Were all the people in those neighborhoods terrorists?
Bashar el Assad : First of all, you need to verify the figures provided by the United Nations. What are the sources of these figures? The figures being circulated in the world, particularly in the media, are exaggerated and inaccurate. Second, images of destruction are not only obtained through satellite images, they are there actually on the ground, and they are accurate. When terrorists enter a certain region and occupy it, the army has to liberate it, and there is a battle. So, naturally, there is destruction. But in most cases, when terrorists enter a certain area, civilians flee from it. In fact, the largest number of victims in Syria is among the supporters of the state, not the other way round; and a large number of those were killed in terrorist attacks. Of course, when you have war and terrorism innocent people die. This happens everywhere in the world. But it is impossible for a state to target civilians.
Yesterday the US House passed what I consider to be one of the worst pieces of legislation ever. H. Res. 758 was billed as a resolution “strongly condemning the actions of the Russian Federation, under President Vladimir Putin, which has carried out a policy of aggression against neighboring countries aimed at political and economic domination.”
In fact, the bill was 16 pages of war propaganda that should have made even neocons blush, if they were capable of such a thing.
These are the kinds of resolutions I have always watched closely in Congress, as what are billed as “harmless” statements of opinion often lead to sanctions and war. I remember in 1998 arguing strongly against the Iraq Liberation Act because, as I said at the time, I knew it would lead to war. I did not oppose the Act because I was an admirer of Saddam Hussein – just as now I am not an admirer of Putin or any foreign political leader – but rather because I knew then that another war against Iraq would not solve the problems and would probably make things worse. We all know what happened next.
That is why I can hardly believe they are getting away with it again, and this time with even higher stakes: provoking a war with Russia that could result in total destruction!
If anyone thinks I am exaggerating about how bad this resolution really is, let me just offer a few examples from the legislation itself:
How I was censored by The Guardian for writing about Israel’s war for Gaza’s gas
After writing for The Guardian for over a year, my contract was unilaterally terminated because I wrote a piece on Gaza that was beyond the pale. In doing so, The Guardian breached the very editorial freedom the paper was obligated to protect under my contract. I’m speaking out because I believe it is in the public interest to know how a Pulitizer Prize-winning newspaper which styles itself as the world’s leading liberal voice, casually engaged in an act of censorship to shut down coverage of issues that undermined Israel’s publicised rationale for going to war.
I joined the Guardian as an environment blogger in April 2013. Prior to this, I had been an author, academic and freelance journalist for over a decade, writing for The Independent, Independent on Sunday, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Scotsman, Foreign Policy, The Atlantic, Quartz, Prospect, New Statesman, Le Monde diplomatique, among others.
On 9th July 2014, I posted an article via my Earth Insight blog at The Guardian’s environment website, exposing the role of Palestinian resources, specifically Gaza’s off-shore natural gas reserves, in partly motivating Israel’s invasion of Gaza aka ‘Operation Protective Edge.’ Among the sources I referred to was a policy paper written by incumbent Israeli defence minister Moshe Ya’alon one year before Operation Cast Lead, underscoring that the Palestinians could never be allowed to develop their own energy resources as any revenues would go to supporting Palestinian terrorism.
The article now has 68,000 social media shares, and is by far the single most popular article on the Gaza conflict to date. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, Israel has seen control of Gaza’s gas as a major strategic priority over the last decade for three main reasons.
“I put up an extremely tough but fair condition”, the Chechen leader said
GROZNY, December 5 /TASS/. Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov said on Friday that he would dismiss the head of any Chechen district if a single militant was found living in its territory.
Kadyrov held a meeting with the ministers and heads of Chechen district administrations and internal affairs departments earlier on Friday.
“I put up an extremely tough but fair condition. If a person from any Chechen district illegally picks up a gun and joins militants, the head of that district will have to step down immediately. Let them work day and night to prevent them from happening,” the Chechen leader said.
He also warned that families of militants who committed murders would be expelled from Chechnya without the right to return.
“We will not allow anybody not only to become the Wahhabies but even to imitate them in clothers and behavior. I officially announce that time is over when parents were not responsible for the doings of their sons and daughters. They will be held responsible in Chechnya”, Ramzan Kadyrov stressed.
“If a father sees that his son has embarked on the path of terror and Wahhabism, let him hand him over to the authorities or stop him in any other way before blood is spilled,” Kadyrov said adding he was not interested in the opinion of any people or the so-called human rights organizations who were silently watching NATO planes and Western-trained militants killing millions of Muslims in Syria and Iraq.
“If a militant in Chechnya kills a policeman or any other person, the militant’s family will be immediately expelled from Chechnya without the right to return. Their house will be pulled down together with the foundation,” Kadyrov said noting that he would not allow anybody to spill blood in Chechnya.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Oceania Saker.
This resolution, rushed to a vote only two weeks after it was introduced, depicts Russia as an “Aggressor Nation” which has invaded Ukraine and was behind the downing of MH-17.
The resolution virtually calls for war on Russia.
Take a very good look at the language:
The President of the United States, in consultation with the US Congress, must…
“conduct a review of the force posture, readiness, and responsibilities of the United States Armed Forces and the forces of other members of NATO to determine if the contributions and actions of each is sufficient to meet the obligations of collective self defense under article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and to specify the measures needed to remedy any deficiencies” .
Translation: the US Congress wants the Empire of Chaos to use NATO’s collective security doctrine under article 5 (an attack on one member is an attack on all members) to advance a war on Russia, even though Ukraine is not a member (but will soon become a major non-NATO ally).
The resolution now goes to the Senate.
If it becomes law, the resolution allows the President of the United States to declare war on Russia bypassing the formal permission of Capitol Hill.
The lame duck wouldn’t have the balls. But the Hillarator will.
I seem to be doing a lot of hyperproductive things lately: explaining to people how to kill the foul beast of Empire, revolutionizing the way English literacy is taught to both native English speakers and the rest… Somebody just emailed me to tell me that I have become “one of those significant commentators.” Yikes! If I keep going this way, then I will run the risk of making a Significant Contribution to Society (SCS). And that would be a mistake; not just for me, but for anyone.
Plus I’d be spending most of my time deleting blog comments from imbeciles. It’s the blogging equivalent of scraping bugs off your windshield. (It’s about 1% thoughtful comments from actual readers, and 99% senseless blather from idiotic trolls. I am serious. Very sad. But I liked the one I got the other day from a Ukrainian who said that his people will drown all the Russians in their (Ukrainians’) own blood. That was cute, but I deleted it anyway because it’s hate speech.
But allow me to explain about SCS and what the title of this blog post means.
As Venkatesh Rao explains so well over at his Ribbonfarm, a person faces two opposing risks in grappling with the vicissitudes of earthly existence: the risk of achieving nothing, and the risk of achieving something that’s not on strategy. Let me summarize his argument.
Grad rockets fired indiscriminately into populated areas by Kiev regime – a war crime NATO has condemned before, but only when politically convenient.
“The Grad rocket cannot be targeted, so shooting it into a town full of civilians, with no specific military objective, violates the laws of war.” These words were found in a 2011 Human Rights Watch (HRW) document titled, “Libya: Rocket Attacks on Western Mountain Towns – Grads Striking Civilian Areas,” one of many reports ceaselessly cited by the United Nations and in turn, NATO as part of justifying a military intervention in the North African nation.
At the time, accusations of indiscriminate bombardment of populated areas by air and artillery, and the use of punitive squads to detain, beat, torture, and/or arbitrary arrest citizens served as the rhetorical and legal foundation of NATO’s “humanitarian war.”
Deploring the gross and systematic violation of human rights, including the repression of peaceful demonstrators, expressing deep concern at the deaths of civilians, and rejecting unequivocally the incitement to hostility and violence against the civilian population made from the highest level of the Libyan government.
Stressing the need to hold to account those responsible for attacks, including by forces under their control, on civilians.
Yet even in 2011, after NATO succeeded in passing its resolutions, it itself promptly violated them both by arming terrorists and targeting the Libyan government in what was clearly not the mere implementation of a “no-fly-zone” but rather a proxy war waged by NATO in the air and its terrorist forces on the ground fought to carry out regime change in favor of Western interests. So flagrantly did the West abuse the cause of human rights to advance its own insidious political agenda that it permanently undermined the West’s ability to again cite “human rights” to likewise invade and overthrow the government of Syria next.