Tuesday, June 09, 2015

Rich kids

"Vladimir Putin Interview to the Italian newspaper Il Corriere della Sera"  Putin is one of the rare world leaders who is both intelligent and sane (although he has to pretend to be confused at the irrational actions of the American Empire, as even he can't mention the concept of Kaganistan/Wars For The Jews):
"What does the actual potential show? US military spending is higher than that of all countries in the world taken together. The aggregate military spending of NATO countries is 10 times, note – 10 times higher than that of the Russian Federation. Russia has virtually no bases abroad. We have the remnants of our armed forces (since Soviet times) in Tajikistan, on the border with Afghanistan, which is an area where the terrorist threat is particularly high. The same role is played by our airbase in Kyrgyzstan; it is also aimed at addressing the terrorist threat and was set up at the request of the Kyrgyz authorities after a terrorist attack perpetrated by terrorists from Afghanistan on Kyrgyzstan.
We have kept since Soviet times a military unit at a base in Armenia. It plays a certain stabilising role in the region, but it is not targeted against anyone. We have dismantled our bases in various regions of the world, including Cuba, Vietnam, and so on. This means that our policy in this respect is not global, offensive or aggressive.
I invite you to publish the world map in your newspaper and to mark all the US military bases on it. You will see the difference.
Sometimes I am asked about our airplanes flying somewhere far, over the Atlantic Ocean. Patrolling by strategic airplanes in remote regions was carried out only by the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War. In the early 1990s, we, the new, modern Russia, stopped these flights, but our American friends continued to fly along our borders. Why? Some years ago, we resumed these flights. And you want to say that we have been aggressive?
American submarines are on permanent alert off the Norwegian coast; they are equipped with missiles that can reach Moscow in 17 minutes. But we dismantled all of our bases in Cuba a long time ago, even the non-strategic ones. And you would call us aggressive?
You yourself have mentioned NATO’s expansion to the east. As for us, we are not expanding anywhere; it is NATO infrastructure, including military infrastructure, that is moving towards our borders. Is this a manifestation of our aggression?
Finally, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which was to a large extent the cornerstone of the entire international security system. Anti-missile systems, bases and radars are located in the European territory or in the sea, e.g. in the Mediterranean Sea, and in Alaska. We have said many times that this undermines international security. Do you think this is a display of our aggression as well?
Everything we do is just a response to the threats emerging against us. Besides, what we do is limited in scope and scale, which are, however, sufficient to ensure Russia’s security. Or did someone expect Russia to disarm unilaterally?
I have proposed to our American partners not to withdraw from the treaty unilaterally, but to create an ABM system together, the three of us: Russia, the United States and Europe. But this proposal was declined. We said at the time: ”Well, this is an expensive system, its efficiency is not proven, but to ensure the strategic balance we will develop our strategic offensive potential, we will develop systems of overpowering anti-ballistic defence. And I have to say that we have made significant strides in this area.
As for some countries’ concerns about Russia’s possible aggressive actions, I think that only an insane person and only in a dream can imagine that Russia would suddenly attack NATO. I think some countries are simply taking advantage of people’s fears with regard to Russia. They just want to play the role of front-line countries that should receive some supplementary military, economic, financial or some other aid. Therefore, it is pointless to support this idea; it is absolutely groundless. But some may be interested in fostering such fears. I can only make a conjecture.
For example, the Americans do not want Russia’s rapprochement with Europe. I am not asserting this, it is just a hypothesis. Let’s suppose that the United States would like to maintain its leadership in the Atlantic community. It needs an external threat, an external enemy to ensure this leadership. Iran is clearly not enough – this threat is not very scary or big enough. Who can be frightening? And then suddenly this crisis unfolds in Ukraine. Russia is forced to respond. Perhaps, it was engineered on purpose, I don’t know. But it was not our doing.
Let me tell you something – there is no need to fear Russia. The world has changed so drastically that people with some common sense cannot even imagine such a large-scale military conflict today. We have other things to think about, I assure you."
"Missing Evidence of Prior FBI Relationship with Boston Bomber" (the request by the FBI for public assistance in identifying someone known to the FBI is the big giveaway):
"Keeping an eye on the ball being constantly moved by the feds, one inevitably focuses back on Mueller’s remarkable if unnoticed admission, which raises these questions:

•  Considering all of the previous contact, if the FBI had publicly admitted it knew the Tsarnaev brothers right from the get-go, wouldn’t that have averted not only Collier’s death—but also that remarkable sequence of post-bombing events in Boston, including the unprecedented lockdown of a major American city, a carjacking, shootings and bomb tossing, the serious injury of another police officer, and Tamerlan Tsarnaev dead and his younger brother Dzhokhar badly injured?

•  If the FBI and CIA had acted on their knowledge of the Tsarnaevs, could they have prevented the bombing itself? (Russia’s FSB also sent a “warning” to the CIA.)

•  Why wasn’t the FBI able to recognize either brother after the bombing despite being in possession of a trove of photos of them at the Marathon? And didn’t they look familiar to the FBI counterterrorism agent who, by the Bureau’s own admission, had interacted repeatedly with Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his family?"
"Hacking as Offensive Counterintelligence"  It should be obvious, as always, that there is no real evidence the Chinese are involved, as the 'evidence' is the same kind of shoddy reasoning used to blame the North Koreans for the Sony email breach, 'forensic analysis of the malware and tactics', which of course could, and would, be easily spoofed by the real perps.  If you wanted to identify the most likely guilty party, I'd suggest another part of the American government, with the goal of increasing American paranoia on the road to increasing fascism.

"New low: Israeli conference boos and heckles Obama’s treasury sec’y when he says US looks out for Israel"  Jack Lew is Lack Jew.

Ban Ki-Moon adds to his considerable shekel collection:  "UN rules not to blacklist Israel over abuse of children's rights"

"Reflections on the Delegitimization of Israel":
"In the face of the clear Israeli intention to maintain the current undemocratic and discriminatory system of “one state with two systems”, many people have started to look again at the seminal injustice, the original sin, of 1948 and at the inherent nature of political Zionism and to think seriously about the desirability of reforming and transforming ethno-religious-supremacist “Israel” into a fully democratic state with equal rights and human dignity for all who live there – the same political system which Western governments profess and proclaim to be the ideal form of government for all other states."
The essential problem with Zionism is the essential problem with any con, when do you take your plunder and stop drawing attention to your plundering.

I had no idea this kind of gloating existed (very fin de siècle, not to mention an excellent potential resource for robbers):  "The New Conspicuous Consumption"
blog comments powered by Disqus