Typhon Missile Deployment is Part of US Plans to Maintain ‘Primacy Over the Planet’
Sputnik -10.09.2024
Having previously deployed the medium-range Typhon missile systems – a weapon banned under the now-obsolete INF Treaty – in the Philippines, the United States now moves to station them in Japan in relatively close proximity to China and North Korea.
Washington’s plans to deploy these weapons in Asia are “part of a much wider long-running US strategy to encircle and contain China,” with this move itself being “part of a global post-Cold War strategy to eliminate any peer or near-peer competitor and maintain US primacy over the planet,” geopolitical analyst and former US Marine Brian Berletic tells Sputnik.
The US plans to deploy Typhon missile systems in Europe are also “part of a wider strategy to encircle and contain Russia,” Berletic adds.
According to him, the deployment of these weapons “reveals several important factors regarding US foreign, policy including continuity of agenda.”
For one, Berletic notes, the US pulled out from the INF Treaty during Donald Trump’s presidency, but the deployment of the Typhon missiles in various corners of the globe takes place with Joe Biden at the helm.
“The process of withdrawing from a treaty, developing, and then deploying such systems took place over the course of two presidential administrations, serving one single agenda, regardless of who sat in the White House,” he says.
“The Typhon’s deployment also reveals the true nature of US foreign policy and its disruptive nature for supposed US ‘allies’,” Berletic remarks.
Though both the Philippines and Japan “count China as their largest trade partner,” they both end up hosting US missiles aimed squarely at Beijing, which does little to improve their relations.
“This is just the latest in a long line of provocations complicating what would otherwise be increasingly constructive relations with China,” Berletic explains, arguing that the Philippines and Japan’s willingness to enable such US provocations “reveals the absence of agency in terms of either nations’ foreign policy.”
“It is very clear that this policy of hosting US forces seeking to encircle and contain China is a policy determined in Washington, not Manila or Tokyo, and is a policy serving US interests at the expense of the Philippines and Japan,” he states.
Berletic also deemed ironic the fact that the United States claims that its deployment of weapon systems around the world “is necessary to ensure global peace and stability,” even as the US “consistently demonstrates that it itself is the greatest threat to both.”
Trump’s Grand-Jury Indictments Don’t Mean Squat
By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | September 10, 2024
A recent Los Angeles Times column by Times’s columnist Jackie Calmes entitled “Should a Five-Time Loser with Grand Juries Be President?” displays a woeful lack of understanding regarding grand-jury indictments.
Calmes’s article, of course, is about Donald Trump and argues that the five grand-jury indictments against Trump are a good reason for rejecting his candidacy for president. Adding authority to her argument, Calmes quotes former Justice Department official and MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissmann: “For those counting, FIVE separate grand juries (scores of citizens) have now found probable cause that Trump committed multiple felonies.”
As a former prosecutor, Weissmann should know that grand juries are usually nothing more than rubber stamps for whatever prosecutors want. As Sol Wachtler, chief justice of New York’s Supreme Court, put it, “Any good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.”
Grand juries are normally composed of good, little, patriotic, deferential citizens who look upon prosecutors and judges, especially at the federal level, as gods. When a federal prosecutor enters the grand-jury room armed with a bit of evidence and an indictment, the grand jurors are going to do what he wants them to do.
Keep in mind, after all, that there is no judge in the grand-jury room. There is also no defense attorney representing the person they want indicted. There is no one to challenge or rule out incompetent evidence. The prosecutor can use hearsay evidence, illegally acquired evidence, or even evidence acquired by torture. The grand jury is not going to challenge him on the evidence he is presenting to them. They are simply going to grant his request for an indictment.
Calmes makes a big deal over the fact that a grand-jury indictment is based on “probable cause.” Big deal. What she apparently doesn’t realize is that “probable cause” can be based on hearsay or other evidence that is not admissible at a trial. That makes the indictment worthless in terms of whether the accused is actually guilty of what the indictment charges him with.
The fact is that a grand-jury indictment is nothing more than an accusation. In a court of law, it doesn’t constitute any evidence whatsoever. In terms of determining whether a person is guilty of a crime, an indictment is worthless.
Whatever reasons people might have for rejecting Trump’s quest to be president again, those grand-jury indictments against him are a ludicrous one. Calmes, Weissmann, and the Los Angeles Times should know better than to make such a ridiculous argument for rejecting Donald Trump’s candidacy.
ISM Response to Israeli Army Statement on the Murder of Aysenur Eygi
View of Israeli army on the road and on house’s roof
International Solidarity Movement | September 10, 2024
On Friday, September 6, Turkish-American human rights activist with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) Aysenur Eygi was killed by a single shot to the head from an Israeli sniper while supporting a demonstration against illegal Israeli settlements Beita’s lands. After a brief internal investigation conducted by the Israeli army itself, the Israeli army has released a statement asserting that “the inquiry found that it is highly likely that she was hit indirectly and unintentionally by IDF fire which was not aimed at her.” The ISM entirely rejects this specious claim and continues to demand an independent investigation of the Israeli army’s killing of our comrade Aysenur Eygi. ISM is joined in this demand by people worldwide who have watched Israel operate with impunity for decades. The world sees through this transparent attempt to conceal the Israeli army’s responsibility for the death of Aysenur Eygi, who is just one of the hundreds of thousands of martyrs Israel has killed over decades of ethnic cleansing, displacement, and genocide.
The military’s account of the events is blindly based on the accomplices’ version, which completely contradicts the testimonies of multiple eye witnesses, who the military did not even contact. All eyewitnesses said immediately following the killing that the scene where Aysenur was killed was completely quiet, and that there could have been no excuse to open fire, let alone directly hitting a woman peacefully standing in an olive grove.
According to activists who were present when Aysenur was killed, the Israeli army’s brief statement “includes an array of evident falsehoods, clearly indicating how its investigation is concerned with deflecting fault and avoiding any sort of accountability.” These falsehoods include:
• The military version claims Aysenur was not the target of the kill-shot, but rather that she was hit “indirectly and unintentionally” when a soldier targeted a key instigator. This statement does not align with the physical reality on the ground for several reasons:
1. It is unclear what the claim that Aysenur was hit “indirectly” is based on, as there is no forensic evidence to back this up this claim.
2. The closest Israeli forces to were Aysenur was when she was shot, were those positioned on a rooftop some 750 feet (220m) away from her, at an elevated position. Considering the distance and the soldiers’ elevation, stones could not have physically been thrown towards the soldiers from the location Aysenur was at when she was shot.
3. There were two separate shots fired, with a few seconds in between them. The first shot hit a metal object and a shrapnel hit a Palestinian teenager in the pelvis. Had there been any truth to the military’s false narrative of confrontations taking place where and when Aysenur was shot, reason would have it that he was the main instigator the statement is referring to. However, Aysenur was hit by a second shot, several seconds after the man was already down. It was aimed directly at her, as there was no one else around (apart an activist standing next to her) who could have been the target of the shot.
4. The teenager was located further away to the side from the soldiers than Aysenur, so a shot aimed at him could not have possibly hit her, directly or indirectly.
• The statement very manipulatively conflates two events that are separate in time and place. The first event is the one during which short confrontations that took place soon after the midday prayer at the top of the hill (https://maps.app.goo.gl/2zLgMr4UGfN7QKj49). It was then and there that a few burning tires were placed on the road. The second event is the shooting of Aysenur, which took place more than half an hour later – when there was no confrontations at all – more than 900 feet (274m) from where the burning tires were, and about 750 feet (220 m) from the rooftop where the soldier who shot her was positioned on, in an elevated, tactically controlling position.
• Aysenur was not shot at the Beta Junction. The Beita Junction is here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/uRnMHnWRcRsrTs5R8 , while she was shot here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/17jEQwVPzbRqujvi9 . The two locations are more than a mile away from each other (1.16miles, 1.87km).
The Israeli army has a long history of using sham investigations as a method of covering up their human rights abuses and crimes against humanity in Palestine. According to Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, from a report published jointly with the Palestine Centre for Human Rights, Israel has long been “unwilling and unable” to investigate its soldiers for attacking peaceful protesters. This history of fake investigations as a cover ups goes back decades, and has been documented by B’Tselem and other human rights groups. When ISM activist Rachel Corrie was killed by the Israeli Army in Gaza in 2003, a similar sham investigation swiftly cleared the Israeli forces of all responsibility. Rachel Corrie’s parents have spoken out demanding that a thorough investigation happens in this case. Warning about another coverup, they have said clearly that if an independent, truthful investigation had been conducted 21 years ago, many lives that have been taken by Israel in the ensuing decades could have been saved. Even US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has said that “The killing of the American activist in the West Bank was unjustified and without provocation on her part, and it is not permissible to shoot someone because he participated in a demonstration.”
40 killed after Israel attacks displaced Gazans with US-provided 2,000-pound bombs
Press TV – September 10, 2024
The Israeli regime has attacked displaced Palestinians in the southern part of the Gaza Strip with US-provided 2,000-pound bombs, killing at least 40 civilians, mostly women and children.
As many as 60 others were injured in the attack that targeted an area previously declared by the Israeli military as a “humanitarian zone” at the al-Mawasi refugee camp in the city of Khan Younis on Tuesday.
The military alleged that it had struck members of the Hamas resistance movement, who were “operating a command and control center” inside the targeted area, a claim that was rejected by the group as a “blatant lie.”
“The resistance has repeatedly confirmed the absence of any of its members among civilian gatherings or the use of such areas for military purposes,” Hamas said.
The bloodletting took place as part of the regime’s ongoing genocidal war on Gaza, which began on October 7 in response to a retaliatory operation staged by the territory’s resistance groups.
So far, close to 41,000 Palestinians have been killed and more than 94,800 others wounded in the brutal military onslaught.
The Tuesday massacre came after the refugee camp witnessed an influx of homeless Palestinians, who had fled there from the death and destruction spree caused by the war elsewhere across the coastal sliver. Between 30,000 and 34,000 people were living upon each square kilometer of the camp at the time of the attack, the United Nations estimates show.
The weapons deployed during the massacre have been identified as American-made MK-84 bombs, which carry 900 pounds of explosives.
The payload can create a crater about 15 meters wide and over 10 meters deep, besides being capable of causing deadly damage around it within a radius of approximately 73 meters.
This is not the first time when the regime deploys the ammunition against civilian targets during the war.
More than 70 Palestinians were killed after it struck the refugee camp with the same bombs in July.
As part of its unbridled military support for the regime, the United States has armed it with as many as 14,000 of the bombs since the onset of the war.
Hamas also called the US “complicit” in such massacres that “are being deliberately carried out without regard for international law, humanitarian law, or resolutions calling for an end to the aggression.”
Israel tasks US Congress with pressuring South Africa to drop ICJ genocide case
The Cradle | September 10, 2024
Israel is lobbying members of Congress to pressure South Africa to drop its case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) accusing Israel of committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, Axios reported on 9 September.
South Africa has until 28 October to submit its arguments for continuing its case, claiming Israel is in violation of the Genocide Convention due to its war in Gaza.
Israeli officials say they want members of Congress to threaten South Africa with consequences for continuing to pursue the case.
On Monday, the Israeli foreign ministry sent a classified cable to the Israeli embassy and consulates in the US with instructions for dealing with South Africa.
“We are asking you to immediately work with [US] lawmakers on the federal and state level, with governors and Jewish organizations to put pressure on South Africa to change its policy towards Israel and to make clear that continuing their current actions like supporting Hamas and pushing anti-Israeli moves in international courts will come with a heavy price,” the cable read.
In December, South Africa filed a case at the ICJ accusing Israel of violating its obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention. The case alleged Israel’s actions “are genocidal in character because they are intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part” of the Palestinian population in Gaza.
After the start of the war on 7 October, Israeli political and military leaders issued statements suggesting they intended to pursue a genocidal military campaign against Palestinian civilians in Gaza.
Israeli forces have killed over 40,000 Palestinians since then, the majority women and children, in a vicious 11-month bombing campaign.
The ICJ issued an interim ruling in January demanding Israel to take all measures to prevent genocidal acts, prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to genocide, and take immediate and effective steps to ensure the provision of humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza.
However, Israel hopes the new coalition government in South Africa can be pressured to take a different approach to Israel and the war in Gaza, the officials speaking with Axios said.
In parliamentary elections in June, the African National Congress (ANC) party lost its majority for the first time since the end of the apartheid system of white minority rule 30 years ago.
The Israeli diplomats were instructed to ask members of Congress to issue public statements condemning South Africa and threatening to cut off trade relations with South Africa.
Axios adds that the Israeli diplomats were also instructed to ask members of Congress and Jewish organizations in the US to reach out directly to South African diplomats in the US and make clear South Africa would “pay a heavy price” if it doesn’t change its policy.
The Israeli foreign ministry asked Israeli diplomats to lobby for hearings about South Africa’s policy towards Israel in state legislatures.
According to the cable, Israeli diplomats were instructed to emphasize to the ANC and “pursue dialogue” with Israel “instead of boycotts and punishments.”
The Hidden Face of War. NATO Sponsored War Professionals in Russian Region of Kursk.
By Manlio Dinucci | Global Research | September 10, 2024
The Forward Observations Group, a private military company based in the United States, published a photo of its war professionals in the Russian region of Kursk, a presence confirmed by a video showing the destruction by the Russian armed forces of Forward Observations Group armoured vehicles and commandos in Kursk. This US military company, whose role is described by the authoritative Military Watch magazine as ‘very obscure’ (evidently, it is linked to US intelligence services), has been engaged for more than two years with Ukrainian forces against Russia with the task of carrying out special operations, including preparing attacks with toxic chemicals.
There is documented evidence that Ukraine is involved in the preparation of attacks with chemical and biological weapons. This US military company is not the only one operating covertly in the theatre of war against Russia. Based on precise documentation Military Watch writes:
‘Numerous facts have emerged about the role of military personnel from NATO member states (including Royal Marines and British SAS commandos) in supporting Ukrainian war operations against Russia. Military advisers, both logisticians and combatants, and other personnel have been operating since 2022 in the theatre of war with a range of newly delivered complex weaponry.’
This confirms that the Ukrainian armed forces are not only armed and trained by the US and NATO, but that US-NATO military companies and special forces operate directly in the theatre of war in command and management roles of sophisticated weaponry, such as long-range missiles and drones, for the use of which military satellite networks are needed, which Ukraine does not have.
At the same time, the US is deploying nuclear weapons (bombs and missiles) at intermediate range in Europe, increasingly close to Russia. Even the missile defence systems, which they deploy in Europe on the official grounds of protecting European populations from the ‘Russian nuclear threat’, are in fact prepared for nuclear attack. The two US Aegis Ashore sites in Poland and Romania and the US Navy destroyers operating in the Baltic and Black Sea are equipped with Lockheed Martin’s MK-41 vertical launch systems, which, as the manufacturer itself documents, can be used for any warfare mission, including nuclear attack on land targets.
Italy actively contributes to the preparation of nuclear war. Violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it hosts US nuclear weapons (the new B61-12 bombs), which the Italian Air Force is trained to use, and through Leonardo it manufactures nuclear weapons. Now Italy has pledged to build – together with France, Germany and Poland – ground-launched cruise missiles with a range of more than 500 km, i.e. a more advanced version of the US intermediate-range nuclear missiles deployed at Comiso in the 1980s, which were eliminated by the 1987 INF Treaty, a treaty that the US tore up in 2019.
*
This article was originally published in Italian on Grandangolo, Byoblu TV.
Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy.
‘Follow the Science’: Have the Bad Guys Finally Gone Too Far?
By Sharyl Attkisson | The Defender | September 9, 2024
In this exclusive excerpt from her new bestseller, “Follow the Science: How Big Pharma Misleads, Obscures, and Prevails,” journalist Sharyl Attkisson details how public health agencies and some public universities are so captured by commercial interests that they function as little more than an advertising arm of Big Pharma.
In the case of vaccine makers, success comes with inventing shots that can be added to the list of what’s required for schoolchildren. Better yet, invent shots that the public can be convinced to get, repeatedly, for the rest of their lives. Instant billion-dollar blockbuster!
This has led to a questionable dynamic where the one-time standard that vaccines were required to meet — that they must be vital, safe, and effective — fell by the wayside. Instead the government aggressively serves as promoter of dubious versions that may not be necessary, may not work very well, and come with the risk of serious side effects.
In 1975, the cost of vaccinating a child from birth to age six was $10 (in 2001 terms, adjusted for inflation). As more vaccines were added to the list, the cost ballooned to $385 in 2001. Today it’s thousands of dollars. The costs are largely hidden to us since we get inoculated for free or with minimal out-of-pocket payments. But make no mistake, we’re paying the bills in the form of insurance premiums, and tax dollars to state and federal programs that provide vaccines at little to no direct cost to the patient. Vaccine companies are reaping enormous profits.
Sometimes getting and keeping a vaccine on the market requires sleight of hand. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC), our premier infectious disease federal health agency, is happy to give a little help to its vaccine industry partners or, as the CDC calls them, “stakeholders.” The agency’s best and brightest can even adjust the veritable meaning of the word “vaccine.”
The CDC used to define “vaccines” quite simply as agents that “prevent disease.” But in 2021, that had to be changed. It became undeniable that Covid vaccines didn’t prevent the disease (or transmission, or even illness). Logic might suggest that the Covid vaccines would have to be withdrawn from the market. After all, they didn’t even meet the definition of a vaccine. Instead the CDC quietly redefined the word “vaccine” to make the Covid shots seem successful after all.
On the CDC’s vaccine web page, sometime between September 1 and 2, 2021, somebody removed a key phrase from the definition. On September 1, the CDC defined a vaccine as “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.” But on September 2, the phrase “protecting the person from that disease” was removed, like it never even happened. Now, the CDC says, vaccines merely “stimulate the body’s immune response.”
Think of it. The CDC unilaterally redefined two hundred years’ of the world’s understanding of what constitutes a vaccine, without so much as an explanation, public discussion, hearing, or vote. Once you understand that our top, trusted medical authorities are willing to sneakily move goalposts and change meanings of words to protect a market, you’re a long way to beginning to understand how deep the corruption goes.
It’s one thing to be barraged by marketing to convince you to buy a shiny new car. But it’s quite another to get sold a bill of goods by our trusted health experts when it comes to our most precious possession. Our increasingly elusive quest for good health has become a commodity to be bought and sold by today’s snake oil salesmen and their coconspirators, but on a far grander scale …
In their defense, pharmaceutical companies are doing exactly what they were built to do: make money. The thought that they’re somehow different from other multinational corporations, that they are motivated by altruism and can be trusted to be honest about the failings of their own products, is a fallacy. There’s no law that requires them to put patient health ahead of profits. There’s nothing that forces them to stop promoting a pill even if they secretly know it doesn’t work or has dire side effects. It could be argued they have a fiduciary duty to try to downplay or even cover up negative information about their products if it could hurt their bottom line.
Our sick and broken system is the fault of politicians, federal agencies, the medical establishment, and the media. They have a far different responsibility than private drug companies. But they’ve allowed themselves to be so captured by commercial interests that they function as little more than an advertising arm of the pharmaceutical industry …
It’s grown exceedingly common that when patients get sick during a study, instead of the drug company considering the illness to be a possible side effect — which is what should be the response — they seek to explain it away. They blame anything other than the experimental medicine.
Another blatant example of this twisting of science can be found in a May 2023 study to look at whether serious neurological, or brain and nerve, disorders were connected to Covid-19 vaccines. The study was entitled, “Observational Study of Patients Hospitalized With Neurologic Events After SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination.” It was published in Neurology Clinical Practice.
The first problem I see when reviewing the study is that, although some side effects don’t surface until months or years after a medicine is taken, the study scientists drew their conclusions based on a mere six-week period. They looked at only 138 people hospitalized after a Covid vaccination, and a limited number of neurological conditions, including stroke or blood clots, encephalopathy or brain damage, seizure, and intracranial bleeding.
But what really captures my attention is the study’s nonsensical conclusion. It states that since all 138 vaccinated, hospitalized patients had “risk factors” or “established causes” for their neurologic illnesses, such as high blood pressure for stroke victims, this proves the Covid vaccines are safe. “All cases in this study were determined to have at least 1 risk factor and/or known etiology accounting for their neurologic syndromes. Our comprehensive clinical review of these cases supports the safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines,” reads the study discussion.
You don’t have to be a scientist to detect a serious flaw in their reasoning. It’s like claiming that an old person who falls down the stairs and breaks a hip — was injured by being old, and it had nothing to do with the fall down the stairs. Having high blood pressure to begin with doesn’t mean if you have a stroke after Covid vaccine, you can automatically rule out the vaccine as having an impact. In fact, you should immediately ask whether the vaccine might prove riskier to people with preexisting vulnerabilities.
Surely even a novice scientist should know this. So why did this ridiculous study get published? It looks suspiciously as if someone is trying to dispel growing safety concerns about the vaccines. I decide to find out who.
I learn that the study was conducted at Columbia University Irving Medical Center and New York–Presbyterian Hospital in New York City. It was funded by taxpayer money through the CDC. I email the primary study author, Dr. Kiran Thakur: “The study seems to imply that because people who suffered certain neurological events shortly after Covid vaccination had risk factors, it exonerates the vaccines from blame. But did the authors consider that people with existing risk factors could be at greater risk for vaccine adverse events?”
Instead of answering the question, Dr. Thakur replies, “Can you clarify the purpose of your questions (to be published, personal inquiry or otherwise).” When I reply that her responses might be published, she goes dark on me. When I persist in asking her to respond, she finally answers: “Declining, thank you.” Why isn’t a legitimate scientist happy to answer a simple question about her work? What’s the big secret?
Reaching a dead end with Dr. Thakur, I query the medical journal’s editorial staff. They loop me back to Dr. Thakur, saying only she can answer my questions. Shouldn’t the journal be asking the same questions?
Next I turn to Columbia University. I ask to see the study materials and related communications. I want to learn Who was behind this study, and did the peer reviewers or anybody else flag the obvious flaws? It’s a reasonable request because we, the public, funded the research and own the information. Besides, a basic tenet of scientific research dictates that there should be transparency in data and all aspects of studies. In fact, a study isn’t considered legitimate unless the data is available so that it can be verified and replicated by others with the same results.
But Columbia University stalls in responding to my emails. So I file a formal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the material. More time passes, and Columbia informs me that it’s a private institution and it doesn’t have to follow Freedom of Information Act law. I appeal on the basis of scientific transparency. Why does Columbia want to keep details of an important, publicly funded study secret? Isn’t that contrary to tenets of sound science? My appeal falls on deaf ears. University officials tell me they’ll only respond to validly issued and served subpoenas or court orders, and that “[s]ubpoenas to the University must be served on the Office of the General Counsel.”
Think of the audacity. A private university can take our tax money for a study, then refuse to answer questions about it because they’re a private university. To me it looks like the CDC can legally launder taxpayer dollars to third parties to produce what amounts to propaganda, then cover their tracks under a shroud of secrecy.
Next, I decide to file a FOIA request directly with the CDC, which is undeniably subject to the Freedom of Information Act. However, I know from experience that federal agencies spin the FOIA process into a tool to obfuscate. They rarely follow the provisions requiring them to turn over materials within twenty working days. And punishment for their violations is virtually nonexistent.
Sure enough, the CDC sits on my FOIA request for forty-two days before emailing to let me know they haven’t yet begun processing my request. They say I need to be much more specific, or they won’t consider responding. This raises one of the newer tricks federal agencies use to make it tougher for us to access information we own. They require FOIA requests to be impossibly precise. In the past, it was enough for a requester to provide a topic and date range. Agencies would search computer records using keywords. But now they claim they can’t do that.
The CDC FOIA officers now demand that I somehow discover and present them with names of each specific, archaic department and subdepartment that should be searched and the title of any documents I’m looking for. They further insist I provide names and titles of each person within those departments whose email accounts should be searched. And I must give them the number of the grant that awarded the taxpayer funds for the study. Problem is, I have no way to know any of that. The grant number was strangely omitted from the published study, and I have no clue how I would find names of the people who might have records, or what departments they work in. That’s a key part of what the FOIA response would reveal. Using these avoidance tactics, a federal agency can heighten their odds of keeping public documents secret …
There may be a silver lining. The bad guys finally went too far.
With Covid: the disinformation, intolerance for dissent, shutdowns, mandates, forced or withheld medical treatment, mass firings, and attacks upon tens of thousands of scientists sparked the formation of a diverse coalition. This coalition includes a mix of liberals, conservatives, and nonpartisans. It’s made up of freethinking parents, students, doctors, nurses, researchers, elected officials, and celebrities.
Many had never before questioned public health narratives or their doctors. Most had blindly supported them. But today, members of this new coalition find themselves probing widely pushed orthodoxy on Covid and beyond, rightly asking what else the media and top public health officials have misled us on.
Now, redemption from the grasp of those who seek to control our health and our lives may come through a collective awakening that’s already begun.
“Follow the Science: How Big Pharma Misleads, Obscures, and Prevails,” by Sharyl Attkisson, is now available at bookstores everywhere.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
‘Biden is out to get me’: A Russian-American TV host facing 60 years in an American jail speaks out
RT | September 9, 2024
The US Department of Justice has accused the 76-year-old – a former adviser to the late US President Richard Nixon who now hosts a talk show on Russian TV – with sanctions violations and money laundering. His wife Anastasia has also been indicted.
Born in Moscow, Simes left the Soviet Union at the age of 26. He had fallen afoul of Leonid Brezhnev-era officials for protesting against the USSR’s involvement in the Vietnam conflict. In the US, he was a professor at Johns Hopkins University. He also ran the Soviet policy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and taught at the University of California at Berkeley and at Columbia University.
Simes then served as President of the Nixon Center and later as president and CEO of the Center for the National Interest, a major Republican-party aligned think tank.
In 2013, Carnegie honored him as a “Great Immigrant and Great American.” He left National Interest in 2022 and returned to Moscow, where he hosts the show ‘The Great Game’ on Russia’s Channel One.
In an interview with Kommersant correspondent Elena Chernenko, Simes has commented in detail on the allegations made by American officials.
– According to the US Department of Justice, you allegedly participated in schemes to “violate US sanctions on behalf of Channel One” and to “launder funds obtained as a result of this scheme,” and your wife allegedly also participated in a scheme to “violate US sanctions” in order to receive funds from a blacklisted Russian businessman. How would you respond to these allegations?
– Lawlessness and blatant lies. A combination of half-truths and outright fabrications. I’m accused of money laundering. But of what, according to the US Department of Justice? It’s from my salary, which went into an account at Rosbank in Moscow, the bank used by Channel One, I transferred some of the money to my bank in Washington. And why do you think? To pay my American taxes [the US has dual taxation for citizens working abroad – RT]!
In my opinion, not only was there nothing illegal about it, there was nothing unethical about it either. They [the US authorities] say that, somehow, I was hiding something. That I could not transfer money directly from a Russian bank to an American bank. That it’s impossible because of American sanctions. So, I had to transfer money through a third bank. This, of course, complicated the process, but there is nothing illegal [about it] in either Russian or American law. It is simply outrageous to call it money laundering.
As for the accusation that I allegedly violated the US sanctions imposed on Channel One, first of all I would like to remind you that there is one thing that the Biden administration does not take seriously. I’m talking about the United States Constitution and the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press. And I insist that everything I have done as a journalist I have done within the framework of the First Amendment of the American Constitution.
Secondly, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the sanctions against Channel One were not approved by the US Congress, it was just a decree from the Treasury Department saying that it was not allowed to do business with Russian federal TV channels. But this ban was very vaguely worded. It could have been interpreted as a prohibition on helping the federal channels in any financial way, through any kind of payment or donation. Or it could be interpreted more broadly as a ban on any interaction.
– How did you interpret it?
– After this decree appeared, I was told that there was a conversation between representatives of the Russian Foreign Ministry and the US State Department, during which the American side explained that the main purpose of these sanctions was to prevent Russian federal channels from receiving Western funding. And they should not affect the work of journalists.
– So you believed that your work at Channel One did not violate US sanctions?
– That’s what I was told. But I was not satisfied. I personally spoke to a senior US administration official about this. I was told that, of course, we do not approve of your work at Channel One, and if you continue to work there, it will not help your reputation and career in America, but this sanctions decree is aimed at curbing the channel’s financial revenues, not at preventing journalists from working.
In other words, I felt that, from the point of view of the US administration, I was doing something undesirable but not something for which I could be prosecuted.
– Have you spoken to lawyers?
– Of course I have. I consulted American lawyers and they had the same point of view. Now I am facing criminal charges, just for doing my job as a journalist.
– You have not been in the US since October 2022. Were you worried that the case might not be limited to a verbal expression of displeasure?
– I had a feeling that there might be a problem. But I wasn’t certain, and I had even less of an expectation that it could lead to a prosecution. I think the White House decided to go ahead and stir up the issue of Russian interference in the American election again. I had nothing to do with any interference and have nothing to do with it. Moreover, I am absolutely certain that there was and is no large-scale interference. And when I hear that charges have been brought against me as part of a campaign against Russian interference in American elections, I have the feeling that this is not only politicized, but completely fabricated.
– Yes, the New York Times, in describing the situation, wrote that the charges against you were ‘part of a broader government effort to thwart Russian attempts to influence American politics in the run-up to November’s presidential election.’
– I work for Channel One and everything I do is, by definition, very open. It’s all in Russian. Channel One does not broadcast in the United States. I could not and cannot influence the American domestic political situation in any way.
As far as interference is concerned, it would probably be more interesting to look at the demands of Ukrainian officials who have been urging the White House to take action against me for a long time.
We are talking about Ukrainian interference at quite a high level.
The “[Andrey] Yermak- [Michael] McFaul Expert Group on Russian Sanctions” [run by Vladimir Zelesnky’s top advisor and a former US ambassador to Russia, to develop recommendations on sanctions] is working on this conspiracy. This is a legalized form of high-level Ukrainian interference in decision-making in Washington.
And I would be very interested to understand how it was that when my house [in the US] was searched [in August], which lasted four days, and things were taken out by trucks with trailers, how it was that on my lawn, according to the neighbors, there were about 50 people, many of whom came not in official cars, as the FBI usually does, but in private cars. And how was it that these people, some of whom later turned up in a shop in a neighbouring small town, somehow spoke Ukrainian? I would really like to understand what role Ukrainian interference in American politics played in this situation.
– Will you and your wife try to fight the charges in an American court?
– I will have to discuss this with my lawyers and until I have spoken to them in detail I will of course not make any decisions. If we have to come to the United States to contest the charges, then no, I am not in the least tempted to do so.
Knowing the methods of this administration and knowing what they are capable of with regard to the former – and possibly future – president of the United States, I mean Trump, I know that an objective consideration of my case is out of the question.
But, of course, this situation is extremely unpleasant for me. My accounts have been frozen, I cannot pay taxes on my house and other related expenses.
At the same time, not only do I not consider myself guilty of anything but I feel as if I am being persecuted by the Gestapo.
And at least from a moral point of view I think I’m doing absolutely the right thing. And I’m going to fight it, I’m going to actively work to make sure that such actions by the Biden administration do not go unpunished.
– It is clear that most of your colleagues in Russia actively support you, but what about in the US? Have your colleagues there reacted in any way to this situation?
– They reacted in a very resounding way – with sepulchral silence. I have not heard anyone condemning me in any way, but I have not seen any support either. My colleagues there are disciplined people, they understand the American situation. Even someone like [prominent American economist and professor] Jeffrey Sachs, who was on my show the other day, has disappeared from leading American TV channels, and even he is not allowed to publish in leading American publications.
I say ‘even him’ because he was considered one of America’s leading economists and political scientists. And even he is cut off from expressing his views there. There is a climate of totalitarian political correctness in the US, where it’s impossible to even discuss the issue of relations with Russia, because as soon as a person starts to say something that differs from the general Russophobic line, they are immediately told: ‘Oh, we’ve already heard that from (Russian President Vladimir) Putin.’
– Some Western media call you a ‘propagandist’ and a ‘mouthpiece of the Kremlin.’
– For them, a ‘propagandist’ and a ‘mouthpiece of the Kremlin’ is anyone who deviates from the ‘correct’ American political line. Not only do I deviate from it in no uncertain terms, I do not accept it at all. As for being a ‘mouthpiece for the Kremlin,’ I am not aware that anyone has appointed me to that position or given me that authority. If you look at the two events in which I participated and in which Putin was present, you will see that both times I argued with him.
– The St Petersburg International Economic Forum and the Valdai Forum.
– Yes. And I have a clear feeling that on Channel One in general I am given the opportunity to say what I want to say. In times of war, of course, there is and can be no complete freedom, and I don’t need to be censored in this respect. I myself know that war is war. But no one has ever given me instructions. I have heard that they exist, but not only have I never seen them, no one has ever said anything like that to me personally.
At the same time, of course, I am interested in the opinion of the Russian authorities. If I were not interested, I would not be doing my job. It would be quite strange to be a TV presenter in a war situation and not be interested in the position of the decision-makers. But here it’s a completely different dynamic. I am the one asking questions to understand the situation and the positions of the decision-makers. But there is absolutely no question of anyone giving me instructions, even in the most veiled form.
– You have, of course, an amazing biography. You were persecuted and even arrested for dissent in the Soviet Union, and now you are facing a huge sentence in the United States, also, one might say, for dissent.
– Yes, but in the Soviet Union I was not given a huge sentence, I was given two weeks, which I served honestly in Matrosskaya Tishina [prison]. Nevertheless, when I left the Soviet Union I was allowed to take with me what belonged to me, even if it was very little. And the main thing is that when my parents – human-rights activists who had been expelled from the USSR by the KGB – left, they were able to take with them paintings and icons that belonged to our family, and even some of their antique furniture.
During the search of our house [in the US] all this was confiscated. At the same time, these things had nothing to do with my wife’s work. These are things that have belonged to us for many years, and in the case of the paintings and icons, for many decades, because they belonged to my parents. And now everything has been taken from the walls in what I can only describe as a pogrom. The roof is broken, the floor is damaged. What has this got to do with a legitimate investigation?
Interestingly, they left my gun in a conspicuous place. In general, the first thing they confiscate in a search like this is your means of communication. But they were not very good at that in my case, because I had not been there for almost two years, and all my devices are with me here. But they found my gun and for some reason they left it in a prominent place. I don’t know, maybe it was some kind of hint to me that I should shoot myself or that they might do something to me, I can’t read other people’s minds. Especially the minds of people with a slightly twisted imagination and a dangerous sense of permissiveness.
– I suppose I have one last question, but it’s a bit of a thesis. Recently, as part of another project, I was digging through the archives, looking at news footage from the spring of 2004, when Sergey Lavrov had just become foreign minister. I was surprised to discover that you were the first representative of the expert community, not just internationally but in general, to be received by the newly appointed minister. You discussed Russian-American relations and Lavrov said at the time that there were no strategic differences between Moscow and Washington, only tactical ones. Twenty years have passed and the sides have only disagreements, tactical and, what is worse, strategic. In your opinion, who is to blame for everything that has gone wrong?
– First of all, thank you for reminding me that I was the first representative of the expert community to meet Lavrov after his appointment as Minister. This was probably not unusual, as I had known him for a number of years when he was Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN in New York.
I was very concerned at the time about how many Russian diplomatic leaders, and not just diplomats but government agencies in general, were willing to play a game of give and take with the US. I was sure that this could not lead to anything good. Lavrov stood out from the others in this respect: of course, he was committed to cooperation with the US at that time, but at the same time he was able to speak in a more confident tone and showed a good, slightly sarcastic sense of humor when dealing with his American colleagues’ open attacks on Russian interests, on Russian dignity.
In 2004, I remember, we had one of the Russian leaders, not Putin, but quite an important person, who spoke at the Center for the National Interest shortly after the American invasion of Iraq. And he said that Russia does not support what the US has done in Iraq and thinks it is dangerous, but will not interfere and will not try to gain political capital at the expense of the US. And he went on to say that maybe if we had a different relationship, a more engaged relationship, we could support America, but we don’t have that relationship and it’s not on the horizon yet. I think that, in 2004, despite, of course, a great deal of dissatisfaction with American actions in Yugoslavia in 1999, Russia had a great willingness to cooperate with the US and a general acceptance that it was the only real superpower.
I have studied Russian policy in detail since the end of the Cold War, and with the exception of [Prime Minister Yevgeny] Primakov’s plane turning over the Atlantic in 1999, I have generally not seen any Russian actions that could have caused serious dissatisfaction within the US. You know that back in 1999, as prime minister, Putin offered the Americans cooperation in the fight against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The reaction of the Clinton administration was: it’s not that the Russians want to be really good partners, they want the Americans to tolerate the new Russian influence in Central Asia. And US ambassadors, on the contrary, were instructed to oppose this Russian influence in every possible way.
Then came 2007 and Putin expressed his concerns about US and NATO actions in the famous ‘Munich speech,’ but relations were still more-or-less normal. Russia had in principle been very restrained for a very long time, in Georgia, Ukraine and elsewhere, although it was less and less willing to accept American hegemony and imposition of rules. But when it came to decision makers in Moscow, it seemed to me that no one was looking to bring the matter to a head.
You are right, this is a long and complicated conversation about how we came to live like this. But I am convinced that since the late 1990s and early 2000s, the idea of preventing Russia from being an independent force on the international stage has become more and more dominant in Washington. And I did not see during that period, and I do not see now, any signs of interest among decision-makers in the United States in a serious discussion of the problems that have accumulated.
After Putin’s 2007 speech in Munich, a number of people who were there told me that he had done it for nothing. One very distinguished former American diplomat, who was generally regarded as pro-Russian, said to me: ‘This was not helpful’. And I asked him: helpful to whom? And he replied that nobody would agree to meet the demands and concerns that Putin was expressing. So, you see, even such a sensible and experienced person, who, among other things, was a consultant to major Russian companies, it didn’t even occur to him that what Putin was saying should be taken seriously.
So, it seems to me that the main responsibility for what has happened lies with the US and, above all, with the American deep state, the deep state most of whose representatives, as I found out over many years of working in Washington, are hostile to Russia. They were not interested in any rapprochement with Russia, no matter what was said publicly. I discussed this topic on air with Sachs, and he has the same feeling that this deep state ensures the continuity of this kind of Washington policy, regardless of the preferences of this or that president in the White House.
Of course, presidents, secretaries of state and national security advisers are all people with their own views and approaches to Russia. But if we talk in general, in my estimation, starting with Bill Clinton, it somehow turned out that it was people who were either critical or hostile towards Russia who in practice played a decisive role in formulating Washington’s policy towards Moscow.
– You just reminded me of the memoirs of the former US Ambassador to Russia, John Sullivan, which we wrote about recently. In it, he recalls how he promised the Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov that he would convey an invitation to Trump to visit Moscow to celebrate WW2 Victory Day, while he himself, according to his own recollections, was determined to do everything possible to prevent such a visit from taking place.
– I did not meet John Sullivan but, in the past, when I flew from Washington to Moscow, I was always invited to meetings with the heads of the US diplomatic missions. They were good and different, the most impressive was Bill Burns.
– The current head of the CIA.
– Yes. I always thought they were basically decent people. But every time it turned out that no matter how reasonable they were, in the end they followed the ‘party line,’ which is very hostile to the recognition of Russia as an independent great power.
Did the IRS Manipulate the 2020 Election?
By Jim Bovard | The Libertarian Institute | September 9, 2024
Hunter Biden pled guilty on Thursday to a barrage of federal tax crimes. But will the Internal Revenue Service and Justice Department ever plead guilty to stealing the 2020 election for Joe Biden?
In 2023, the IRS assessed 18,599,109 penalties on individuals who allegedly underpaid or failed to pay federal income taxes. How did the IRS miss Hunter Biden for so long?
In 2021, the Biden administration sought to compel banks to report to the IRS any bank account with more than $600 in transactions per year. But the feds effectively disregarded multimillion dollar windfalls pouring into Hunter’s coffers from around the globe.
Hunter is a tax dodger straight out of IRS Central Casting. Between 2014 and 2019, he pocketed more than $8 million from shady foreign sources, triggering a bushel of Treasury Department Suspicious Activity Reports. Hunter failed to pay more than $1 million in taxes and was slapped by a tax lien of $112,805 for his 2015 taxes. The IRS even threatened to cancel his passport, but no criminal charges were filed.
The IRS began formally investigating Hunter in 2018; by January 2020, a team of a dozen IRS employees were working on his case. The Justice Department failed to file any charges before the statute of limitation expired on Hunter’s 2014 and 2015 tax violations.
IRS investigators vigorously pushed to search part of Joe Biden’s Delaware estate prior to the 2020 election. On September 3, 2020, Assistant U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolf agreed with Gary Shapley, an IRS supervisory special agent, that there was “more than enough probable cause for the physical search warrant” and “a lot of evidence in our investigation would be found in the guest house of former Vice President Biden.” Wolf reportedly told Shapley that U.S. Attorney David Weiss “agreed that probable cause had been achieved.” But Wolf declared that “optics were a driving factor in the decision [not] to execute a search warrant,” according to Shapley.
Like the “optics” Team Biden unleashed when they sent heavily-armed FBI agents to raid Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home in August 2022 to choreograph government documents for photographers? The FBI recently admitted that the documents they seized were arranged prior for a publicity shot. There has been scant media criticism of the Biden White House for seeking to destroy the president’s political opponent with high profile tactics that did better on CNN than in federal court.
IRS investigators were kept out of an October 2020 Justice Department briefing on an alleged “criminal bribery scheme” investigation on Joe Biden and his family. This severely limited the potential political damage to the presidential frontrunner at that time. A female FBI supervisor stated in a congressional interview last year that the Justice Department used the 2022 midterm election as a pretext to delay further action on Hunter’s tax case. CNBC reported in April 2023 that the IRS reportedly “finished its investigation more than a year ago,” but no charges were filed.
The IRS’s Shapley filed a whistleblower complaint in April last year asserting that the investigation of Hunter Biden’s tax violations was being blocked by “preferential treatment and politics.” In May last year, a special agent in the IRS’s international tax and financial crimes group who had spent five years investigating Hunter Biden also filed a whistleblower complaint on the Biden case. The IRS responded with accusations of criminal conduct and warnings to other agents in an apparent attempt to intimidate into silence anyone who might raise similar concerns,” according to Mark Lytle and Tristian Leavitt, Shapley’s lawyers.
After two IRS officials formally became whistleblowers, the Justice Department dismissed the entire IRS team from the Hunter investigation, potentially crippling the ability to pursue Hunter’s million-dollar plus tax violations.
The U.S. House Ways and Means Committee reported last year that IRS investigators were met with a “‘Delay, Divulge, and Deny’ campaign that ultimately shielded the president’s son by allowing the statute of limitations to expire on several tax crimes for…when Joe Biden was the Vice President.” Attorneys for Hunter Biden were tipped off ahead of time about searches, resulting in the removal or destruction of evidence. “Prosecutors instructed investigators not to ask witnesses questions about Joe Biden or references to the ‘big guy,’” the congressional committee noted.
An FBI agent was interviewed last year by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee investigators regarding the potential coverup. The interview transcript confirms official skullduggery. Just the News website excerpted the transcript of the questioning:
“In September of 2021, are you aware that Lesley Wolf emailed Gary Shapley stating, ‘I do not think you are going to be able to do these interviews as planned,’ adding that they would require approval from DOJ Tax Division. ‘Are you aware of that?’ the FBI agent was asked at one point.
“At another point, the FBI agent was asked: ‘Are you aware in October of 2021 Lesley Wolf emailed Gary Shapley and the investigative team that ‘It will get us into hot water if we interview the President’s grandchildren’?”
In July 2023, the Justice Department sought to close Hunter’s case with a wrist-slap plea for tax misdemeanors. But federal judge Maryellen Noreika did not agree that ‘there is nothing to see here, move along.’ She asked lawyers a few questions about the blanket immunity that prosecutors provided for Hunter’s other possible crimes and the deal collapsed. Hunter missed his chance to win the Emmy Award for Best Tear-Jerking Performance on Courthouse Steps by a Media Darling. The Washington Post reported that Hunter had written “a statement about his desire to close a difficult chapter in his life, and was planning to read it to news cameras outside the courthouse after entering his plea” at the federal courthouse in Delaware.
Attorney General Merrick Garland claimed that David Weiss, the Special Counsel he appointed to investigate Hunter’s alleged crimes, had independent authority to file charges as he pleased. But it was later revealed that Weiss’ charging ability was severely restricted outside of Delaware and by Justice Department tax attorneys. Curtailing Weiss’ ability to prosecute the case enabled President Biden to continue scoffing at reporters who ask about kickback allegations: “Where’s the money?”
Biden won the 2020 election by a margin of 43,000 votes in three swing states because far more Americans considered Biden “honest and trustworthy” than Trump (52% vs. 40% according to a Gallup poll in October 2020). But Biden’s honesty was always a mirage created by a craven media and federal coverups. Biden campaigning as “Mr. Clean” was as absurd as if Bill Clinton had campaigned as the Chastity Kid, or Donald Trump campaigning as Humility Incarnate.
In the final debate with Trump before the election, Joe Biden proclaimed that “my son has not made money” from China. But while he was vice president, Biden took Hunter with him to Beijing in 2013 to help his boy snare sweetheart deals.
Any tax indictment of Hunter or criminal search of Joe Biden’s Delaware home prior to Election Day 2020 would have shattered Biden’s moral pretenses. And once his Teflon shield vanished, the New York Post’s revelations of Hunter’s laptop would have done far more damage to Uncle Joe.
At the least, a federal search of Biden’s home shortly before the 2020 election could have had the same blunderbuss effect as the October 2016 FBI re-opening of its investigation into Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s email crimes.
Hunter’s guilty plea may have been a subsidy for the Kamala Harris presidential campaign. Pleading guilty before the trial got rolling will prevent a deluge of potentially riveting evidence of Biden family corruption and official coverups. Instead, Team Biden and the Harris campaign is hoping for a single news cycle of bad publicity.
The rigging of the Hunter Biden IRS investigation is no surprise to anyone familiar with the agency’s history. As author David Burnham wrote in his 1990 masterpiece A Law Unto Itself: The IRS and the Abuse of Power, “In almost every administration since the IRS’s inception the information and power of the tax agency have been mobilized for explicitly political purposes.” Burnham noted, “The reality that so many are somehow in violation of a supremely murky law gives the agency and the individual agent an astonishingly free hand to pick and choose their targets.” This arbitrary power can be compounded when the feds choose to ignore or overlook brazen tax offenses by the politically connected.
A pardon for Hunter is as certain as Joe Biden’s next verbal hairball. But will federal agencies have the decency to drop the “equal justice” hokum and admit that “optics” trumps fair play almost every time?
Episode 388: SIRI TESTIFIES: NEW HAMPSHIRE “POST-LICENSURE SAFETY”
The HighWire with Del Bigtree | September 5, 2024
The next installment of attorney Aaron Siri’s expert testimony before the New Hampshire House Committee on COVID Response Efficacy. In this episode, ICAN’s lead attorney exposes the shortcomings of post-licensure safety, and shatters the claim that the connection between vaccines and autism has been ‘thoroughly studied.’
Guest: Aaron Siri, Esq.
Featured Video
Trita Parsi: Iran War Ends Today? Threats of Deporting Trita Parsi
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Iran UN ambassador calls for destruction of all nuclear weapons
Iran’s ambassador to the UN Gholamali Khoshroo
Press TV – March 29, 2017
Iran’s ambassador to the UN Gholamali Khoshroo has called for the total eradication of nuclear weapons.
Khoshroo reiterated Iran’s call during a UN conference aimed at creating a nuclear weapons ban treaty in New York on Tuesday.
“Iran, as a victim of chemical weapons, strongly feels the danger posed by the existence of weapons of mass destruction and is determined to engage actively in international diplomatic efforts to save humanity from the menace of nuclear weapons,” he said.
Khoshroo stressed that Iran is committed to its Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations, which include negotiations based on effective nuclear disarmament measures.
He added that several countries continue to ignore international calls and treaties for nuclear disarmament and even continue to increase their nuclear stockpiles. “They do not have political determination to abandon doctrines of nuclear deterrence and nuclear terror,” he went on to say.
Iran’s UN ambassador noted that boycotting the talks by many countries, including the US, shows that the world’s nuclear powers are by no means committed to the eradication of nuclear arms. Britain and France were also among the some 40 countries that did not join the talks.
“We note that prohibition of nuclear weapons must be accompanied by the elimination of such weapons. There can be no doubt that without complete abolition of nuclear weapons, there will be no absolute guarantee against the danger of nuclear war and the use of such weapons,” Khoshroo added.
Blog Roll
Aletho News- The Crusades – colliding narratives
- Trita Parsi: Iran War Ends Today? Threats of Deporting Trita Parsi
- What Is SIDS?
- DHS docs: Govt bracing for nationwide anti-AI riots, preparing to crack down on dissent
- India signals rethink over West Asia
- Israeli Ex-Navy Chief admits massive damage from Iran missiles
- The strategic arsenal US lost in war against Iran – and why replenishment will take years
- Documents Suggest Fauci Knew COVID Was Created in Wuhan Lab, and mRNA Vaccines Wouldn’t Work
- No return to pre-war status for Strait of Hormuz – Iran’s top diplomat
- Ex-South Korean President sentenced for trying to provoke conflict with Pyongyang
- If Americans Knew
- Israeli Firm Accused of Launching Smear Campaigns During US, European Elections
- As World Cup kicks off, Gaza amputee girls chase football dreams
- Oxfam: More Palestinians killed by Israel across West Bank in last 3 years than previous 17 years combined
- US-Iran ceasefire may be imminent, but will Israel blow it up? – Daily Update
- The Issue of Israel Is Ending Democracy In Michigan
- Israel is stealing homes, livelihoods, and lives in West Bank
- Gaza is not an aberration – Israel planned this genocide decades ago
- Israel is changing the face of Lebanon, mainstream media is normalizing it – 3 articles
- Genocide lobby benefits from EU anti-racist fund
- Watching the World Cup from Gaza
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Significant CO2 Fluxes From Non-Volcanic Sources Are Largely Neglected In Carbon Budgets
- Women Climate Scientists Being Harassed, Insulted By Skeptics, Claims Berkeley Earth Researcher
- Germany’s Longterm Spring Climate Data Show “No Climate Trend”
- New Study: Solar Photovoltaic, Wind Power Fail To Meet Annual Energy Demands 62% Of The Time
- Germany’s Die Welt: “Too Much Is Too Much” … Green Energies Are Cannabalizing Each Other!
- Germany’s Ecological Holocaust… Once Fairy Tale Forests Getting Cleared For Wind Turbines
- A Grand Solar Minimum Has Arrived…Global Cooling Of At Least 1°C Is Expected By The 2030s, 2040s
- European “Expert Commission” Urges COVID-19-Like Global Climate State Of Energency!
- Real-World Observations Do Not Support The Position That Climate Change Is Human-Caused
- Germany’s AfD Party Calls Debunked Climate Scenarios “Greatest Fraud In Human History”
Aletho News 