Monday, September 26, 2016

Today's links

1--The Somali people didn't create Al Shabab - the U.N. did by starting a war that is still raging today, Thomas Mountain

The ongoing war in Somalia was started by the U.N. back in 2006 when the U.N. and A.U., and ultimately the United States, sanctioned the Ethiopian army to invade Somalia and overthrow the existing government headed by the Union of Islamic Courts.
Until the Ethiopian invasion and occupation of Somalia in 2006 the country was peaceful and starting to rebuild a war torn nation thanks to the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC), a coalition of Somali Clan Elders and senior Islamic religious leaders or Sheiks.

The UIC’s popular militias had driven the warlords and gangsters out of Mogadishu and through negotiated settlements had spread its influence increasingly to the south bringing peace to most of Somalia.
The Port of Mogadishu had been reopened and talks for reopening Mogadishu Airport had begun. In other words, for the first time since 1991 Somalia was in a state of peace.
This was all shattered when the U.N. and its African Union gendarmes, the Ethiopians, invaded Somalia, occupied Mogadishu and placed a bounty on the heads of the UIC, who mostly being older, had to flee the country into exile...

What was left to lead the wave of Somali nationalism opposing the invasion and occupation by their historical enemies, the Ethiopians, was Al Shabab, the youth wing of the UIC who picked up the gun to fight an armed struggle for national liberation.
Eventually, the fanatic wahabist wing of the youth movement for national liberation defeated the quite moderate, UIC elders-led fighters and voila, today’s “terrorist” organization known as Al Shabab was born. ...

The U.N. has spent untold Billions funding the A.U. implemented occupation and war in Somalia in the name of fighting terrorism in the form of Al Shabab, with over 30,000 AU “peacekeepers” occupying Somalia.

2--Colombia to Sign Peace Deal with FARC, End Decades-Long War

Despite the EU announcing that they may remove the FARC from terror watch list, the US will not be doing the same. The FARC leader and political prisoner Simon Trinidad will not be released from prison as part of the peace deal either.

3--Reality check??  Chart Of The Day: S&P 500 Versus 2016 GDP Growth——Something’s Got To Give

4--Pot calls the kettle black; US accuses Russia of “war crimes” as danger of clash in Syria mounts

US and allied diplomats went on the offensive against Russia at a UN Security Council meeting Sunday, provocatively accusing Moscow of “war crimes” in Syria and demonstrating their readiness to risk a direct military confrontation with the nuclear-armed power.

The emergency Security Council meeting was called by permanent members the United States, Britain and France with the explicit aim of making unsubstantiated allegations of war crimes against Russia.

Referring to the attack on a UN aid convoy last Monday, US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power told the meeting, “What Russia is sponsoring and doing is not counterterrorism, it is barbarism.”
She went on to charge that the Syrian government, which began an offensive on Thursday to take rebel-held parts of Aleppo, was indiscriminately bombing residential areas with Russian support. “Instead of pursuing peace, Russia and Assad make war. Instead of helping get lifesaving aid to civilians, Russia and Assad are bombing the humanitarian convoys, hospitals, and first responders who are trying desperately to keep people alive,” claimed Power.

British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson went even further, telling an interview on the BBC Sunday that Russia should be investigated for war crimes....

Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin stated that reaching a peace deal in Syria was “almost impossible” due to Washington’s continued support for al-Nusra. “They are armed with tanks, APCs, field artillery, multiple rocket launchers… dozens and dozens of units, including heavy weaponry… Of course, they couldn’t have made this equipment themselves. All of this has been received by them and is still being shipped to them by generous Western backers, with the US, presumably, turning a blind eye,” ...

In a public demonstration that they would accept nothing short of full capitulation by the Assad government to their plans for regime-change, Power and the French and British UN ambassadors left the Security Council chamber as the Syrian ambassador spoke.
The transparent aim of the aggressive denunciation of Russia is to provide a fraudulent pretext for war. From the claim that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was preparing to massacre civilians in Benghazi in March 2011, to the lying allegations that Syrian government forces launched a poison gas attack in August 2013, and now the unsubstantiated allegations about Russian “war crimes” against the civilian population, Washington and its allies have repeatedly utilized such "human rights" propaganda to legitimize a vast escalation of military violence throughout the Middle East....

The demonization of Russia is preparing the ground for a war that would quickly draw the major powers into a regional and global conflict. This was underscored by the remarks of General Joseph Dunford to Congress last week. Asked by Republican Senator Roger Wicker if the military could take decisive action to impose a no-fly zone, Dunford responded, “For now, for us to control all the airspace in Syria would require us to go to war with Syria and Russia. That’s a pretty fundamental decision that certainly I’m not going to make.”
The military top brass in the Pentagon never supported the ceasefire deal and had no intention of abiding by it. As Dunford frankly admitted to the senators, “Russia is the most significant threat to our national interests.”

5--The two most reviled candidates in history face off--On the eve of the US election debate: The politics of the grotesque

Tens of millions of people will be watching tonight not out of any love for the candidates involved, but more as witnesses to a horrible train wreck....

As far as the financial aristocracy is concerned, Hillary Clinton is the near-unanimous choice, as demonstrated by the fact, reported by the Wall Street Journal Saturday, that not a single CEO of the Fortune 100 largest corporations is backing Trump, while many are supporting and have contributed financially to Clinton. She has the support of the dominant sections of the military-intelligence apparatus and endorsement of the vast bulk of the US media, while not a single major daily newspaper has endorsed Trump.
The concern of the ruling class is not that Trump would be too reckless, but that his professed admiration of Russian President Vladimir Putin cuts across the war plans directed against Russia and China which have been developed over the past decade under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Moreover, there is concern that the election of Trump could set off uncontrollable social conflict....

Even by the deplorable standards of American politics, the present elections take matters to a new low. The population of the United States is being presented with a degraded spectacle of a contest between two despised candidates, the most unpopular in modern American history: Trump, a fascistic billionaire and former reality show star, and Clinton, the chosen candidate of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus.

The event itself will not in any genuine sense be a debate, that is, an exchange of political ideas and arguments, but rather an assortment of stock phrases, rehearsed one-liners, verbal provocations and mudslinging. Moderator Lester Holt of NBC News will ensure that the issues discussed do not transcend the general consensus accepted by both parties.

A report in the Sunday Times of London gives a glimpse of the real feelings of the public towards the two candidates. The newspaper commissioned a focus group conducted among voters in the Virginia suburbs of Washington DC, who felt, as the Times put it, that “It was the candidates, not the voters, who were the real deplorables.” When asked to describe Clinton, the terms used included “deceitful,” “entitled,” “unpleasant,” “untrustworthy,” “liar,” “corruption,” “uninspiring” and “crooked.” Trump’s name produced such responses as “crazy,” “unstable,” “arrogant,” “megalomaniac,” “vindictive,” “unbalanced,” “dumb,” “charlatan,” “bigot” and “hateful.”

6--Germany won't let Deutsche Bank become ‘Lehman moment’: Analyst Peter Boockvar

No comments:

Post a Comment