We may never know who hired the snipers who handed Ukraine over to a gaggle of assorted fascists, corrupt oligarchs, and their CIA backers. Yet we don’t need receipts to figure it out. Although asking “Qui bono?” isn’t always enough to draw a conclusion in such instances, in this case it most certainly is.
And here’s an intriguing question: what did the US government – whose spies are no doubt crawling all over Ukraine – know about the mysterious snipers, and when did it know it?
By rendering democratic processes and peaceful popular reforms impossible and by overthrowing independent, democratically elected governments, Washington is making wars and violent upheavals inevitable.
As the West pursues a dangerous confrontation with Russia via the Eastern European nation of Ukraine and the newly independent region of Crimea, the global public must recall how events like the August 2013 Damascus “chemical attack” were insidiously executed, lied about, and eventually buried when their political capital was spent.
By helping to manufacture the consent of the public for that war, and by helping to intimidate opponents of the war, you were complict in sending thousands of young American men and women abroad to kill and be killed; thousands of them died, tens or hundreds of thousands were injured or mentally traumatized, not to mention up to a million Iraquis who died as a result of the war.
The Western press is beating the war drums over the incident. But – given that that snipers are a common form of false flag terrorism – shouldn’t we wait to find out who was really behind the violence?
By David Edwards (Media Lens) News that 2015 might turn out to be the first year since 1914 when British troops will not be fighting a war somewhere in the world appeared to come as a shock to many. But in fact, the British record of Permanent War stretches back much further. Seumas Milne commented in the Guardian that empire […]
Based on the fact a majority of Syrians support the government, and would therefore face the wrath of the fundamentalist rebels rather than the army they see as protecting them, a fact which is further evidenced by the vast majority of internally displaced people fleeing “rebel liberation” for the refuge of government safe-zones; then the wilful misrepresentation of the death toll becomes evermore deplorable.
The figures do not add up: The Russians constitute 58 percent of Crimea’s population, yet 97 percent of the vote was in favor of joining Russia. If Ukrainians and Tatars had refused to participate in the referendum, voter participation would have been substantially less that 83.1.
The referendum was also a vote against the US-EU sponsored Coup d’etat.
In denying the Russian Federation the courtesy of allowing it to have a coherent alternative view, the US is attempting to claw back the illusion of its unquestioned supremacy, its absolute hegemony, its role as chief moralizer and arbiter of what counts as normal and abnormal in thought and behavior. Because either the world must have gone mad, or Putin must have.
Once again, Putin has made every effort to downplay his role in deciding policy so as not to embarrass the bungling Obama claque who seem determined to make themselves look foolish and impotent at every opportunity.
Obama attempted to launch two wars (Syria and Ukraine). He – lucky for him – lost both even at the “attempt” stage. Assorted neo-cons and the whole exceptionalist brigade are predictably livid. Expect the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal to go ballistic. And expect US ambassador to the UN Samantha “R2P” Power to wish she were Sinead O’Connor singing Nothing Compares to You.
The BBC says that the referendum in Crimera is disputed. But by whom? Not by the people voting. The dispute comes from the anti-democratic forces that are not voting–the Obama regime and its puppet UK government and puppet BBC ministry of propaganda.
