18 September 2016

Unclassified: like taking a page from Hillary Clinton's playbook, U.S. sought involvement in Syria to replace regime and create a buffer zone with troops to strengthen Israel vis-a-vis Iran

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498 Date: 11/30/2015


 page 1 of 2


The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad. Negotiations to limit Iran's nuclear program will not solve Israel's security dilemma. Nor will they stop Iran from improving the crucial part of any nuclear weapons program — the capability to enrich uranium. At best, the talks between the world's major powers and Iran that began in Istanbul this April and will continue in Baghdad in May will enable Israel to postpone by a few months a decision whether to launch an attack on Iran that could provoke a major Mideast war. Iran's nuclear program and Syria's civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of both countries. What Israeli military leaders really worry about -- but cannot talk about -- is losing their nuclear monopoly. An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today. If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself. Back to Syria. It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel's security — not through a direct attack, which in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria. The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel's leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests. Speaking on CNN's Amanpour show last week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak argued that "the toppling down of Assad will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran.... It's the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world...and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza." Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel's security, it would also ease Israel's understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted. Right now, it is the combination of Iran's strategic alliance with Syria and the steady progress in Iran's nuclear enrichment program that has led Israeli leaders to contemplate a surprise attack — if necessary over the objections of Washington. With Assad gone, and Iran no longer able to threaten Israel through its, proxies, it is possible that the United States and Israel can agree on red lines for when Iran's program has crossed an unacceptable threshold. In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria. The rebellion in Syria has now lasted more than a year. The opposition is not going away, nor is the regime going to accept a diplomatic solution from the outside. With his life and his family at risk, only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad's mind.

page 2 of 2

The Obama administration has been understandably wary of engaging in an air operation in Syria like the one conducted in Libya for three main reasons. Unlike the Libyan opposition forces, the Syrian rebels are not unified and do not hold territory. The Arab League has not called for outside military intervention as it did in Libya. And the Russians are opposed. Libya was an easier case. But other than the laudable purpose of saving Libyan civilians from likely attacks by Qaddafi's regime, the Libyan operation had no long-lasting consequences for the region. Syria is harder. But success in Syria would be a transformative event for the Middle East. Not only would another ruthless dictator succumb to mass opposition on the streets, but the region would be changed for the better as Iran would no longer have a foothold in the Middle East from which to threaten Israel and undermine stability in the region. Unlike in Libya, a successful intervention in Syria would require substantial diplomatic and military leadership from the United States. Washington should start by expressing its willingness to work with regional allies like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to organize, train and arm Syrian rebel forces. The announcement of such a decision would, by itself, likely cause substantial defections from the Syrian military. Then, using territory in Turkey and possibly Jordan, U.S. diplomats and Pentagon officials can start strengthening the opposition. It will take time. But the rebellion is going to go on for a long time, with or without U.S. involvement. The second step is to develop international support for a coalition air operation. Russia will never support such a mission, so there is no point operating through the UN Security Council. Some argue that U.S. involvement risks a wider war with Russia. But the Kosovo example shows otherwise. In that case, Russia had genuine ethnic and political ties to the Serbs, which don't exist between Russia and Syria, and even then Russia did little more than complain. Russian officials have already acknowledged they won't stand in the way if intervention comes. Arming the Syrian rebels and using western air power to ground Syrian helicopters and airplanes is a low-cost high payoff approach. As long as Washington's political leaders stay firm that no U.S. ground troops will be deployed, as they did in both Kosovo and Libya, the costs to the United States will be limited. Victory may not come quickly or easily, but it will come. And the payoff will be substantial. Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will see the United States as a friend, not an enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes. For Israel, the rationale for a bolt from the blue attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would be eased. And a new Syrian regime might well be open to early action on the frozen peace talks with Israel. Hezbollah in Lebanon would be cut off from its Iranian sponsor since Syria would no longer be a transit point for Iranian training, assistance and missiles. All these strategic benefits and the prospect of saving thousands of civilians from murder at the hands of the Assad regime (10,000 have already been killed in this first year of civil war). With the veil of fear lifted from the Syrian people, they seem determine to fight for their freedom. America can and should help them — and by doing so help Israel and help reduce the risk of a wider war.

24 August 2016

Die Wahrheit über Auschwitz, den zweiten Weltkrieg, Monsanto, die BRD, Bayer und den geheimsten TTIP-Vertrag


Russia and Germany shall never unite: this was Britain's policy to hold power and now it is America's

As the Ottoman Empire collapsed, Russia sought to expand further into Europe. Britain responded with force.

In the 19th century, the rise of Napoleon signalled a potential rise of a power stretching from France, across Germany and on to Russia. Britain responded with force.

In the 20th century, facing the prospect of a German-led coalition assuming control of France and a power based in Russia, on two occasions, Britain responded with force. The second time, Britain risked (and indeed threw away) its wealth and empire just to destroy the prospect of a Europe under Germany stretching from France to Russia. But there's more to the story: as it turns out, Britain - and indeed the United States - had actually been responsible for building up the German-led coalition, and had acted in such a manner specifically to prevent the Russia-based power from bulldozing across Europe and seizing German expertise, technology, manpower and industry. Once the German-led coalition became a threat to the power in Russia, however, Britain and the United States began aiding the Russia-based power.

Incidentally, the Cold War began with the British and Americans rushing to Berlin to halt the victorious, yet beleaguered Russia-based power from bulldozing across Germany and seizing German expertise, technology, manpower and industry.  The Americans and British were successful; in part, precisely because of the blow the German-led coalition had delivered to the Russia-based power in the previous years, compromising the strength of the Russia-based power.  As a result, once again, no superpower stretching from Western Europe to Russia arose.

With the collapse of the Russia-based power in the 1990s, the smaller part of Europe that had indeed fallen to the Russia-based power became colonized under the EU system, an American-friendly political and economic system that, like NATO, is based in Brussels. To what degree the EU has its own mind independant from the United States is debatable.  Undeniably, however, the American policy is again to prevent any sort of growing understanding between Russia and a European power such as the EU. The latest developments are highlighted below:

15 July 2016

World population in 1907 and world population predictions for 2050: a comparison

Population in 1907

Predictions for 2050

Indian and Nigerian population to skyrocket with HIV. And without?

In 2015, the UN released a report stating that the world population would grow to almost 10 billion by 2050 (9.7 billion people). According to the report, nearly 1/5 of the world population will live in India (1.7 billion people). Africa will account for roughly 1/4 of the world population (2.5 billion people). Nigeria will have surpassed the United States in population size.

Notably, these predictions take into account population-altering variables, such as epidemics like HIV. Although South Africa has the largest HIV-stricken population in the world, the second and third-largest number of HIV victims are in Nigeria and India (est. 3.2 million and 2.1 million HIV patients). Excluding population-altering variables such as these, estimates for India's population in 2050 range from 1.7 billion to somewhere under 3 billion.

Meanwhile, the U.S. company Gilead Sciences has developed Truvada, an increasingly-available medication for treating HIV. I must have been asleep when it happened, but Truvada was unveiled some time ago, in 2012. Generally speaking, drug patents last twenty years which means, under the most probable circumstances, rip-offs will be produced as early as 2032. What will be the impact on the populations of Nigeria and India?

27 May 2016

Mysterious e.coli superbug mcr-1 said to have hospitalized person

And of course the name of the alleged person has not been released:

Hopefully this is a measure to prevent panic and protect the individual who is afflicted with the illness. Because otherwise, with scientists calling mcr-1 "extremely contagious", where is the rationale in keeping the name of the victim a secret and keeping the victim's friends and acquaintances in the dark, since said friends and acquaintances may have recently been in direct contact with the alleged victim? Where is the rationale in letting said individuals go about their daily lives without knowing that they are potentially infected carriers of the disease? Where is the logic in keeping friends and acquaintances from knowing that maybe they should get tested?

20 January 2015

What happens when you tell a woman who ignores you that you aren't even that interested?

So there I was, standing in the bar and enjoying the music. To my right were three, average-looking female twentysomethings. I noticed one of the women making fun of a man standing next to them who seemed a little old and out of place. Suddenly, the girl who had been making fun of the man turned her head and saw me.

"I don't know you," she snapped at me.

I could tell she was eager to put me in my place, too.

"Oh my bad," I said with a playful tone.

"So, what brings you here?"

At that moment, she turned her back to me.


I scoffed and announced that I was not even interested in her, and I had had much better anyway. As I walked away, I felt someone grab my shoulder. It was the older man she had been making fun of. He raised his glass in a "cheers" motion. I did not turn and look for the girl, but I knew she would not be happy with the shift of power.

In the west, women are raised only to care about things like this. Also, it is apparently also ok for the woman to restore her power by charging at you, screaming in your face and trying to grab at and twist your nipples. Because that is what happened next.

And how did the public respond?

If you are in the west, the bartender who sees the whole thing may fail to take action against the woman. You, on the other hand, will be confronted by the bouncer as you push away the girl. You will then be removed from the bar and walked by the bouncer out of the establishment. Now, imagine the roles were reversed; a women walks away from you, but you follow her, get in her face and grab and twist her body. Tell me: what happens?

It's time for a serious dialogue in this country about the growing sociopathic epidemic within "the fairer sex", about what it means when those who grew up believing they are never at fault and free to act out their emotions without any accountability enter the public sphere.What role does this state of affairs play in the increasingly nihilistic and apathetic view men have of this society for fostering and pardoning such women?

05 October 2014

High-Risk Ebola: what were the chances it could have reached France and UK?

According to Medical Daily, scientists claimed that there was a 25% chance the Ebola virus would not come to Europe before October 25. The study had been conducted to size up the threat in wake of the virus' expansion across Liberia and other parts of West Africa.

The figure took into account the large number of West Africans who have ties to family in France and would have been likely to take flight to Europe as panic spread. Britain had a slightly lower chance of seeing the disease, 50%, but the likelihood was still high due to Heathrow Airport's prime role in international travel. If both countries had closed their airports to flights from the regions fighting the epidemic, the report claimed the risk dropped to 25% and 15%, respectively.

Now several months after the panic began, it appears that Ebola has been contained.  However, it is alarming how the government of the United States seemed quite adamant about not shutting down flights from the disease-ravaged area - even after the Ebola-carrying West African arrived on U.S. shores and created a scare in Texas. What does this mean for the future, if there is another or similar outbreak in Africa?

One time in an airport, I was singled out for a random security check and security confiscated an empty beer can that I was trying to bring back with me as a family souvenir. Another time, a drug-sniffing beagle found an orange peel from my in-flight snack as I stood in line in front of customs. This led to my bags being opened just to prove that I didn't have real fruit. So beer cans, orange peels - none of these items can come into our countries but someone flying in alone from a mass epidemic area can?

Priorities through globalist ideology. But if you live by a flawed ideology, then you just may die on account of it, too.