What is biowarfare? COVID was due to a biological warfare agent. It was designed in one or more laboratories to be more virulent than its natural precursors:
to prefer to infect humans;
to infect more organs than possible in naturally occurring strains;
to interfere with the body’s immune responses.
I say one or more laboratories becasue many of its features had been previously discovered or created in various laboratories, and then these features were essentially grafted onto a coronavirus, one by one; or some features were achieved by passaging the virus through humanized mice, other humanized animals, human cell tissue cultures or humans themselves.
Why were these features created? In which labs?
Why were they painstakingly added to a coronavirus backbone? Where was this done and how many labs were involved?
Why was a coverup by western scientists so critical? Because claiming that pandemics come from animals living in nature, and are spread to humans due to our incursions into their territory, was needed to justify the entire biosecurity agenda that the WHO is steamrolling over us.
By the way, the newest version of the treaty (released March 7, 2024) states that part of the WHO plan is to “identify” those areas where disease “spillover” occurs. You watch: the WHO will then empty those areas of humans. It really is a great cover story, “spillover.” Except it is a total lie.
_____________________
Historically most biowarfare agents were naturally occurring viruses or bacteria. Here is one example in which whistleblowers identified the hand of the CIA.
It is “gain-of-function” research that makes them more virulent and/or more transmissible. Gain of function research was considered illegal under international law until about 2001, and then the customary norms of national behavior simply changed, after the US was caught ignoring the usual norms—as revealed in the NYT on 9/4/2001 and in the book GERMS.
The WHO suggested it should be put in charge of gain-of-function research in the pandemic treaty draft that was released on February 14, 2024. It only took 3 weeks before a new draft was issued on March 7, 2024 in which all mention of “gain-of-function” was erased. I wonder if the rapidity of release of the next draft (it usually takes about 3 months to get a new draft) had to do with cutting out the Gain-of-Function section.
But the idea of requiring nations to supply the WHO with samples of potential pandemic pathogens, and to upload their genetic sequences to publicly accessible databases asap remained, was discussed with even more details in the newest March 7 draft. The WHO and nations would be free to share biological warfare agents aka potential pandemic pathogens (essentially) with anyone they liked.
This makes no sense any way you look at it. The goal seems to be a situation where “Pandemics R Us” and they appear frequently, with no ability to tell where they came from or whether they were deliberate or an accident. By sharing them all globally the WHO has paved the way for using the alibi of accidental release for future COVIDs.
The biowarfare segment starts at about 26 minutes into the episode.
As I said, we at DoortoFreedom.org are here to help you educate your lawmakers while you urge them to question this effort publicly, introduce resolutions, and in other ways throw some boulders in front of the steamroller, just like Louisiana’s Senate did this week.
“I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice…”
—The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail
When confronted by journalist Vicki Dillard on his stance on several Black issues—including his support for Israel’s genocidal obliteration of Gaza, Israel’s targeting of Black youth, and Israel’s training of police in America—presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., ducked, dodged and resorted to the standard political pablum that every politician knows to pitch to the Black electorate. But when this Caucasian Irish Catholic lectured Blacks on how grateful they should be to white Jews for ALL they have done for them, he brought arrogance and ignorance to new levels. A verbatim transcript of his remarks follows:
“I would point out to you that during the civil rights movement that the Jews in this country and particularly the leadership of the Jews took a, um, were at the forefront of that movement and were embraced by Martin Luther King, were embraced by the other leaders of the movement. Three Jewish boys—Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney—were killed in Mississippi. They died or that Black Americans could—first the civil rights movement. Many, many other Jews took, took great risk and suffered because of their sacrifices for this civil rights movement…”
And with this fairytale-filled paragraph Kennedy believes he can dismiss the immense record of Jewish slave trading and the slavery-derived profits that made America the “promised land” for Jews, who, as a direct result of the slave trade, slavery, and sharecropping, achieved unprecedented wealth and prosperity. It is impossible to tell exactly what Kennedy is referring to with his disjointed word salad, but what is clear is that Kennedy believes he can milk an alleged civil rights legacy left to him by his father and uncle, Robert F. Kennedy and John F. Kennedy respectively. His double-barreled gambit is that (1) he can “embrace” the Black vote with a nostalgic civil righteousness; and (2) he can keep Jewish money flowing into his current presidential campaign by repeating an imaginary “civil rights” history Jews love to hear over and over and over again.
Indeed, Kennedy referred to the civil rights “movement” five times in that single paragraph. But the hard truth is that as attorney general, RFK, Jr.’s father ordered the FBI’s 24-hour surveillance and wiretapping of the movement’s leader—the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King—as part of his Justice Department’s notorious COINTELPRO operation that terrorized and murdered Black leaders and organizations. The harassment suffered by Dr. King, his family, and his movement has been well-covered elsewhere (here and here), but it included sending a menacing letter to Rev. King (see graphic) calling him “an evil, abnormal beast” and advising him to kill himself. Ultimately his assassination in 1968 was most likely carried out by these same agents of the U.S. government. When confronted recently on the role his father played in this targeting of Rev. King, RFK, Jr. exonerates his elders: “There was good reason for them doing that at the time… They knew that Hoover was out to ruin King,” Kennedy acknowledges. Blacks would be hard pressed to find a “good reason” for anyone to unleash J. Edgar Hoover on Black America’s most revered religious leader.
The Kennedys’ Alleged Civil Rights Legacy
As attorney general, Robert F. Kennedy—RFK,Jr.’s father— developed a reputation as an advocate of civil rights in large part based on an incident that occurred in Georgia in 1960 involving the Rev. Martin Luther King, whom the FBI had been monitoring for five years. Dr. King was leading more than 200 activists in a campaign of sit-ins at 11 department stores in Atlanta when he was among the 51 Blacks arrested, but King was sentenced to four months of hard labor at a Georgia penitentiary.
When the incident hit the national news, the public outcry and pressure on “Bobby” to act was intense and so Kennedy called the sentencing judge and appealed to him to allow King to be released on bond and to appeal the conviction. Thus, Robert Kennedy became known as a “protector” of Black rights, if not a crusader. But the Atlanta episode exposed the underbelly of the Black–Jewish relationship and challenges the notion that the “Jewish leaders,” as Kennedy so smugly claimed, “um, were at the forefront of that movement.”
The arrest of Dr. King and the many demonstrators with him occurred at Rich’s Department Store, the largest department store in the South—at the demand of its Jewish owner Richard Rich (in photo). Rich was an honored member of his Atlanta synagogue and a president of the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, and he was even voted Georgia’s Citizen of the Year by the Association of County Commissioners. Certainly he would be considered a Jewish leader, and he certainly was at the “forefront” of the civil rights movement—but on the opposite side of Black justice.
Rich (who changed his name from Rosenheim) operated the largest segregated business in Atlanta. He paid Blacks less than whites, had separate cafeterias and restrooms, and even held separate Christmas parties. Despite having one of the largest Black customer bases, he denied Blacks the right to work in any capacity other than in the kitchen, and he put those Black women in “Aunt Jemima costumes” to serve the all-white diners. All of this is by anyone’s definition the very opposite of “civil rights.”
This is significant because Jews and their supporters—like RFK, Jr.—demand that Blacks only consider the works of the “helpful” Jews like Goodman and Schwerner, but ignore the much larger role of those powerful Jim Crow Jews like Richard Rich who created the very conditions that necessitated the civil rights movement.
According to the book We Are Not Afraid: The Story Of Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney by Seth Cagin and Philip Dray, after the first anti-segregation protest at his store a defiant Richard Rich “warned them angrily that integration would not be tolerated at Rich’s and that if they attempted a sit-in in his store again he would have them all arrested.”
Rich said he based his racism on “local customs,” but the other Jim Crow stores indicated that their racist policies were based on Rich’s, because his store was by far the largest. It was on the orders of the racist Richard Rich that Martin Luther King was handcuffed and jailed. When the publicity threatened to affect Rich’s profits, he tried to escape responsibility and declined to prosecute—but not because King and fellow protestors were right, but because, according to Rich and his attorney Morris Abram, “we didn’t want to make martyrs out of them and King.”
Rich was the most important Jew in Atlanta, and he was following in the footsteps of another leading Jew of a previous generation. In 1906, Oscar Pappenheimer was the most influential Jewish businessman in Atlanta. He offered this “practical suggestion” for Black civil rights in the Atlanta Constitution:
“I propose the registration of negroes in the southern states 14 years of age and more….Each person so registered should possess… a certificate… in which should be entered description, date and place of birth and, at each registration, record of abode, employment, conduct and reference….Let others decide whether it be legal to pass laws bearing on this subject with reference to the colored race only…”
So far, where do these Jews fit in RFK, Jr.’s civil rights fairytale?
RFK’s “Three Jewish boys”
In a truly embarrassing gaffe Kennedy claimed that “Three Jewish boys—Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney—were killed in Mississippi.” This, of course, would be news to James Chaney (left) and his family, who were not only Black but members of St. Joseph Catholic Church in Meridian, Mississippi. Nonetheless, the three martyrs cannot be forgotten for the ultimate sacrifice they made in Philadelphia, Mississippi, in 1964 for the cause of Black human rights. Nor can we allow falsehoods and propaganda to be cynically promoted in their names. Kennedy is the latest in a long line of mostly Jewish deceivers who use the names and tragic stories of the two “Jewish boys” to very subtly conceal the long and very uncivil history of Jews in the apartheid South.
By far Mississippi had more lynchings and racist violence than any other state. It is where at least 581 human beings met a horrifying, trial-free demise, and it is where three outright massacres of Blacks occurred in Vicksburg, Clinton, and Macon. After slavery Blacks made great strides in education and began building independent communities, so whites who saw no other role for Blacks but as plantation laborers increased their anti-Black violence and repression. In 1890, Mississippi legislators passed a state constitution specifically to “eliminate the nigger from politics.”
On the other hand, the two Jewish New Yorkers—Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman—were coming to a state that had loved and embraced Jews—and vice versa—for centuries. It is a secret reality that the most distinguished Jewish historians, Rabbi Dr. Jacob Marcus and Dr. Abraham Peck, proudly expressed in the book Jews in Early Mississippi:
“Where else would members of the Christian community donate monies to help build the local synagogue? Where else could Jews be members of the city council or even become mayor? Where else, as in the case of Leopold Marks, could a town be named after a Jew? And when it came time to answer the call to arms [serving the pro-slavery Confederate army] the Jews of Mississippi went with enthusiasm.”
Drs. Marcus and Peck write that these Jews “had love of and devotion to the state of Mississippi.” With the same evident pride the Goldring/Woldenberg Institute of Southern Jewish Lifelists 23 Jewish mayors who reigned in cities and towns all over Mississippi. And note that these Jews were considered by their overwhelmingly white gentile voters to be the very best people to lead their slavery-based, apartheid-practicing, drop-of-a-hat lynching, black voter-discriminating towns and cities. As the Institute says, “For the most part, Jews have enjoyed remarkable acceptance in Mississippi.”
Here is a screenshot of their listing:
Jewish leaders, like Natchez, Mississippi, merchant Jacob Soria, would not have “embraced” Martin Luther King, as RFK, Jr. surmises, but would have sold him and his fellow protesters at Rich’s along with the 32 Black men, women and children he advertised for sale at auction in 1839.
Jewish hate groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Simon Wiesenthal Center exploit the triple murder tragedy to advance the fallacy that the fates of Blacks and Jews in America were somehow intertwined—that their histories are one and the same. And from this hypocritical trick these satanic shysters, claiming to be “friends and allies” of Blacks, have been able to maneuver themselves into organizational control over the Black “civil rights” leadership.
Typical of this Tricknology is the ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt, who in 2023 stood in front of Dr. King’s children and other Black leaders and pompously “counseled” them on “the history of how Blacks and Jews struggled alongside one another…” He said, “They don’t remember the sacrifices of Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman…” But it is Greenblatt who doesn’t remember the sacrifices Blacks made for Jewish wealth in Mississippi and elsewhere in America.
To wit, B’nai B’rith is the parent organization of Greenblatt’s ADL. In deep, dark, Ku Klux Klan-saturated Mississippi the B’nai B’rith of Vicksburg held a dance (left photo below) in 1917 at the dedication of their palatial new “BB club.”
Their new building—opulent even by today’s standards—was designed in Spanish Renaissance architecture and constructed with Georgian marble and fine mahogany with ivory inlay. The lower level had a swimming pool, massage tables, locker rooms, a servant’s entrance, a butler’s pantry; and the upper floors had meeting rooms with pivoted windows, a walnut-encased billiard room, high-relief plaster work accented with electric lighting, a fine dining room, a lounge area in the mezzanine leading to the balcony overlooking the chandeliered ballroom, a roof garden, a gallery with a tiled floor and stone balustrade, a kitchen with a gas range, and a library.
This is how Mississippi Jews were faring 47 years before Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner arrived to help Blacks achieve voting rights! At that same moment, Mississippi Blacks “were landless sharecroppers or laborers facing inescapable poverty,” trapped in oppressive “contracts” with wealthy landowners like H. Hiller, a Jewish merchant who owned 400 of these sharecropper farms.
The pictured “negro shack” on white-owned land was the lot of the vast majority of Mississippi Blacks, whilst Jews flaunted the wealth they acquired in the most obscene way, in the most violently racist state in America.
Today we must ask why on earth would these Jews want to jeopardize, let alone change, this golden reality by participating in any “civil rights” movement? Logically, they would not, and indeed they did not.
Nonetheless, by all accounts both Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman came to Mississippi as dedicated individuals committed to racial justice, and, tellingly, not representing any synagogue or Jewish organization. And though their memories are cynically exploited—as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., just did—for political benefit, a very thoughtful Andrew Goodman offered his community some sage advice about a Black organization that “Jewish leaders” like Greenblatt and his predecessor Abraham Foxman were dedicated to destroying:
“… it is true that the white man (and by this I mean Christian civilization in general) has proved himself to be the most depraved devil imaginable in his attitudes towards the Negro race…. The historical contempt that the white race held for the Negroes has created a group of rootless degraded people. The current neglect of the problem can only irritate this deplorable state of affairs. The Black Muslims should constitute a warning to our society, a warning that must be heeded if we are to preserve the society. The road to freedom must be uphill, even if it is arduous and frustrating. A people must have dignity and identity. If they can’t do it peacefully, they will do it defensively.”
According to the aforementioned book We Are Not Afraid, Goodman’s 31-page thesis “The Black Muslims: A Phenomenon of Negro Reaction,” completed just days before he was murdered, “was a young man’s cri de coeur, a pronouncement of beliefs, and an explanation for the action he was about to take.” Robert Kennedy, Jr., and Jonathan Greenblatt must then come to grips with a very inconvenient racial reality—that Andrew Goodman, the man they hold up as a sacred symbol of the Black–Jewish relationship, made his fateful decision to aid the Black struggle in Mississippi as a consequence of the Teachings of the Nation of Islam.
For more on this topic see the Nation of Islam book series The Secret Relationship Between Blacks & Jews. Download the free guide by clicking here.
Has Europe really stopped supporting the genocide, ethnic cleansing and starvation war taking place in Gaza? It is clear that changes have occurred in European positions recently, compared to previous months.
European officials have begun to express increasing “concern” about the humanitarian conditions in the Gaza Strip and have recently mentioned the word “international law” in their statements regarding the brutal Israeli war after they had previously ignored it. Then, the European Union (EU) called for a ceasefire for the first time at the European Council summit on 21 March, finally after the Israeli army killed 32,000 Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip.
European positions have budged, but very slowly and with great caution and the result is that they have not yet left the trenches of supporting the ongoing genocide, with scattered exceptions issued by Belgium, Ireland, Spain, Malta and Norway.
It seems clear that the criticism directed at the Israeli side from most European platforms is still cautious, with great care being taken to choose expressions carefully. Most importantly, Europe ignores the fact that its influence gives it the ability to stop war and genocide immediately if it has the political will through a package of sanctions, for example, but it simply does not want to.
Instead, European politicians are currently trying to give the impression that they disagree with the horrors committed by the Israeli government and its forces against 2.3 million people in the Gaza Strip, but without doing anything to deter them. Because the invasion of Rafah will bring back the most horrific scenes of World War II to the world of colours, Europe clearly opposes the invasion of this narrow area crowded with displaced persons, as do the allies in Washington as well. However, most European platforms do not declare opposition to the ongoing war, despite all the atrocities that have accompanied it. Indeed, the Israeli war leadership still enjoys generous military supplies from European countries, in addition to the continuation of mutual partnership and cooperation agreements without prejudice or even the threat of being suspended.
Instead of taking serious action to curb the horrific massacre, Europe’s political leadership is deluding its people and the world that it is really acting by talking a lot about providing humanitarian aid and showing concern about the worsening famine in the Gaza Strip, without this changing anything in reality, which is, in fact, worsening. There are also renewed declarations of support for the political vision of the two-state solution, readiness to discuss recognition of a Palestinian state and denounce the attacks of extremist settlers in the West Bank and perhaps impose sanctions on them. Regrettably, none of these relate to the essence of the ongoing war on Gaza, which includes genocide, even though the EU and most European capitals have avoided pronouncing this forbidden word when it comes to Israeli behaviour.
Even if Europe imposes sanctions on a few settlers who attack Palestinian citizens, it ignores what is being done by the Israeli army and its soldiers, who do not stop killing, terrorising and abusing Palestinians in the West Bank, in addition to their atrocities in Gaza. Europe grants immunity to the Israeli army, its officers and its soldiers from any sanctions or even any explicit criticism. The focus of criticism on the behaviour of the settlers is always accompanied by a clear insistence on exempting the army from blame and accountability for war crimes.
History will forever recall that Europe’s political establishment supported genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip from day one in multiple forms through military support, political encouragement, propaganda and financial aid. Moreover, they have remained indifferent to the ongoing public objections against this shameful involvement. The war leadership with clear fascist tendencies would not have been able to wage this terrible massacre without this unwavering European cover, in addition to US and Western support in general.
Political Europe supported the atrocities through a rhetorical plot that included prior justification for everything that any army could commit against civilians. They did this despite knowing that the matter is related to an occupying army whose record is replete with war crimes committed in the Gaza Strip and elsewhere. In fact, the Benjamin Netanyahu government, which is the most extreme and racist Israeli government since its creation, had from the very first days declared its intentions to commit genocide, ethnic cleansing, starvation, war and total destruction. The evidence in this regard is well-documented in the case file South Africa submitted to the International Court of Justice. Yet the EU and most European capitals stuck to a unified narrative, providing excuses for all the atrocities that this army committed in the Gaza Strip, the majority of whose residents are refugee children and women.
European positions did not budge partially until after months of horrific massacres that reached a record level of Palestinian civilian casualties. Their partial change only came months after the brutal Israeli bombing campaign destroyed most homes, hospitals and civilian facilities with ammunition supplied by US and European industries and after starvation in Gaza reached a terrifying and visible peak before the entire world.
Still, European politicians behave as if they are incapable of acting. They continue to make feeble statements and diplomatic appeals to the Israeli side without telling their people and the world that they can take immediate, deterrent and effective steps to stop the genocide, ethnic cleansing and brutal starvation. Alas, they simply do not want to.
The easiest test of the seriousness of European positions is to compare their stand toward the Israeli occupier with the punitive steps taken after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The EU and other European countries have imposed strict, extensive and unprecedented sanctions on Russia since 24 February, 2022, in addition to the sanctions that were previously imposed after the annexation of Crimea in 2014. The EU also imposed sanctions on Belarus and Iran due to their roles in supporting the Russian war effort.
On the other hand, the EU and other European countries did not take any clear punitive steps towards Israel, except for the imposition of sanctions against a few settlers. The strangest thing, however, is that Europe rushed to punish the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and the Palestinian citizens served by the UN agency by hastily cutting off its funding as soon as uncorroborated Israeli allegations were received regarding some of its employees.
In contrast, Europe’s politicians still exempt the Israeli occupation army from even verbal censure. They choose carefully worded phrases when commenting on the terrible atrocities that the world sees, such as the mass killings at aid distribution points, so that these atrocities are not explicitly linked to the Israeli army.
One of the taboos of political discourse in the EU and the capitals of the continent is the use of specific vocabulary to describe what is happening. During half a year of horrors, expressions such as “genocide”, “ethnic cleansing”, “atrocities” and “war crimes” did not appear in European official comments, except in rare exceptions from non-conformist politicians in blog posts. The logical question that has been repeated for months in the words of demonstrators in European squares is: How many more victims would make you consider what is happening to be genocide?
Political Europe is now trying to disavow the image of the party supporting Israel’s war on the Palestinian people with all its atrocities. It is covering up its involvement in justifying this war and encouraging the genocide campaign that has been ongoing for months, including providing multiple forms of military, political, financial and propaganda support from several European countries. Ending the policy of supporting genocide, starvation, war and brutal war crimes has a clear title: ending the partnership and cooperation agreements, imposing strict sanctions, banning the supply of weapons and ammunition and launching a serious humanitarian operation to end the programmed starvation policy. The question remains: How many victims are needed in order to do something like this?
William J. Burns has published a long piece in Foreign Affairs under the title ‘Spycraft and Statecraft.Transforming the CIA for an Age of Competition‘. This is an essay likely to be read with great attention, maybe even parsed, not only by an American elite audience, but also abroad, in, say, Moscow, Beijing, and New Delhi, for several reasons. Burns is, of course, the head of the CIA as well as an acknowledged heavyweight of US geopolitics – in the state and deep-state versions.
Few publications rival Foreign Affairs’ cachet as a US establishment forum and mouthpiece. While Burns’ peg is a plea to appreciate the importance of human intelligence agents, his agenda is much broader: In effect, what he has released is a set of strategic policy recommendations, embedded in a global tour d’horizon. And, last but not least, Burns is, of course, not the sole author. Even if he should have penned every line himself, this is a programmatic declaration from a powerful faction of the American “siloviki,” the men (and women) wielding the still gargantuan hard power of the US empire.
By the way, whether he has noticed or not, Burns’ intervention cannot but bring to mind another intelligent spy chief loyally serving a declining empire. Yury Andropov, former head of the KGB (and then, for a brief period, the whole Soviet Union) would have agreed with his CIA counterpart on the importance of “human assets,” especially in an age of technological progress, and he would also have appreciated the expansive sweep of Burns’ vision. Indeed, with Burns putting himself so front-and-center, one cannot help but wonder if he is not also, tentatively, preparing the ground for reaching for the presidency one day. After all, in the US, George Bush senior famously went from head of the CIA to head of it all, too.
There is no doubt that this CIA director is a smart and experienced man principally capable of realism, unlike all too many others in the current American elite. Famously, he warned in 2008, when serving as ambassador to Moscow, that “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin).” That makes the glaring flaws in this big-picture survey all the more remarkable.
Burns is, obviously, correct when he observes that the US – and the world as a whole – is facing a historically rare moment of “profound” change in the global order. And – with one exception which we will return to – it would be unproductive, perhaps even a little churlish, to quibble over his ideologically biased terminology. His mislabeling of Russia as “revanchist,” for instance, has a petty ring to it. “Resurgent” would be a more civil as well as more truthful term, capturing the fact that the country is simply returning to its normal international minimum status (for at least the last three hundred years), namely that of a second-to-none great power.
Yet Burns’ agenda is more important than his terminology. While it may be complex, parts of it are as clear as can be: He is eager (perhaps desperate) to prevent Washington from ending its massive aid for Ukraine – a battle he is likely to lose. In the Middle East, he wants to focus Western aggression on Iran. He may get his will there, but that won’t be a winning strategy because, in part thanks to multipolar trend setters, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS, Iran’s escape from the isolation that the US has long imposed on it is already inevitable.
Regarding China, Burns’ real target is a competing faction of American hawks, namely those who argue that, bluntly put, Washington should write off its losses in Ukraine and concentrate all its firepower on China. Burns wants to persuade his readers that the US can have both its big fight against China and its proxy war against Russia.
He is also engaged in a massive act of CIA boosterism, clearly aiming to increase the clout of the already inordinately powerful state-within-a-state he happens to run himself. And last but not least, the spy-in-chief has unearthed one of the oldest tricks in the subversion and destabilization playbook: Announcing loudly that his CIA is on a recruiting spree in Russia, he seeks to promote a little paranoia in Moscow. Good luck attempting to pull that one on the country that gave us the term “agentura.” Moreover, after the horrific terror attack on Crocus City Hall in Moscow, it is fair to assume that Burns regrets having boasted about the CIA expanding its “work” in Russia. Not a good look, not at all.
What matters more, though, than his verbal sallies and his intriguingly straightforward, even blunt aims, are three astonishingly crude errors: First, Burns insists on reading the emerging outcome of the war in Ukraine as a “failure on many levels,” for Russia, revealing its, as he believes, economic, political, and military weakness. Yet, as the acknowledged American economist James K. Galbraith has recently reiterated, the West’s economic war on Russia has backfired. The Russian economy is now stronger, more resilient, and independent of the West than never before.
As to the military, Burns for instance, gleefully counts the tanks that Russia has lost and fails to note the ones it is building at a rapid rate not matched anywhere inside NATO. In general, he fails to mention just how worried scores of Western experts have come to be, realizing that Moscow is overseeing a massive and effective expansion of military production. A curious oversight for an intelligence professional. He also seems to miss just how desperate Ukraine’s situation has become on the ground.
And politics – really? The man who serves Joe Biden, most likely soon to be replaced by Donald Trump, is spotting lack of popularity and fragility in Moscow, and his key piece of evidence is Prigozhin and his doomed mutiny? This part of Burns’ article is so detached from reality that one wonders if this is still the same person reporting on Russian red lines in 2008. The larger point he cannot grasp is that, historically, Russia has a pattern of starting wars on the wrong foot – to then learn, mobilize, focus, and win.
Burns’ second severe mistake is his argument that, ultimately, only China can pose a serious challenge to the US. This is staggeringly shortsighted for two reasons: First, Russia has just shown that it can defeat the West in a proxy war. Once that victory will be complete, a declining but still important part of the American empire, NATO/EU-Europe will have to deal with the after-effects (no, not Russian invasion, but political backlash, fracturing, and instability). If Burns thinks that blowback in Europe is no serious threat to US interests, one can only envy his nonchalance.
Secondly, his entire premise is perfectly misguided: It makes no sense to divide the Russian and the Chinese potentials analytically because the are now closely linked in reality. It is, among other things, exactly a US attempt to knock out Russia first to then deal with China that has just failed. Instead, their partnership has become more solid.
And error number three is, perhaps, even odder: As mentioned above, Burns’ language is a curious hybrid between an analytical and an intemperate idiom. A sophisticated reader can only wince in vicarious embarrassment at hearing a CIA director complain of others’ “brutish” behavior. What’s worse: the tub-thumping or the stones-and-glasshouse cringe? Mostly, though, this does not matter.
Yet there is one case where these fits of verbal coarseness betray something even worse than rhetorical bravado: Describing Hamas’ 7 October assault as “butchery,” Burns finds nothing but an “intense ground campaign” on Israel’s side. Let’s set aside that this expression is a despicable euphemism, when much of the world rightly sees a genocide taking place in Gaza, with US support. It also bespeaks an astounding failure of the strategic imagination: In the same essay, Burns notes correctly that the weight of the Global South is increasing, and that, in essence, the great powers will have to compete for allegiances that are no longer, as he puts is, “monogamous.” Good luck then putting America’s bizarre come-what-may loyalty to Israel first. A CIA director at least should still be able to distinguish between the national interests of his own country and the demands of Tel Aviv.
Burns’ multipronged strike in the realm of elite public debate leaves an unpleasant aftertaste. It is genuinely disappointing to see so much heavy-handed rhetoric and such basic errors of analysis from one of the less deluded members of the American establishment. It is also puzzling. Burns is not amateurish like Antony Blinken or a fanatic without self-possession, such as Victoria Nuland. Yet here he is, putting his name to a text that often seems sloppy and transparent in its simple and short-sighted motivations. Has the US establishment decayed so badly that even its best and brightest now come across as sadly unimpressive?
Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.
Internist & Board-Certified Nephrologist, Suzanne Humphries, MD, shares details on the 10th Anniversary Edition of the groundbreaking book she Co-Authored, Dissolving Illusions, and how the vaccine safety space has changed in a post-COVID world where doctors are speaking out in droves over controversial topic of vaccine injury.
Hamas’s incursion into Israel on October 7 transformed the politics of the Middle East. Al Jazeera’s Investigative Unit (I-Unit) has carried out a forensic analysis of the events of that day – examining seven hours of footage from CCTV, dashcams, personal phones and headcams of dead Hamas fighters, and drawing up a comprehensive list of those killed.
In October 7, the I-Unit reveals widespread human rights abuses by Hamas fighters and others who followed them through the fence from Gaza into Israel.
But the investigation also found that many of the worst stories that came out in the days following the attack were false. This was especially true of atrocities that were used repeatedly by politicians in Israel and the West to justify the ferocity of the bombardment of the Gaza Strip, such as the mass killing of babies and allegations of widespread and systematic rape.
In particular the I-Unit reveals that claims by the Israel Defence Force that it found 8 burned babies at a house in Kibbutz Be’eri were entirely untrue. There were no babies in the house and the 12 civilians inside were killed by Israeli forces when they stormed the house.
This was one of a number of incidents where the police and army appear to have killed Israeli citizens.
October 7 is a deep dive into the events that led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people, the significance of which will reverberate for decades.
Following a long legal battle, Germany’s public health agency, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), has released the confidential protocols that show the RKI was aware that “lockdowns cause more harm than good” and evidence for “making masks mandatory was lacking.”
The RKI voiced concerns in 2020 that shutting down German society could lead to increased child mortality and other negative outcomes. The RKI experts also disagreed with the implementation of FFP2 face masks, saying there was a lack of data to support such a measure.
“Active communication would make sense in order to make clear why the RKI does not recommend this measure,” notes the minute regarding implementing FFP2 mask regulations. The agency even notes in the minutes that it would tell the public it did not support FFP2 mask regulations, but notably, the agency never did so despite mass protests against mandatory masks and other harsh measures.
The 2,500 pages of documents also contain a passage noting that experts warned that lockdowns could “do more harm than good,” with experts citing lockdowns in Africa and the negative outcomes seen there.
The documents have revealed that German politicians dramatized the situation, contrary to the opinions of experts. This was done presumably in order to implement coercive measures and restrict basic rights. There are now calls to release the rest of the documents, as more than a thousand passages are still redacted, representing a third of the total text dating from meeting notes from the “crisis unit” taken between February 2020 and April 2021.
The release of the documents has sent shockwaves through Germany and led even left-wing parties, such as the Greens, to call for a “comprehensive review” of coronavirus policy. Other parties, like the Alternative for Germany (AfD), are calling for more action, including a commission investigation.
Politicians are urging the RKI to lift the redactions and make all findings available to the public, and further court proceedings are pending. In the meantime, debate continues to rage, with the #RKIFiles tag on X already generating 45,000 posts.
An example of just a couple of posts shows the anger many Germans still feel towards the coronavirus-era policies put in place.
“The Bavarian state government tortured children with masks until spring 2022 — even in physical education classes. Not because there was scientific evidence for it, but because Markus Söder liked the role of coronavirus hardliner. #RKIFiles,” wrote one X user.
Another showed video of police brutalizing protesters demonstrating against Covid-19 measures, writing:
“It’s good that the RKI protocols are included in the broader discussion! But there can be no such thing as cheap forgiveness. With the coronavirus, 2/3 of Germans became massively aggressive against 1/3. The handcuffs must click on the main criminals.”
Virologist reacts to report
Virologist Klaus Stöhr, once the WHO pandemic commissioner, said the revealed protocols once again show that the “risk assessment was not based on data.” According to Stöhr, “his hair stood on end when it came to (Germany’s) pandemic plan.”
Stöhr also commented on the fact that the RKI protocols uncovered that experts were telling the government that there is little data to support widespread mask adoption for the public.
“And the fact that what was known about FFP2 masks was completely ignored is just two small building blocks.” There was “a lot more data available where it was seen that the work was not based on evidence,” he said.
The scientist referred to “curfews, border closures, 2G/3G (areas restricted based on vaccination status), and the side effects of lockdowns” as further examples of this. Stöhr noted that “these are all things that were known – including that the vaccines could not halt the spread of the virus.” He said that the vaccines could not end the pandemic, and it was “clear from the beginning that the vaccine couldn’t do that.”
He is now calling for a commission or review process to avoid the mistakes made by the government during the Covid-19 era in the future.
Virologist Hendrik Streeck, who was appointed to the RKI expert council, also stated: “I’m very surprised that entire pages about vaccinations, for example, were blacked out,” he said to Welt. “And I wonder what it says, why the public shouldn’t see it.”
Lauterbach in panic mode?
Federal Health Minister Karl Lauterbach (SPD) reacted with horror to the findings in the report. As federal health minister during a significant portion of the pandemic, he has often been the top target of criticism from those opposed to Germany’s Covid-19 policies.
“Enlightenment is good, but we must not allow conspiracy theories to arise on social media through the interference of foreign governments,” he wrote on the X platform. Why he referred to “foreign governments” remained unclear, but when cornered, left-wing politicians often resort to claims of “foreign interference” and “Russia.”
Despite calls for a review of policy, Lauterbach is desperate to avoid this outcome and is also openly rejecting a commission, as the AfD and BSW parties are calling for.
Lauterbach claims this would only benefit “a small group of politicians, but also people who perhaps represent radical ideas in other areas.” He claims they would use the findings “to politicize against the state.”
Some from the Greens also resorted to claims of “foreign influence” following the release of the RKI protocols.
Green health politician Janosch Dahmen, one of the most aggressive supporters of extreme Covid-19 policies, said: “It seems to me that the virulent spread of such untruthful rumors is also the result of the influence of foreign intelligence services on our society against the background of Russia’s war against Ukraine, to further divide and render politics incapable of action.”
The AfD, FDP and BSW want an investigation
The AfD, Free Democrats and BSW parties all want a more thorough investigation than a simple “review.”
“The public has a right to know what really happened back then,” said the health policy spokesman for the AfD parliamentary group, Martin Sichert, regarding the redactions still in the report. He appealed to the other parliamentary groups: “Take a look at the protocols of the RKI crisis team and set up a coronavirus investigation committee with us.”
Even the FDP, which is in a governing coalition with the ruling government, is calling for a more thorough investigation. FDP vice-president Wolfgang Kubicki announced that he would “work to ensure that the entire basis for decision-making at this time becomes public.” He also said it is becoming increasingly clear “that the Robert Koch Institute for Health Policy served as a scientific façade for former Minister Jens Spahn and probably also Karl Lauterbach.”
Some Greens are conciliatory
Some left-wing politicians believe some kind of review is necessary to improve “social cohesion.”
“It would be good for social cohesion if there were a review of coronavirus policy with a little distance,” said the Green parliamentary group’s legal policy spokesperson, Helge Limburg, to Welt newspaper. “This could be a commission of inquiry, a commission of experts, or another form of debate that signals to people: We are not simply brushing aside the drastic measures of that time.”
Health and budget politician Paula Piechotta said: “Almost exactly four years after the first pandemic measures were introduced in Germany, it is now overdue to address the mistakes of pandemic policy in a wide range of areas, from health and education to financial policy, in a transparent and timely manner for everyone.”
Her party colleague, Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck, also said a review of the coronavirus era was necessary but was short on specifics.
“We should now initiate a phase in which we reflect on the difficult pandemic period with all its effects,” he told the Bild newspaper. The German government at the time had to make far-reaching decisions quickly in an unprecedented situation during the pandemic.
“Certainly mistakes were made, but it would also have been a mistake not to make a decision,” he continued. “I think we should have the courage to learn the lessons, review processes, and evaluate the impact.”
In retrospect, it is fair to ask “whether the advisory bodies for politicians really covered the diversity of perspectives in science,” said Green MP Dieter Janecek. “For example, some encroachments on fundamental rights were certainly questionable: Unvaccinated people were not allowed into restaurants or swimming pools, even though it was already clear that the vaccine did not prevent transmission. Children and young people were unduly disadvantaged.”
Glenn Greenwald reports on the U.S. administration’s outright support for the intentional starvation of men, women, and children in Gaza and the 32,000+ Palestinians already killed by Israeli forces using US weapons. Citing the statement by an Israeli general that US support is what makes Israel’s actions possible, Greenwald concludes: “it’s Biden’s war.”
Glenn Greenwald is a journalist, former constitutional lawyer, and author of four New York Times bestselling books on politics and law. Foreign Policy magazine named Greenwald one of the top 100 Global Thinkers for 2013. He was the debut winner, along with “Democracy Now’s” Amy Goodman, of the Park Center I.F. Stone Award for Independent Journalism in 2008, and also received the 2010 Online Journalism Award for his investigative work.
German Osteopath, Health and Science Lead, and Steering Committee Member of the World Council for Health (WCH), Christof Plothe stated that Human Rights, as defined by the UN, are universal, inalienable, and indivisible, ensuring equality and non-discrimination. They are inherent to every human being and cannot be granted or revoked by any state or government. And yet, Human Rights were ignored and trampled on during the Covid-19 event.
Christof Plothe raised 36critical questions that must be urgently addressed to ensure that the abuse of human rights that took place in response to Covid-19 never happens again:
Why were we not told that the Covid 19 virus was patented by Moderna in 2018?
Why did Moderna produce 100,000 Covid-19 vaccine doses in 2019before the pandemic started?
Why, against all scientific evidence, were lockdowns and masks used?
Why were we not told that the ‘vaccine’ does not remain in the arm, but accumulates all over the body?
Why was PCR testing recommended when it is not designed for diagnostic purposes?
Why were the definitions of ‘vaccine’, and ‘herd immunity’ changed prior to the Covid-19 outbreak?
Why was a pandemic declared when the case fatality rate was akin to ’flu?
Why were tests on genotoxicity, teratogenicity, and carcinogenicity not carried out, and yet we were told the ‘vaccine’ was safe?
Why was there no proper follow-up of all people injected when using a new gene therapy product?
Why were doctors and the public not reminded regularly about the need to report adverse reactions to these new and experimental genetic ‘vaccines’?
Why was a ‘vaccine’ recommended during an ongoing pandemic, which is contraindicated in vaccinology?
Why was a ‘vaccine’ recommended for those who had superior natural immunity?
Why was a novel gene therapy launched after three months, instead of the required ten years?
Why were we not told that, in the Pfizer trial, more people died in the vaccinated group than in the control group?
Why were we told that Covid injections were ‘safe and effective’ when the evidence did not substantiate this?
Why were – and are – opposing voices from science and practicing medicine discredited, punished, and jailed?
Why were doctors, for the first time in history, discouraged from treating a disease, and told to wait for a vaccine?
Why was early treatment discouraged, whilst we know it is the most important tool to address any infectious disease?
Why were effective and very safemedicines like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin discredited and even prohibited?
Why did the producers of the novel gene therapies not want their data to be published for 75 years?
Why were Covid injections, masks and lockdowns recommended for children when it was known that they were not severely affected and did not spread Covid?
Why were the Covid injections recommended in pregnancy, when over 80% of babies were lost in trials when women were vaccinated in the first trimester?
Why was emergency approval guaranteed when over 2,000 people died within the first three months after vaccination roll-out?
Why is there no scientific outcry after over 3,500 papers have been published demonstrating side effects of the Covid-19 injections?
Why are conflicts of interest tolerated among medical authorities, with the FDA, EMA, and WHO being 80-90% funded by industry?
Why was there no adequate education of doctors, patients, and the public, and thus no possibility of informed consent?
Why and how were the media captured so that they pushed only one agenda worldwide?
Why were and are effective treatment protocols, which have existed since 2020, banned and declared illegal?
Why are we not told about the unnecessary deaths that were attributed to Covid but actually caused by iatrogenic measures (e.g. Midazolam, ventilation) carried out in early 2020?
Why was the fundamental role of Vitamin D status, diet, and the microbiome not communicated, when these measures could have prevented almost 100% of Covid deaths?
Why was and is a certain medical procedure forced upon people against their will, whilst the Nuremberg Declaration clearly opposes this?
Why is gain of function research, like that relating to Covid-19, not banned worldwide?
Why is an mRNA product still being used, when we know that mRNA is being incorporated into the human genome, and resulting in the production of other, unknown, proteins?
Why has the failed mRNA concept not been stopped, when we know it increases the likelihood of the recipient getting Covid-19, thus demonstrating negative efficacy?
Why do these products continue to be recommended, when at least 17 million people are believed to have died due to the injections?
Why is there no investigation into excess deaths, and increases in rates of cancer and heart problems, etc., which started in 2021, not in 2020?
It is absolutely clear that the WHO must not be allowed to continue with its plans to amend the International Health Regulations or finalise their ‘Pandemic Treaty’ without responding to these questions.
Over the past two years, Moscow has collected evidence of Western involvement in training and arming jihadi terrorists to weaponize them on the Ukrainian battlefield and Russia’s rear.
The Crocus City Hall terror attack has raised questions about the West’s repeated use of jihadist elements, starting from arming Mujahideen in Afghanistan during the Cold War era to most recent reports of Islamists fighting on the side of the Kiev regime.
Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) stated on February 13, 2023, that it obtained intelligence indicating that the US military was actively recruiting militants from jihadist groups affiliated with ISIS and al-Qaeda to carry out terrorist attacks in Russia and the CIS countries. According to the SVR, particular attention is paid to attracting people from the Russian North Caucasus and Central Asia to cooperate.
The Russian intelligence service revealed that in January 2023, 60 terrorists with experience of participating in hostilities in the Middle East were recruited by the West, adding that they were undergoing training at the American base in Al-Tanf, Syria, to conduct terrorist and subversive attacks.
The SVR noted at the time that the militants would be dispatched in small groups to the territory of Russia and the CIS countries in cooperation with underground cells of international terrorist groups, including Hizb ut-Tahrir, Jamaat Ansarullah and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.
“We see the final loss of any moral principles in the US security forces,” the SVR summarized in its official statement, lambasting Washington’s obsession with inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia by any means possible. “Such actions put Washington on a par with the largest international terrorist groups.”
Intel data confirming the plans described by the SVR started to emerge later in the year. Russian Security Service (FSB) Director Alexander Bortnikov stated at the October 2023 meeting of heads of Russian security agencies and special services that ISIS and other terrorist groups were fighting against Russia as part of the Ichkerian and Crimean Tatar mercenary units in Ukraine. ISIS is also part of sabotage and reconnaissance groups sent to Russian territory to carry out attacks and terrorist attacks, Bortnikov emphasized.
The FSB director pointed out that Western governments were “actively facilitating the movement of militants into the Ukrainian conflict zone.” As of October 2023, the FSB had registered the participation of employees of 13 Western private military companies (PMCs) and members of nine foreign paramilitary proxy forces in the Ukraine conflict on the side of the Kiev regime.
According to Bortnikov, the US and its NATO allies have turned Ukraine into nothing short of a terrorist hotbed.
The FSB chief likewise drew special attention to the US and British intelligence services’ efforts to create a “belt of instability” in Afghanistan near the southern borders of the CIS, where al-Qaeda and the ISIS groups are becoming stronger. To that end, the Western intelligence services were recruiting militants from international terrorist organizations operating in Iraq, Syria, and a number of other Asian and African countries, and transferring them to northern Afghanistan.
“We note the increased role of al-Qaeda, which, in alliance with the IS branch Vilayat Khorasan, takes an active part in the preparation, indoctrination and logistical support of controlled groups,” Bortnikov stressed last October.
Islamic Terror Groups Flocking to Ukraine
From the very beginning of the Russian special operation in Ukraine, reports started to emerge in international media outlets and blogs, shedding light on jihadists of all stripes flocking to the combat zone in Ukraine.
In early March 2022, the BBC quoted Syria-based terrorist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) explicitly expressing solidarity with the Kiev regime. High-profile HTS member al-Shamali al-Hurr took to Telegram to cheer Ukrainian victories by sharing footage and graphic images of damaged Russian military hardware and dead soldiers.
In April 2022, reports emerged claiming that the White Helmets, a Western-backed so-called “humanitarian” Syrian group, had arrived in Ukraine. Prior to this, the group, officially known as the Syrian Civil Defense, pledged to provide “tutorials” to the Ukrainian forces. The group was accused by Syrians of being connected to al-Qaeda offshoots operating in the Middle Eastern country and staging chemical attacks.
What’s more, initial training and financial support to the White Helmets was provided by the Mayday Rescue Foundation, a non-governmental organization established by ex-British Army officer James Le Mesurier. Le Mesurier’s group was instrumental in the West’s long-standing effort to topple the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, according to Grayzone investigative journalists’ account of events in 2016.
The SVR announced in May 2022, citing obtained evidence, that about 60 ISIS terrorists were released from prisons controlled by the US-backed Syrian Kurds a month earlier with the aim of dispatching them to Ukraine as sabotage units. The SVR highlighted that the US Al-Tanf base in Syria’s Homs province was turned into a terrorist hub where militants were trained to be deployed to Ukraine.
“Priority is given to natives of the states of Transcaucasia and Central Asia. The training ‘course’ in Al-Tanf includes training in the use of available types of anti-tank missile systems, reconnaissance and strike drones MQ-1C, advanced communications and surveillance equipment,” the SVR stated.
On October 22, 2022, Al-Monitor reported that it had learned that members of Ajnad al-Kavkaz, a Chechen-led Islamist group, left the Syrian province of Idlib and headed to Ukraine to fight against the Russian military.
Who Masterminded the Crocus City Hall Attack?
The Crocus City Hall terror attack was carried out by the hands of radical Islamists, but it is necessary to find the masterminds and those who benefitted from the hideous crime, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated on Monday.
“The horrific crime committed on March 22 in the capital of Russia is an act of intimidation … and the question immediately arises: who benefits?” Putin said. “This atrocity can only be an element in a whole series of attempts by those who have been fighting our country since 2014 with the hands of the neo-Nazi Kiev regime.”
In the wake of the attack four alleged perpetrators – Dalerdzhon Mirzoyev, Shamsidina Fariduni, Saidakrami Rachabalizoda and Muhammadsobir Fayzov – were caught in the Russian Bryansk region on the way to the Ukrainian border. According to the FSB, the jihadists had connections in Ukraine and sought to hide in the Eastern European country after committing the crime. The fifth suspect, Dilovar Islomov, was detained on March 25.
“We also need to answer the question of why the terrorists tried to leave for Ukraine after committing the crime and who was waiting for them there,” Putin underlined during the conversation with Russian authorities on security measures taken after the terrorist attack.
The Russian president specifically referred to the Biden administration’s effort to divert public attention from Ukraine’s possible involvement immediately after the tragedy.
“We see how the US is taking to various channels to convince its satellites and other countries that according to the data from its intelligence, there is allegedly no Ukrainian trace in the Moscow terrorist attack (…) We already know by whose hands this atrocity against Russia and its people had been carried out. Now we want to know who the mastermind is,” the Russian president emphasized.
Ranked second only to Osama bin Laden, the US’s most notorious declared enemy during the so-called War on Terror was Jordanian jihadist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the founder of Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).
But a closer examination of Zarqawi’s life and his impact on events in Iraq shows that he was likely a product and tool of US intelligence.
Neoconservative strategists within the administration of George W. Bush utilized Zarqawi as a pawn to justify the illegal US invasion of Iraq in 2003 to the American public.
Moreover, he was instrumental in fomenting internal discord within Iraqi resistance groups opposing the US occupation, ultimately instigating a sectarian civil war between Iraq’s Sunni and Shia communities.
Israel’s plan unfolds in Iraq
This deliberate strategy of tension in Iraq advanced Tel Aviv’s goal of perpetuating the country’s vulnerabilities, dividing populations along sectarian lines, and weakening its army’s ability to challenge Israel in the region.
It has long been known that the CIA created Al-Qaeda as part of its covert war on the Soviet Red Army in Afghanistan in the 1980s and supported Al-Qaeda elements in various wars, including in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Chechnya in the 1990s.
Additionally, evidence points to CIA support for Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups during the clandestine war in Syria launched in 2011 amid the so-called Arab Spring.
Despite this history, western journalists, analysts, and historians still take at face value that Zarqawi and AQI were sworn enemies of the US.
Without understanding Zarqawi’s role as a US intelligence asset, it is impossible to understand the destructive role the US (and Israel) played in the bloodshed inflicted on Iraq, not only during the initial 2003 invasion but in launching the subsequent sectarian strife as well.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was born Ahmed Fadhil Nazar al-Khalaylah but later changed his name to reflect his birthplace, Zarqa, an industrial area near Amman, Jordan. In and out of prison in his youth, he would become radicalized during his time behind bars.
Zarqawi traveled to Afghanistan to fight with the CIA-backed mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the late 1980s. Upon his return to Jordan, he helped start a local Islamic militant group called Jund al-Sham and was imprisoned in 1992.
After his release from prison following a general amnesty, Zarqawi returned to Afghanistan in 1999. TheAtlantic notes that he first met Osama bin Laden at this time, who suspected that Zarqawi’s group had been infiltrated by Jordanian intelligence while in prison, which accounted for his early release.
Zarqawi then fled Afghanistan to the pro-US Kurdistan region of northern Iraq and established a training camp for his fighters in the fateful year of 2001.
The missing link
Eager to implicate Iraq in the 9/11 attacks, it wasn’t long before the Bush administration officials soon used Zarqawi’s presence to shroud Washington’s geopolitical agendas there.
In February 2003, at the UN Security Council, US Secretary of State Colin Powell claimed that Zarqawi’s presence in Iraq proved Saddam was harboring a terrorist network, necessitating a US invasion.
According to the Council on Foreign Relations, “This assertion was later disproved, but it irreversibly thrust Zarqawi’s name into the international spotlight.”
Powell made the claim even though the Kurdish region of Iraq, where Zarqawi established his base, was effectively under US control. The US air force imposed a no-fly zone on the region after the 1991 Gulf War. Israel’s foreign intelligence agency, the Mossad, was also known to have a presence there, a reality that Iran actively acknowledges and remains vigilant about.
Curiously, despite Zarqawi’s base being nestled within the confines of Iraqi Kurdistan, the Bush administration opted for inaction when presented with a golden opportunity to neutralize him.
The Wall Street Journalreported that the Pentagon drew up detailed plans in June 2002 to strike Zarqawi’s training camp but that “the raid on Mr Zarqawi didn’t take place. Months passed with no approval of the plan from the White House.”
Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, justified the inaction by claiming “the camp was of interest only because it was believed to be producing chemical weapons,” even though the threat of chemical and biological weapons falling into the hands of terrorists was supposedly the most important reason for toppling Saddam Hussein’s government.
In contrast, General John M. Keane, the US Army’s vice chief of staff at the time, explained that the intelligence on Zarqawi’s presence in the camp was “sound,” the risk of collateral damage was low, and that the camp was “one of the best targets we ever had.”
The Bush administration firmly refused to approve the strikes, despite US General Tommy Franks pointing to Zarqawi’s camp as among the “examples of the terrorist ‘harbors’ that President Bush had vowed to crush.”
As soon as Zarqawi’s presence in Iraq had accomplished its initial purpose of selling the war on Iraq to the US public, and after the March 2003 invasion was already underway, the White House finally approved targeting his camp with airstrikes. But by then, the Wall Street Journal adds, Zarqawi had already fled the area.
Singling out Shiites
Then, in January 2004, the key pillar of the Bush administration’s justification for war unraveled. David Kay, the weapons inspector tasked with finding Iraq’s WMDs, publicly declared, “I don’t think they exist,” after nine months of searching.
TheGuardianreported that the failure to locate any WMDs was such a devastating blow to the rationale for invading Iraq that now “even Bush was rewriting the reasons for going to war.”
On 9 February, as the WMD embarrassment mounted, Secretary of State Powell again claimed that before the invasion, Zarqawi “was active in Iraq and doing things that should have been known to the Iraqis. And we’re still looking for those connections and to prove those connections.”
Two weeks before, US intelligence had conveniently made public a 17-page letter it claimed Zarqawi had written. Its author claimed responsibility for multiple terror attacks, argued that fighting Iraq’s Shia was more important than fighting the occupying US army, and vowed to spark a civil war between the country’s Sunni and Shia communities.
In subsequent months, US officials attributed a series of brutal bombings targeting Iraq’s Shia to Zarqawi without providing evidence of his involvement.
In March 2004, suicide attacks on Shia shrines in Karbala and the Kadhimiya district of Baghdad killed 200 worshippers commemorating Ashura. In April, car bombings in the Shia-majority city of Basra in southern Iraq killed at least 50.
Regarding the Karbala and Kadhimiya attacks, Al-Qaeda issued a statement through Al-Jazeera strongly denying any involvement, but Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) head Paul Bremer insisted Zarqawi was involved.
Zarqawi’s alleged attacks on Iraq’s Shia helped drive a wedge between the Sunni and Shia resistance to the US occupation and sowed the seeds of a future sectarian war.
This proved helpful to the US army, which was trying to prevent Sunni and Shia factions from joining forces in resistance to the occupation.
‘Dividing our enemies’
In April 2004, President Bush ordered a full-scale invasion to take control of Fallujah, a city in Anbar province that had become the epicenter of the Sunni resistance.
Vowing to “pacify” the city, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt launched the attack using helicopter gunships, unmanned surveillance drones, and F-15 warplanes.
The attack became controversial as the Marines killed many civilians, destroyed large numbers of homes and buildings, and displaced the majority of the city’s residents.
Eventually, due to widespread public pressure, President Bush was forced to call off the assault, and Fallujah became a ‘no-go’ zone for US forces.
The failure to maintain troops on the ground in Fallujah had US planners turning back to their Zarqawi card to weaken the Sunni resistance from within. In June, a senior Pentagon official claimed that “fresh information” had come to light showing Zarqawi “may be hiding in the Sunni stronghold city of Fallujah.”
The Pentagon official “cautioned, however, that the information is not specific enough to allow a military operation to be launched to try to find al-Zarqawi.”
The sudden appearance of Zarqawi and other Jihadists in Fallujah at this time was not an accident.
In a report written for the US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) entitled “Dividing our enemies,” Thomas Henriksen explained that the US military used Zarqawi to exploit differences among its enemies in Fallujah and elsewhere.
He writes that the US military maintained the goal of “fomenting enemy-on-enemy deadly encounters” so that America’s “enemies eliminate each other,” adding that “When divisions were absent, American operators instigated them.”
The Fallujah Case Study
Henriksen then cites events in Fallujah in the fall of 2004 as “a case study” that “showcased the clever machinations required to set insurgents battling insurgents.”
He explained that the takfiri–Salafi views of Zarqawi and his fellow jihadis caused tension with local insurgents who were nationalists and embraced a Sufi religious outlook. Local insurgents also opposed Zarqawi’s tactics, which included kidnapping foreign journalists, killing civilians through indiscriminate bombings, and sabotaging the country’s oil and electricity infrastructure.
Henriksen further explained that US psychological operations, which took “advantage of and deepened the intra-insurgent forces” in Fallujah, led to “nightly gun battles not involving coalition forces.”
These divisions soon extended to the other Sunni resistance strongholds of Ramadi in Anbar province and the Adhamiya district of Baghdad.
The divisions instigated by US intelligence through Zarqawi in Fallujah paved the way for another US invasion of the restive city in November 2004, days after Bush secured re-election.
BBC journalist Mark Urban reported that 2,000 bodies were recovered after the battle, including hundreds of civilians.
Conveniently, “Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was not among the dead,” having slipped through the US cordon around the city before the assault began, Urban added.
Domestic consumption
US military intelligence later acknowledged using psychological operations to promote Zarqawi’s role in the Sunni insurgency fighting against the US occupation.
TheWashington Postreported in April 2006 that “The US military is conducting a propaganda campaign to magnify the role of the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq,” which helped “the Bush administration tie the war to the organization responsible for the 11 September 2001 attacks.”
The Post quotes US Colonel Derek Harvey as explaining, “Our own focus on Zarqawi has enlarged his caricature, if you will – made him more important than he really is.”
As the Post reports further, the internal documents detailing the psychological operation campaign “explicitly list the ‘US Home Audience’ as one of the targets of a broader propaganda campaign.”
The campaign to promote Zarqawi also proved helpful to President Bush during his re-election campaign in October 2004. When Democratic challenger John Kerry called the war in Iraq a diversion from the so-called War on Terror in Afghanistan, President Bush responded by claiming:
“The case of one terrorist shows how wrong [Kerry’s] thinking is. The terrorist leader we face in Iraq today, the one responsible for planting car bombs and beheading Americans, is a man named Zarqawi.”
Who killed Nick Berg?
Nick Berg, a US contractor in Iraq, was allegedly beheaded by Zarqawi. In May 2004, western news outlets published a video showing Berg, dressed in an orange Guantanamo-style jumpsuit, being beheaded by a group of masked men.
A masked man claiming to be Zarqawi stated in the video that Berg’s killing was in response to the US torture of detainees in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison.
Berg was in Iraq trying to win reconstruction contracts and disappeared just days after he spent a month in US detention in Mosul, where he was interrogated multiple times by the FBI.
On 8 May, a month after his disappearance, the US military claimed they found his decapitated body on the side of a road near Baghdad.
But US claims that Zarqawi killed Berg are not credible. As the Sydney Morning Heraldreported at the time, there is evidence the beheading video was staged and included footage from Berg’s FBI interrogation. It was uploaded to the internet not from Iraq but from London and remained online just long enough for CNN and Fox News to download it.
Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt also lied about Berg having been in US military custody, claiming instead he had only been held by the Iraqi police in Mosul.
But the video cemented in the minds of the American public that Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda were major terror threats.
Such was the impact in the US, that following the video’s release, the terms ‘Nick Berg’ and ‘Iraq war’ temporarily replaced pornography and celebrities Paris Hilton and Britney Spears as the internet’s main searches.
Sectarianism, a key US–Israeli goal
Large-scale sectarian war erupted following the February 2006 bombing of the Shia Al-Askari Shrine in the Sunni city of Samarra in central Iraq, although the full extent was mitigated thanks to religious guidance issued by the highest and most influential Shia authority in the land, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.
Al-Qaeda did not take credit for the attack, but President Bush later claimed that “the bombing of the shrine was an Al-Qaeda plot, all intending to create sectarian violence.”
Zarqawi was finally killed in a US airstrike a few months later, on 7 June 2006. An Iraqi legislator, Wael Abdul-Latif, said Zarqawi had the phone numbers of senior Iraqi officials stored in his cell phone at the time of his death, further showing Zarqawi was being used by elements within the US-backed Iraqi government.
By the time of Zarqawi’s death, the neoconservative agenda to divide and weaken Iraq through instigating chaos and sectarian conflict had reached its pinnacle. This goal was further exacerbated by the emergence of a successor group to AQI – ISIS – which played an outsized role a few years later in destabilizing neighboring Syria, igniting sectarian tensions there, and providing the justification for the renewal of a US military mandate in Iraq.
Declassified British Ministry of Defence (MOD) files reviewed by The Grayzone reveal that officials in London conspired to embroil US troops in a secret plan to occupy Yugoslavia and “topple” President Slobodan Milosevic during NATO’s 1999 war on the country. Though the crazed scheme was never implemented, details of the plot reveal precisely how British officials successfully shaped Washington into a blunt force instrument of their vanquished empire in years to come.
March 24 marks the 25th anniversary of Operation Allied Force, NATO’s 78-day-long bombing campaign against Yugoslavia. Still venerated in Western mainstream as a successful “humanitarian intervention” conducted to prevent an impending “genocide” of Kosovo’s Albanian population, the war was in fact a wantonly destructive, illegal assault on a sovereign, multiethnic country, based on lies and atrocity propaganda. Belgrade had in fact been engaged in a counterinsurgency battle against the CIA and MI6-backed Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), an Al Qaeda-linked extremist group.
The KLA—funded by the narcotics trade and organ harvesting—explicitly sought to maximize civilian casualties, in order to precipitate Western intervention. In May 2000, a British parliamentary committee concluded all purported abuses of Albanian citizens by Yugoslav authorities occurred after NATO’s bombing began, finding that the alliance’s intervention had actually encouraged Belgrade to aggressively neutralize the KLA. Meanwhile, in September 2001, a UN court in Pristina determined that Belgrade’s actions in Kosovo were not genocidal in nature, or intent.
These findings are largely overlooked today. A February Politico investigation into the West’s post-war pillage of Kosovo axiomatically asserted that NATO intervened in Yugoslavia “to halt an unfolding genocide against the ethnic-Albanian population.” Similarly forgotten is just how close leading NATO states came to invading Belgrade during that chaotic spring.
British proposals for US invasion of Yugoslavia
By April 29, 1999, NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia had entered its fifth week. On that date, Richard Hatfield, then-Policy Director of Britain’s Ministry of Defence, dispatched a “Strategic Planning Group discussion paper on Kosovo ground force options” to London’s military, security, and intelligence apparatus. In a document marked “Secret – UK eyes only,” Hatfield demanded an “immediate” decision on whether to formally invade Yugoslavia:
“If we are to influence US thinking on ground force options, we need to pass the paper to them very quickly… Our planning is ahead of the US, other allies and [NATO HQ]… We believe the US may be developing its initial thinking on ground force options this week. Our paper could exercise significant influence on their conclusions. The [Chiefs of Staff] therefore agreed we should pass it to the US privately (through military and policy channels) as quickly as possible.”
According to Hatfield, London had to “overcome” a “great deal of reluctance and scepticism” in Washington regarding a formal ground invasion, so “decisions need to be taken quickly if we are to launch an operation before Winter.” Evidently, a firm timeline for action had germinated in London. It was simultaneously vital to “make clear” to then-Prime Minister Tony Blair that “although we can influence planning for a possible ground campaign, we cannot expect the US or NATO to accept British views easily or unreservedly.”
Therefore, an “early agreement in principle to a ground campaign” was considered “more important than the details,” the document states. In other words, securing US commitment to putting boots on the ground trumped all basic technical concerns. After all, Blair’s invasion fantasy hinged entirely on Washington dispatching hundreds of thousands of US soldiers to Yugoslavia. London would by contrast deploy just 50,000—most of the available British Army at the time. This disparity was likely a key source of American “reluctance and scepticism.”
London therefore drafted four separate scenarios for the war. This included invading Kosovo alone and “liberating” the province from Belgrade’s control. This option would limit “overspill into other areas of Serbia”, while guaranteeing “no permanent military presence elsewhere” in the country. Another proposal, dubbed “wider opposed,” would see NATO invade Yugoslavia outright, with the aim of “defeating the Serb armed forces and if necessary toppling Milosevic.” The latter forecast an “organised Serb resistance” at every level in response.
Another source of US “reluctance and scepticism,” no doubt, was the fact that every country bordering Yugoslavia—even NATO members and aspirants—were either on the record as having rejected, or being expected to reject, the use of their territory for ground invasion. For example, two of London’s war proposals depended “fundamentally on Greek agreement to use their port facilities and airspace.” Without Greece’s acquiescence, NATO “would have no choice but to mount a wider opposed operation from Hungary, Romania and/or Bulgaria, which would be even more difficult politically.”
Coupled with deep historic and cultural ties, the longstanding record of warm relations between Athens and Belgrade effectively ruled out both plans that were dependent on Greece. An invasion conducted via the latter countries, on the other hand, meant that “it would be impossible to constrain the scope of war with Serbia.” Meanwhile, Albania, which supported the KLA while serving as NATO’s effective headquarters throughout the bombing of Yugoslavia, and Macedonia, “where [NATO] troop levels [were] already causing problems,” were said to fear becoming formal belligerents in any conflict due to likely “Serb retaliation.”
Blair calls for ‘coalition of the willing’
Despite the apparent infeasibility of a ground invasion, British officials—Blair in particular—were completely determined to push ahead in Yugoslavia. Their bombing campaign was a failure. Limited to the skies, NATO jets relentlessly blitzed Serbian civilian, government, and industrial infrastructure, killing over a thousand innocent people—including children—and violently disrupting daily life for millions. But Yugoslav forces cunningly deployed decoy vehicles to divert the military alliance, while concealing their anti-KLA operations under adverse weather and deception tactics.
In public, NATO military apparatchiks, political pawns, and media minions exalted their stunning success and inevitable victory on the battlefield. But the declassified files show Ministry of Defence officials spent much of their time bemoaning the fact that their bombs were neither intimidating Milosevic, nor hindering the Yugoslav army’s war on the KLA. Belgrade’s forces were said to have consistently deceived NATO “very successfully” via extensive use of “camouflage, dummy targets, concealment and bunkers.”
British officials repeatedly expressed concern that the Yugoslav army could actually succeed in expelling the KLA from Kosovo entirely, allowing Milosevic to declare victory and dictate peace terms to NATO. Blair was reportedly determined to reject any such offer. Moreover, it was well-understood that NATO’s bombing had rallied citizens to support their leader. As one paper conceded, alliance airstrikes on Yugoslavia’s Interior Ministry “demonstrated to Belgrade citizens just how vulnerable their city is, but achieved little else.”
“Forewarned by a target list posted on CNN’s website last week, the Serbs had already moved out of the building. Kosovo has been swept clean in less than a week and in the US, a climbdown may be on the cards, as the costs and dangers of escalation hit home,” the April 4 missive asserted.
The following day, Blair dispatched a personal “note for the record” to senior British government, intelligence and military officials. He lambasted the bombing campaign’s lack of “vigour,” suggesting the British public “does not have the confidence we know what to do,” before concluding: “we appear not to have a grip.”
Blair then proposed the formation of a “coalition of the willing” to counteract opposition to escalation within NATO and “prosecute this to the end.” In an apparent fit of bloodlust, the Prime Minister proceeded to outline a series of demands:
“We must strengthen the targets. Media and communication are utterly essential. [Attacking] Oil, infrastructure, all the things Milosevic values… is clearly justified.”
“What is holding this back?” Blair fumed. “I have little doubt we are moving towards a situation where our aim will become removing Milosevic. We will not want to say so now, but autonomy for Kosovo inside Serbia is becoming absurd. And plainly Milosevic will threaten the stability of the region as long as he remains.”
The Ministry of Defence subsequently circulated a memo on “targeting,” which warranted “immediate attention,” that noted London had “offered the US three significant targets” identified by MI6: Belgrade’s iconic Hotel Jugoslavia; a Cold War-era Bunker; and the Yugoslav capital’s Central Post Office. While conceding that a strike on Hotel Jugoslavia would mean “some civilian casualties,” the memo insisted that their lives were “worth the cost.”
NATO subsequently hit Hotel Jugoslavia on May 7 and 8 in 1999, damaging its bars, boutiques, and dining halls while killing a refugee who sought shelter inside. The Washington Post promptly justified the strike by claiming it may have targeted a notorious Serbian paramilitary leader, who allegedly owned a casino housed within the hotel. Asked by the newspaper if he took the bombing personally, the fighter, known as “Arkan,” replied:
“When they hit civilians, I take it personally. You don’t change minds with Tomahawks. If they want to bring me to justice, why do they want to kill me? If they want to get Arkan, send ground troops so I can see their faces. I want to die in a fair fight. Bill Clinton is in deep you-know-what. He bombs what he can. He says ‘God bless America’ and the rest of the world dies.”
NATO bombing stokes Chinese and Russian fears
Later that April, as per Blair’s personal order to target “media,” NATO bombed the Belgrade headquarters of the Yugoslav TV network RTS. The strike killed 16 journalists and wounded 16 more, with many trapped under rubble for days. The Prime Minister personally defended the criminal assault, claiming the station was a core component of Milosevic’s “apparatus of dictatorship and power”.
The NATO-funded International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia later investigated the RTS bombing. It concluded that while the site wasn’t a military target, the action aimed to disrupt Belgrade’s communications network, and was therefore legitimate. Amnesty International branded the ruling a miscarriage of justice. Then-NATO General Wesley Clark, who oversaw the bombing campaign, admitted it was understood that the attack would only interrupt RTS broadcasts for a brief period. Indeed, RTS was back on-air after just three hours.
The RTS strike represented one of several egregious war crimes NATO committed throughout the Yugoslavia campaign with total impunity. Officially, the 78-day-long aerial onslaught destroyed just 14 Yugoslav tanks, while devastating 372 industrial facilities, leaving hundreds of thousands jobless. The military alliance allegedly took directions on what to target from US corporations, including Philip Morris. NATO’s deliberate obliteration of chemical plants polluted soil, air, and water across the Balkans with over 100 toxic substances. Not coincidentally, Serbia today is a world leader in cancer rates.
On the first night that Hotel Jugoslavia was bombed, NATO carried out a simultaneous strike against Beijing’s embassy in Belgrade, killing three journalists, wounding dozens sheltering inside, and outraging Chinese and Serb citizens alike. NATO declared that this was merely an accident, caused by erroneous CIA targeting data. While the declassified Ministry of Defence files conspicuously contain no reference to this highly controversial international incident, they do mention grave Chinese concerns over the wider campaign. Namely, that it would “constitute a precedent for intervention elsewhere.”
British officials sought to allay these fears not only in Beijing, but Moscow. Then-Russian premier Yevgeny Primakov learned NATO had launched its campaign against Yugoslavia while he was literally mid-air, en route to the US for an official meeting. He immediately ordered the pilot to return to Russia. Despite his protest, the Kremlin thereafter attempted to compel Milosevic to cease hostilities in Kosovo via diplomatic channels.
Once it became clear that Russia would not intervene on his side, Milosevic folded and pledged to withdraw all Yugoslav forces from Kosovo on June 3, 1999. In turn, NATO would occupy the province. That same month, a cable dispatched from the British Embassy in Moscow observed the bombing was widely viewed locally “as a blow to [the] UN Security Council and threat to Russian interests… setting an unacceptable precedent for action out of area, circumventing the Security Council if necessary”:
“[Moscow’s Ministry of Defense] has used NATO’s resort to force to argue Russia’s new military doctrine should take more serious account of a potential threat from NATO, with all that that means in terms of force levels, procurement and the future of arms control… The UK’s forward position on the use of force has not gone unnoticed… The Kosovo campaign has reinforced the perception here of an expanding NATO as a powerful tool for the imposition of US will in Europe.”
Blair reportedly walked away from his destruction of Yugoslavia with newfound confidence. According to veteran British journalist Andrew Marr, the Prime Minister realized “he had tried to bounce [Clinton] too obviously over Kosovo,” thus concluding that “American Presidents need tactful handling” to achieve desired results. Blair also “learned to cope with giving orders which resulted in much loss of life.” Directing Yugoslavia’s collapse furthermore “convinced him of his ability to lead in war, to take big gambles, and to get them right.”
It was this arrogant attitude that guided Blair into the quagmire of Iraq, and to further interventions which wreaked havoc on the globe.
Blair fulfills ‘Britain’s destiny’
With the Yugoslav army fully withdrawn from Kosovo, the province began to resemble post-World War II Germany, carved into Western occupation zones. As a November 1999 OSCE report documented in sickening detail, a very real genocide immediately commenced. KLA fighters proceeded to not only purge Kosovo’s Roma and Serb population, but also clear out their Albanian political and criminal rivals via intimidation, torture, and murder—all under the watchful eye of NATO and UN “peacekeepers.”
The Independentreported that month that the KLA’s post-war campaign of “murder and kidnap” in NATO-occupied Kosovo—officially described as an effort “to ensure public safety and order”—reduced Pristina’s Serb population from 40,000 to just 400. A local European human rights worker told the newspaper that over the prior six months, “every single Serb” they knew had “been intimidated—verbally in the street, on the telephone, [or] physically” by the Al Qaeda-tied KLA.
In December 2010, a British “peacekeeper” posted to Kosovo during this time attributed Pristina’s modern day status as “an impoverished, corrupt and ethnically polarised backwater” to NATO’s “unwillingness to control KLA gangsters.” He recalled how London under his watch consistently “emboldened the KLA to greater brutality.” Whenever he captured the terror group’s fighters on the streets, heavily armed and “intent on murder and intimidation,” his superiors ordered them freed:
“I witnessed… the KLA rampaging like a victorious mob intent on retribution,” he explained, adding that “systematic murder of Serbs, often shot in front of their families, was commonplace.” Given that “KLA thugs wielding AK47s, knuckledusters and knives terrified residents of Serbian apartment blocks, Many Serbs fled,” the former soldier noted.
“The Blair government’s spin machine wanted moral simplicity. The Serbs were the ‘bad guys’, so that must make Kosovo Albanians the ‘good guys’… Prostitution and drug and people trafficking increased as the KLA’s grip on Pristina tightened.”
However, KLA fighters were shielded from ICTY prosecution for their innumerable horrific crimes by direct NATO decree. Only today is justice being vaguely served, to almost total Western indifference. In many cases, American politicians continue to sing the praises of brutal KLA leaders. In 2010, then-Vice President Joe Biden referred to later-indicted war criminal Hashim Thaci as Pristina’s “George Washington.” Thaci’s 2018 autobiography proudly features fawning promotional quotes from the current Oval Office occupant on its sleeve.
Since 1945, British officials have been overwhelmingly preoccupied with maintaining the bigger, richer, more powerful US Empire’s global dominance, so as to surreptitiously guide it in direction of their choosing. Rarely is this sinister mission so candidly articulated as in the documents presented here. While Blair’s reverie of “toppling” Milosevic via US force was unrequited, Washington’s calamitous post-9/11 “Global War on Terror” was explicitly British-inspired.
Not long after planes hit the World Trade Center that fateful day, Blair dispatched a bust of Winston Churchill to the White House, evoking the wartime leader’s famed December 1941 address to Congress, which heralded Washington’s entry into World War II. At the same time, the British premier privately wrote to President George W. Bush, urging him to exploit “maximum” global sympathy produced by 9/11 to launch military interventions across West Asia. This wave of belligerence was foreshadowed during Blair’s 1997 election campaign:
“Century upon century it has been the destiny of Britain to lead other nations. That should not be a destiny that is part of our history. It should be part of our future… We are a leader of nations, or we are nothing.”
A British-steered global Pax Americana was forged in Yugoslavia 25 years ago, in an incendiary baptism of airstrikes and atrocity propaganda, which subsequently inflicted death, destruction, and misery throughout the Global South. Today, untold millions across the world grapple with the painful legacy of Blair’s determination to fulfill London’s “destiny.”
Peter Gøtzsche reviewed every randomised mammography screening trial ever conducted for the Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane’s headline is that, assuming a 15% mortality reduction, one woman in 2000 avoids dying of breast cancer over ten years. Ten are overdiagnosed and treated. Two hundred experience false alarms.
But that headline assumes the reduction. When Gøtzsche looked only at the trials with adequate randomisation — the higher-quality ones — the reduction disappeared. No effect on breast cancer mortality. No effect on all-cause mortality.
This is the Cochrane finding, published in the establishment’s own database of systematic reviews.
No woman being asked to consent to a mammogram this week knows it.
That is why the new Unbekoming paperback exists. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
As attorney general, Robert F. Kennedy—RFK,Jr.’s father— developed a reputation as an advocate of civil rights in large part based on an incident that occurred in Georgia in 1960 involving the Rev. Martin Luther King, whom the FBI had been monitoring for five years. Dr. King was leading more than 200 activists in a campaign of sit-ins at 11 department stores in Atlanta when he was among the 51 Blacks arrested, but King was sentenced to four months of hard labor at a Georgia penitentiary.
Rich said he based his racism on “local customs,” but the other Jim Crow stores indicated that their racist policies were based on Rich’s, because his store was by far the largest. It was on the orders of the racist Richard Rich that Martin Luther King was handcuffed and jailed. When the publicity threatened to affect Rich’s profits, he tried to escape responsibility and declined to prosecute—but not because King and fellow protestors were right, but because, according to Rich and his attorney Morris Abram, “we didn’t want to make martyrs out of them and King.”
In a truly embarrassing gaffe Kennedy claimed that “Three Jewish boys—Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney—were killed in Mississippi.” This, of course, would be news to James Chaney (left) and his family, who were not only Black but members of St. Joseph Catholic Church in Meridian, Mississippi. Nonetheless, the three martyrs cannot be forgotten for the ultimate sacrifice they made in Philadelphia, Mississippi, in 1964 for the cause of Black human rights. Nor can we allow falsehoods and propaganda to be cynically promoted in their names. Kennedy is the latest in a long line of mostly Jewish deceivers who use the names and tragic stories of the two “Jewish boys” to very subtly conceal the long and very uncivil history of Jews in the apartheid South.
Jewish leaders, like Natchez, Mississippi, merchant Jacob Soria, would not have “embraced” Martin Luther King, as RFK, Jr. surmises, but would have sold him and his fellow protesters at Rich’s along with the 32 Black men, women and children he advertised for sale at auction in 1839.
Nonetheless, by all accounts both Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman came to Mississippi as dedicated individuals committed to racial justice, and, tellingly, not representing any synagogue or Jewish organization. And though their memories are cynically exploited—as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., just did—for political benefit, a very thoughtful Andrew Goodman offered his community some sage advice about a Black organization that “Jewish leaders” like Greenblatt and his predecessor Abraham Foxman were dedicated to destroying:
Aletho News
Aletho News 