featured, latest, Skripal case, video, videos
Comments 74

WATCH: Anthrax: The Forgotten Lie


Fifteen years ago today, March 20, the “Coalition of the Willing” declared war on Iraq. We now know that war was based on a monumental and inexcusable lie about Iraq possessing “weapons of mass destruction”, and that the war itself was a crime under international law. But we tend to forget that WMDs wasn’t the only lie told to us at the time. There was also the lie about the anthrax attacks in the USA, which in some ways can be counted even more egregious and cold-blooded.

We were told the anthrax that killed five people and harmed 17 others had been positively identified as originating in Iraq. Colin Powell’s famous “test tube full of washing powder” was a bit of theatre designed to sell us on this alleged fact. But it wasn’t true.

Almost immediately after the attacks the FBI knew the anthrax must have been homegrown,or at least produced somewhere with sophisticated laboratory equipment. But since this fact didn’t fit with the al Qaeda narrative it was sppressed from public knowledge. By October 2001 the Guardian was reporting “Iraq ‘behind US anthrax outbreaks’.” All the usual suspects in promoting imperialist war soon followed suit.

The narrative at this time was clearly intended to be that Iraq was the state-sponsor of al Qaeda terror, and had not only been a supporter of the 9/11 attacks but had provided Osama’ boys with the goods to murder even more Americans with anthrax. This, obviously, was intended to act as the rationale for attacking those two vitally strategic countries in the the US’s project for dominance in the Middle east and Asia – Iraq and Afghanistan.

But, as so often seems to happen, this narrative was almost immediately undermined by official White House statements (perhaps originating in elements of the government anxious to preserve the administration from outright association with a lie) that the anthrax in question showed no signs of coming from Iraq, because they specifically lacked an ingredient called bentonite. Which, as we now know, was true.

This official denial, based on solid scientific evidence, should have been an end to the story. But, as the film above shows, owing to a vast campaign of distraction and deception by politicians and the media, the completely discredited story of Iraqi responsibility for the anthrax attacks continue to flourish and even gain momentum. Outlets such as ABC and, most prominently, from Judith Miller (whose pre-2001prescience about the dangers of anthrax in the US seems truly breathtaking) in the New York Times, brazenly continued to sell the idea in feature articles, specials and endless repetition in the nightly news.

And what was the central “fact” on which the media story of Iraq’s guilt was built?

Nothing less than the completely and provably false claim the White House had already denied – that there was bentonite in the anthrax.

Even the White House, the same White House that had officially denied the presence of bentonite and therefore ruled out Iraq involvement, continue to use implications, lies by omission and weasel words to enable the opposite view to become lodged in the public mind.

These people didn’t just bend the truth, or fudge or obfuscate. They lied. They invented whole narratives, they made up whole back stories, they looked us in the camera’s eye on TV and completely deceived us. The media’s Anthrax Meme never existed. Not one single part of it. And even while Colin Powell was allowing us to believe the story he had known for more than a year that it was a complete fabrication

The UK government is currently lying to us about the Skripal poisoning. We know that already to be beyond doubt. The only question is how deep the lie goes this time.

When we look back at 2001 we have to realise it could be very deep indeed.


74 Comments

  1. tom says

    Dr Ivans never confessed, handwriting did not match, and the FBI never charged him.
    One of the anthrax mailings was highly atomized / weaponized – made in a lab, not a garage.
    The Anthrax was US made Ames strain.

    The FBI head agent in charge of the anthrax investigation – Richard Lambert – has filed a federal whistleblower lawsuit calling the entire FBI investigation bullsh!t: (2014/15) Lambert now has a lawsuit against the FBI for being blacklisted from intelligence work.

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/04/head-fbis-anthrax-investigation-calls-b-s.html
    WSJ: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704541004575011421223515284
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/?s=anthrax

    excerpt:

    The chief biological inspector for the U.N. Special Commission from 1994 to 1998 – who describes himself as one of the “four or five people in the whole country” who could make the type of anthrax used in the 2001 attacks – noted in testimony to Congress:

    “I have maintained from the first descriptions of the material contained in the Daschle letter that the quality appeared to be such that it could be produced only by some group that was involved with a current or former state program in recent years. The level of knowledge, expertise, and experience required and the types of special equipment required to make such quality product takes time and experimentation to develop. Further, the nature of the finished dried product is such that safety equipment and facilities must be used to protect the individuals involved and to shield their clandestine activity from discovery.”

    Similarly, a manufacturer of specialized anthrax equipment said:
    “You would need [a] chemist who is familiar with colloidal [fumed] silica, and a material science person to put it all together, and then some mechanical engineers to make this work . . . probably some containment people, if you don’t want to kill anybody. You need half a dozen, I think, really smart people.”
    The U.N. biologist mentioned above also said that the equipment to make such high-tech anthrax does not exist at Fort Detrick, where Ivins worked. People who work at Fort Detrick have confirmed this. In other words, a lone scientist couldn’t have done it without the support of a whole government laboratory. And Fort Detrick was not one such potential laboratory.

    Like

  2. Mikalina says

    I’ve just had another look at Bernays’ Propaganda. It’s probably worth another read:

    “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”

    https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Bernays_Propaganda_in_english_.pdf

    Liked by 1 person

  3. A few years ago we were satirising false flags and whipped up terrorist paranoia. In 2014 this was posted on Facebook:

    ‘A public school teacher was arrested today at John F. Kennedy International Airport this morning as he attempted to board a flight while in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a compass, a slide-rule and a calculator. At a press conference just before noon today, Attorney General Eric Holder said he believes the man is a member of the notorious AI Gebra movement. Although he did not identify the man, he confirmed the man has been charged by the FBI with carrying weapons of math instruction.

    ‘AI-Gebra is a problem for us’, the Attorney General said. ‘They derive solutions by means and extremes, and sometimes go off on tangents in search of absolute values.’ They use secret code names like “x” and “y” and refer to themselves as “unknowns” but we have determined that they belong to a common denominator of the axis of medieval with coordinates in every country. As the Greek philosopher Isosceles used to say. “There are 3 sides to every triangle.” The Attorney General went on to say “Teaching our children sentient thought processes and equipping them to solve problems is dangerous and puts our government at risk.”‘

    More satire now would be good, or has it all gone way too far that?…

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Sav says

    Jan 2003 – Amongst several high profile police raids was one in North London. 5 people arrested on claims of terrorism & producing toxins. Media told that a substance had been removed as evidence.

    MSM was alight with ‘Ricin Plot’. We were under attack and needed to act fast. These were the kinds of weapons Saddam was creating and something had to be done.

    Only 2 years later did it come to light that there had been no ricin and all that was taken from the property was washing powder. It had been sent to Porton Down and they knew in 2 weeks after the raid that it wasn’t ricin. But this information had been withheld until 2005.

    Liked by 1 person

    • MICHAEL LEIGH says

      How ironic SAV that this” False Ricin Story ” predates, todays A 244 nerve agent plot alleged at Salisbury, by the self-same Mass False Media !

      Like

  5. Big B says

    Well, Norm has put the cat among the progressive pigeons: and rightly so. Essentially he, Pablo, and Lenin are correct: wherever finance capital goes; the military follow. But Norm is perhaps prescient, for we are not comparing like with like when we compare Russia-China with the imperial overreach of the mature economies of say US-UK. Russia lags behind China by some three decades: and is still able to develop internal markets and infrastructure. China’s ‘neoliberal with Chinese characteristics’ project, as David Harvey calls it, is on the cusp of launching a new phase of imperial development. If people want to find a real world referent for this, perhaps they should look to Africa – where a ten year arm wrestle for resources between the US (in the form of AFRICOM) and latterly joined by the EU (in the form of the G5 Sahel Joint Force): versus Chinese resource interests has been developing. [“Tomorrows battlefield today” is the AFRICOM motto.]

    China would already be guilty of financial imperialism and resource imperialism, IMO: swapping cheap manufactured goods, infrastructure, and capital investment for non-renewable resources. And the military deployments have so far been as UN Peacekeeping forces: that may fool some, but these deployments are neo-imperial in character – protecting Chinese interests in Mali and Sudan for instance. And the writing is on the wall with the recent deployment of the PLA to Djibouti. Forget the non-interventionist and humanitarian “anti-terrorism” and “anti-Somali-pirate” rehetoric: this can only be a pre-deployment to contest the maritime chokepoint of the Bab al-Mandab straits – to protect the vital trade routes to the European market. As were developing cooperation between the Tatmadaw and PLA in Myanmar: for the “peace and stability” of the region – or to protect Chinese interests …ultimately to circumvent the major maritime chokepoint of the Straits of Malacca. And what is China doing in the Spratly Isles: building sandcastles – or projecting influence into the South China Sea.

    And before it seems that I am a sinophobe: I am not. It is the root DNA of imperial capitalism I am aiming at. I am well aware that the Chinese are thus far defensively reactionary to imperial cordoning and containment policies (such as FONOPS which the Royal Navy will be adding to.) Russia-China will be forced to become increasingly militaristic in the face of US Imperium aggression: that is the inevitable progression of capitalist imperialism.

    I really can’t understand the ‘progressive’ attitude that decries capitalist oppression and exploitation at home: yet cheerleads a new and more ‘progressive’ form of capital exploitation abroad. The basis of capital exploitation is in extracting unpaid ‘surplus value’ from the worker: is Chinese capitalism non-exploitative? Or is part of the ‘China Price’ benefit extracted from low wages for high productivity and minimal benefits? If China succeeds in exporting its various over-capacities; turning SE Asia into a concrete carpark; re-establishing its manufacturing base in ‘economic zones’ abroad (off-shoring); re-importing cheap goods for its burgeoning petty and bourgeois consumption on the mainland; whilst adding to its reserve army of the unemployed – is this the basis of tianxia; or all under heaven existing harmoniously?

    What I find truly incomprehensible in the liberal progressive worldview is the inability to grasp the simple concept that we live on a small and finitely bound planet. Such an expansionist view is not only inconceivable: but illusory and unobtainable too. What part of the end of fossil capitalism can people not get to grips with? A truly progressive view would be that the developed countries have already reached the limits of their development; and NEED TO STOP EXPANDING. Further social development can be achieved only by the internal redistribution of wealth – based on steady state or degrowing energy-economy. This would necessitate the peaceful liquidation of the capitalist class of unearned income seeking rentiers (where that ever practicably achievable). This would free up resources for the undeveloped world to develop without exploitation. In short, we need to reverse globalisation and shrink our economies toward a median sustainable equilibrium. Creating a global Westernised consumer capital standard of faux-prosperous wellbeing is not a sustainable development goal …it’s a Shangri La. We need a new post-growth non-exploitative post-socialist emergent ecology and economy: before the old imperial capitalist one kills us.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. The Saker sums us up, interview on his Vineyard: “an Empire built on lies, accepted on the basis of ignorance, justified by hypocrisy and energized by hysterics. This is what the ‘Western world’ stands for nowadays.”

    Like

  7. bevin says

    “That’s the mistake that most progressives make, to believe that because weaker capitalist states, be that in an economic or political or military dimension, are a target of future or imminent subjugation by the Imperial West, they are by definition anti-imperialist. They are not and cannot be, because ‘imperialism’ is the inescapable endgame of capital as soon as it begins to operate on a global scale…”

    It is really very simple,: the US Empire, successor to the great trading empires of western Europe which, largely as a result of the filthy habits of our forefathers who, over centuries developed immunities to certain diseases, were in the lucky position of inheriting the enormous wealth of the Americas at no great cost. This historic bonus -as much biological as in the form of precious metals- enabled the peripatetic western Emoire to finance the naval and, to a lesser extent, military power needed to impose their trading systems on Africa and Asia. From Lisbon and Cadiz, Amsterdam and Dieppe the armed imperialists moved in search of a more secure billet. Which unsurprisingly turned out to be an Island set astride some of the best trade routes to America and the orient..

    To see imperialism as a pattern of market relationships which pan out in the interests of the Empire is to miss the point: the East India Company succeeded in selling cotton goods to Indians only after wiping out the Indian cotton textile industry which was far superior, in competitive terms to that in the UK. It even ended up selling salt from Cheshire to India, by the simple device of taxing Indian produced salt and allowing British salt into the market tariff free.

    It is notorious that no country in Europe could ever produce anything that the Chinese market wanted, whereas Chinese goods were at a premium in Europe. Had it not been for Potosi and Mexico and the good luck of being able to work as many of the locals to death as could be driven into the mines by armed thugs, there would have been no Tea or Porcelain in Europe and much less silver in the Chinese empire. The story of the opium trade, based on the theft of Indian land and the starvation of millions thrown off their agricultural land-magically transformed into commodity production is well known. It ought to be too, because it mirrors the development of capitalism in the UK- in fact the land settlement in Bengal was deliberately modeled on that thought to exist in the UK. A settlement which empowered the few and disenfrachised the many.

    In both cases the characteristic basis of the system is ruling class violence- capitalist agriculture did not succeed because it was more efficient or productive but because it took the food off the labourer’s table and put it on the market. And it did this where the Parson and the political economist could not manage the trick by violence. Ask an Irishman. The labourer and his family either starved, entered into wage slavery, indentured or otherwise, emigrated, joined the navy or army or, most likely, died, before reaching the age of thirty, of diseases which originated in malnutrition and poor living conditions.

    The notion that all of this was desirable or at least for the best in the long run is one that can only be entertained by members of the elites which fastened onto the losses of the many, and devoured the children of the cotters and peasants, or those hypnotised by the elegance of the theories of those apologising for the system.

    The argument that China and Russia, Venezuela and Syria differ from the US Empire only in that their rulers lack the opportunities to establish global hegemony-but would do if they could- might be of interest to first year classes in moral philosophy. It makes no sense in our situation.

    Millions of people have been killed, within twenty years, by Imperialist aggression. Tens of millions more will go the same way as Iraq and libya if the Empire is not fought to a standstill soon. And fighting it includes our disassociating ourselves from imperial aggression in every way possible-from protests to lobbies of legislatures to electioneering and, boycotts , strikes and many more tactics.
    And those who argue that the Chinese are just as bad, Assad is a neo-liberal and Putin an authoritarian are doing Washington’s work if they detract from the unity needed to hobble the empire.

    When that has been done the world will be at liberty to decide what to do next. But the first task is peace and an end to imperial aggression.

    To import Marx or Lenin to justify siding with the ruling class was an old trick when leaders of the SPD employed it in 1914. In my view there is no merit in it. But if I am wrong then we need to revise our view that these men had useful lessons for us. We know that many of the things that they wrote were wrong, and so did they. This was particularly the case where imperialism and peasant production was concerned. It is in large part because they were wrong that the revolutions they inspired did not succeed in forming the bases of new societies.

    Liked by 2 people

      • Bevin, Mikalina: put more simply …the development of a global faux-prosperity is a function of cheap oil. It’s development tracks our ability to massively leverage human labour with hydrocarbons …nothing else. The financial economy is more or less (despite some recent weak decoupling) the energy economy. The Age of Oil has also recently passed its peak. The Laws of Physics predict a slow decline in economy which can no longer sustain the global industrialized and financialised economy. Nor can any perpetual growth paradigm replace it. The question should be: is anyone planning ahead?

        Liked by 1 person

      • The point I was building up to make (before I had to sell my labour the Man) was that imperialism and monopoly fossil capitalism are indistinct. Lenin was right: they are evil twins with the same DNA. Rather than draw distinction: all capitalist societies will develop that way. Some more ethically than others: but all are based on non-renewable resource consumption: and that paradigm is KILLING US. Essentially, they are all wrong, but the blame game won’t help. There is no benign tianxia capitalist solution: the best capitalism has to offer a lasting future society and regeneratively valorised environment is a curbing of excess and sustainable wind down to a new paradigm. Not BAU.

        Liked by 1 person

    • “The argument that China and Russia, Venezuela and Syria differ from the US Empire only in that their rulers lack the opportunities to establish global hegemony-but would do if they could- might be of interest to first year classes in moral philosophy. It makes no sense in our situation.”

      So in none of these countries do we have what a first year level student in political economy, if not in moral philosophy, might call bourgeoisies?

      No one, certainly not affiliated with the states of these countries, is about ‘making money.’

      There are no landed or commercial oligarchies. No rising middle class professionals dreaming and scheming to get rich. There are no capitalist elites or what someone like me might quaintly refer to as a ruling class or power elites. There are no corporations with their board of directors. Cronyism is nonexistent. There is no clientelism. There are no banks out to make a profit. Finance capital does not exist. No one is being exploited by means of wage labour. Russia and China are not trying to carve out for themselves areas of economic hegemony. And anything akin to transnational corporations do not exist, either.

      And speaking of Syria, since I did bring it up, who is Rami Makhlouf? What is he worth? How did he get so rich? Because of course, it makes no sense in our situation to suggest that Syria is a neo-liberalised economy. There is no evidence. None. And Makhlouf and people like him in parts other than the heart of the Western Empire would be the last people on earth with an eye to investment opportunities, whether at home or abroad. They possess a special immunity that guards them against exporting capital for the purpose of extracting wealth from hither and yon. The same goes for any billionaire in either Russia or China. Oh, but that’s right, there are no billionaires in those countries.

      Whatever was I thinking. Well, I’m to be forgiven. The quality of my education was not what it might have been. What with living in the heart of the Empire, where all of the bad and the worse reside.

      Like

        • Just for laughs, because we know Syria does not have a neo-liberalized economy:

          Quote begins:

          And a good example of this outright plunder is precisely that of Assad’s first cousin, Rami Makhlouf, which my article showed was an example of direct connection between the mega-capitalist class and the military-security apparatus (and of course the extended tentacles of the ruling family). Rather than grapple with this reality, Tharappel chooses a side-point – my assertion that Makhlouf “controls 40-60 percent of the Syrian economy” – to claim this is an example of my “Alawi-phobic conspiracy.”

          Tharappel questions what this figure means and suggests instead that as Makhlouf’s net worth is reportedly about $5 billion, we can say that he owns “roughly 6 percent of Syria’s GDP.”

          OK, so let’s go with that for the moment. Australian GDP in 2014 was reported to be some US$1560 billion, while Forbes Asia estimated Gina Rinehart’s wealth in 2014 to be US$17.6 billion. This means the wealth of Australia’s richest person is about 1.3% of GDP, less than a quarter of the equivalent percentage of Syrian GDP he says is owned by Makhlouf. I think Tharappel knows what most leftists and socialists in Australia think about Rinehart and about a system that allows such sensational concentrations of wealth. Yet he draws no conclusions about this in relation to the economic system presided over by Makhlouf’s cousin, the Syrian tyrant. He merely thinks there might be some problem of “corruption.”

          But of course the 60 percent figure does not mean personal wealth; “control” of the economy is estimated via the various holding companies that he has significant or dominant stakes in. According to the Financial Times,

          “Mr Makhlouf controls as much as 60 per cent of the country’s economy through a complex web of holding companies. His business empire spans industries ranging from telecommunications, oil, gas and construction, to banking, airlines and retail. He even owns the country’s only duty free business as well as several private schools. This concentration of power, say bankers and economists, has made it almost impossible for outsiders to conduct business in Syria without his consent” [see Karadjis post for the reference (N.P.)]. Likewise Gilbert Achcar gives a good description of what this means in his excellent book, The People Want, see the page at [see Karadjis post for the reference (N.P.)]

          Once again, we are left wondering how someone claiming to be a leftist can draw no conclusions about a system that allows a single individual (not to mention the dictator’s cousin) to control telecommunications, oil, gas, construction, banking, airlines, retail, duty free business and education, while also being directly connected to the repressive forces.

          Quote ends.

          Source: Michael Karadjis — an independent writer and lecturer at the University of Western Sydney

          Like

          • But you do agree we need for practical purposes to differentiate between aggressive militaristic imperialism and the definition of economic imperialism used to encompass Russia & China. Can we agree that if the US/UK “empire” would abide by international law and precepts of sovereignty to the same extent Russia/China currently do that the world would a least be more stable and far less dangerous? And can we agree that calling attention to this as well as to the dangerous abuses by western powers, is probably the most important thing at the moment?

            Unless we can transition away from this hyper-aggression there’s only limited likelihood any of us will survive, so maybe this currently should be our focus, leaving disputation about other economic definitions of imperialism for a future when questions of war and survival have receded?

            In other words – shall we worry about the warmongering lunatics threatening to kill us all first and then deal with the other questions?

            Liked by 1 person

            • Harry Law says

              “Can we agree that if the US/UK “empire” would abide by international law and precepts of sovereignty to the same extent Russia/China currently do that the world would a least be more stable and far less dangerous?” I agree with you, unfortunately we live in a world where all the veto wielding members of the UNSC are above International Law for all time…
              “There is a fundamental contradiction written into the UN Charter on the one hand, article 2[1] states; “The organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” But, on the other hand, Article 23 of the Charter grants five of its Members permanent seats on the Security Council, and Article 27 gives each of them a veto over decisions of the Council. Clearly, all Members are equal, but some Members are more equal than others. Thus all five veto wielding powers the US, UK, France, China and Russia AND their friends are above International law, for all time. So that should all four veto wielding members gang up on the US, the US simply veto’s the Resolution it is then consigned to the memory hole.
              Academic lawyers in their thousands may protest that taking military action against Iraq for instance was illegal because it lacked proper authorisation by the Security Council, but it is of no consequence in the real world when there is no possibility of the UK, or its political leadership, being convicted for taking such action. It is meaningless to describe an action as illegal if there is no expectation that the perpetrator of the action will be convicted by a competent judicial body. In the real world, an action is legal unless a competent judicial body rules that it is illegal”. http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/iraq/ags-legal-advice.pdf

              Like

            • In short: no. The solution to hyper-aggression is diagnosis: from a correct root cause analysis can proceed the tailored solution. The Davos jetset; Russia-China; even Corbyn have proposed more ethical and partially redistributive solutions …but none change the DNA of capital valorisation and accumulation. At best, this could be the start of a transition: but not a solution. The Law of the Succession of Societies [Zinoviev] would indicate you cannot go from A to Z without a hybridising transition …but you have to know the desired outcome to start the incremental process. I’m not talking about a mere transition of outward society: capitalism is an inheritable state of mind …acculturated trans-generationally. Imperialism and autarky are an extreme mass psychoses, projectionism and protectionism of a dying way of life. Can we find a solution based on inner peace? Maybe not: but maybe enough to curb our excesses? The looming alternatives are our choice of species extinction: and that suits no one.

              Like

            • No. Not to my mind. Because if I construe the situation in terms of a dichotomous distinction between an ‘aggressive’ imperialist camp and one that is ‘conciliatory,’ I ally myself with one imperialistic camp against another, implicitly giving license to the weaker side to war against the stronger.

              The result is, if people buy into this logic en masse, that the working class of one camp is primed to murder the working class of the other.

              I say let the elites fight their battles among themselves, so that we can free ourselves to fight our battle against them all, which is our fight.

              Without ‘us,’ neither the more aggressive or conciliatory imperialist powers can go at each other, and ordinary people thereby would avoid the utterly useless and odious business of slaughtering each other on behalf of their own oppression.

              We need to stop siding with our enemy. We need to recognize who we are and to embrace one another, and to reject those who would drive us to slaughter each other on their behalf, and if there is to be a war, let it be a civil war in every imperialist state, that the insanity of imperialist capitalist aggression be laid to rest.

              I won’t kill a Russian or anyone else so that corporatists can continue to lord it over me, and I would hope that a Russian or anyone else would feel the same way, as I am sure most do.

              On the other hand, if push ever comes to shove, and people do rise up and begin to resist the establishment in a serious way, I think I’d have the balls to do what is right by humankind. Fuck the capitalists, both the good ones and the bad ones, but especially those who for the time being rule over my head.

              Like

              • That’s simply ignoring my point – which was that if both sides adhered to international law there would be no war, or at least there would be a lot less.

                Every conflict for the past thirty years has been more or less illegal and more or less instigated by the US/NATO nexus. If that nexus had been as prepared to abide by the law as have Russia and China (albeit for their own strategic interests) most of the wars, famines, instabilities and refugee crises would not have happened.

                This is not to argue one set of capitalists are essentially better, merely to point out their conduct is more conducive to peace.

                Your argument is flawed because it is a response to a different, and possibly now redundant paradigm. I am not arguing we should take up arms to defend anyone, so the “workers of the world unite” line isn’t relevant. Quite the opposite, I am stating that if the west adopted the approach to international affairs employed by Russia the world would be a more stable, if not a more equitable, place.

                I see the validity of much that you say, but refusing to make any distinction out of a fear of making too many is surely unwise.

                Liked by 1 person

                • I fail to see how I ignored your point though it strikes you as such.

                  Both your first and second comment make a comparison between the militarily aggressive Imperial West, on the one hand, and the ostensibly conciliatory Eastern capitalist states, on the other.

                  You want to know whether I agree with the contention of your comparison.

                  I do not.

                  Because when I make that comparison, I see two equally imperialistic camps. All are armed to the teeth, and all are posturing in a militarily aggressive fashion towards one another.

                  The East is expanding its presence economically across the globe, making or trying to make incursions into what the West considers to be its spheres of influence, and the West also wants to both preserve and expand its frontiers despite being, for the time being, the dominant player.

                  That is the incontestable reality and the dynamic that may lead to another military catastrophe on a global scale, at least as I see it.

                  Furthermore, you want me to say with you that the more aggressive party is more to blame for the likelihood of what may be the next world war than the ostensibly more conciliatory party. That is at the very least implicit in the way you frame your comparison.

                  I say it is not a matter of which party appears to be more aggressive; I say it is a matter of the imperializing logic of capitalism: capital must expand or die.

                  It is a matter of life or death for all of the implicated ruling elites, something they all understand and for which they are all willing to wage war.

                  If it were otherwise, any one of the imperialists camps could dispense with its military.

                  But if the West disarmed, how long would it remain politically and economically hegemonic or even viable?

                  What about Russia? What about China?

                  So you see, it’s not about a “choice.” It is an imperative rooted in the very dynamic of capital accumulation as such.

                  So now we are confronted with the possibility of yet another world war.

                  What is one person to do? What am I to do?

                  That is the question that confronts each and everyone us as a potential volunteer or conscript.

                  So you are correct: the “workers of the world unite” line is quite irrelevant.

                  You don’t need to unite with anyone to do your moral duty to mankind.

                  You embrace others in solidarity in your heart and wage a personal and effective resistance to the carnage that may be coming.

                  As an individual who recognizes him/herself in every other human being, you can refuse either to volunteer or to cooperate as a conscript, and if you are a working class schmuck, I say you should and for the reasons I’ve already outlined.

                  Those who acknowledge an aggressive West and a conciliatory East implicitly — I’d even say ‘unconsciously’ — make the case that the more conciliatory of the parties at hand by default claims the moral high ground of ‘self-defense’ in any future confrontation.

                  Consequently, if you happen to be a citizen of one of the conciliatory states, you would then feel justified in fighting on behalf of your so called ‘nation,’ although you would in fact be fighting, dying, or killing, on behalf of nothing but capital, in the name of capitalism tout court.

                  Thus for myself, if not for you, framing the relationship between the globally competing capitals in terms of which camp is aggressive, and which conciliatory, runs the risk of legitimizing consent to war.

                  The West, of course, should be exposed for its intents and propaganda. But the reactionaries do not merely rule in the West.

                  Easterners, like Westerners, will be used and abused in a like fashion.

                  Like

          • Jen says

            Makhlouf certainly has many fingers (and many toes) in companies in many industries; but this may suggest nothing more than that he has a huge and diversified investment portfolio. Whether he actually wields any power over the management of these companies might be another thing. The fact that he has financial interests in so many different businesses that on the surface have little in common might indicate that the extent of any control he has is limited to that of shareholder, albeit a major shareholder.

            In capitalist economies, owners of businesses are not necessarily managers of the same, and Syria, for its lateness in exposing its economy to privatisation, is no different.

            Like

            • “Whether he actually wields any power over the management of these companies might be another thing.”

              That hadn’t occurred to me, Jen. Thank you. I thought all billionaires were all hands on, directly and personally managing every decision, big and small, affecting every sequence in the circulation of their capitals.

              But I guess they don’t directly manage every detail of every transaction that keeps them ascendant in political and economic and social terms.

              Thus we should cut them some slack. Wealth is just something that has happened to them. Like the poverty of the many.

              But seriously: yes, I do agree. There are no good or bad capitalists as such. But there are capitalists in a capitalist system, and capitalism ins’t working for the majority. In fact, it’s killing the majority, both figuratively and literally speaking.

              Syria is but one glaring example among so many others.

              Like

    • Assad is not a neo-liberal? I thought I read that suggestion somewhere in what your wrote. I guess, then, that Raymond Hinnebusch is an a Washington agent. Be advised that if you follow up the link, it will take you to a big and complicated read, but it’s first year student level stuff. But I think it does kinda make the case that there is an element of neo-liberalism about the Syrian economy since about at least 2000 or thereabouts. Maybe Assad isn’t a neo-liberal, though, even if the economy of his country most definitely is.

      Like

    • The there is this thing I stumbled upon some while back. It has graphs and numbers and things in it. It, too, is a tedious read, but it does make an argument that it’s title makes obvious: Russia as a Great Imperialist Power

      Be advised it’s a .pdf download. It’s safe. But not everyone wants to download what they aren’t certain of.

      And of course, one’s person’s imperialism is for another person what can’t possibly be imperialism. I get it. Different definitions, I guess.

      Like

  8. MichaelK says

    The BBC was also rather peeved that Trump had telephoned Putin to congratulate him on his landslide electoral success and that according to Trump the conversation went very well indeed, so well in fact, that Trump talked about a meeting in the future. There was an obvious subtext here. Why hadn’t Trump publically and loudly condemned the Russian’s for their attack on Salisbury, why does he sound so friendly towards the Russians?

    It’s flippin’ obvious. Trump doesn’t have a golf course near Salisbury or any plans to build a hotel complex with a casino there. Russia, on the other hand, is a land of opportunity, resort wise.

    Like

  9. MichaelK says

    I’ve just been listening to the Guardian’s Luke Harding, who is in the US, being interviewed on the BBC about the expulsion of the Russian diplomats, which, not surprisingly he endorses. It quickly shifted to Luke’s experience in Russia. This isn’t unusual. New Journalism puts the journalist at the centre of his journalism.

    Luke, having plugged his book, got onto his next most favourit subject, apart from Luke, which is Putin and Letveniko and how he’d been murdered using a radioactive teapot. It’s the details that count in fiction you know. Still, Luke, so dynamic and full of charged energy, began on his usual historic list of Russia’s murderous crimes… and it struck me that he’s got an impressive memory, added by constant repetition, even though it’s rather narrow and selective. For example, the deadly Russian list, is deemed of special and telling importance, revealing deep truths about the Russian character, Putin’s mind and their system. Fair enough, however, Luke doesn’t seem to believe that the British state’s bloody recent history of mass murder and wars based on lies and transparent fabrications linked to our security services, is quite so important, or relevant, or tells us something important about the UK and it’s actions, form and motivations… at all. It’s almost like Luke has amnesia or something worse.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Harry Law says

    On being asked about the evidence the Government have on the the Salisbury incident, Sec Def Gavin Williamson said “Evidence? We ain’t got no evidence! We don’t need no evidence! I don’t have to show you any stinking evidence!” Now go away and shut up.

    Like

    • James Scott says

      Yes evidence is a bloody nuisance when you are trying to fit someone up. It gets in the way of injustice and lets off the innocent. How the hell can we get the public baying for blood if we are constrained by evidence.

      Like

  11. Yes, of course, our Western overlords are trying to get us into a mood for war. And regardless of whatever mood they do manage to get ‘us’ into, they may yet take us to war with or without our general consent.

    But in reading about this farce that is the Skripal affair against the backdrop of some of the comments being appended to what I’ve read, not merely here at Off-G but elsewhere, something else also becomes concerning: while people are seeing through the propaganda ploy, some are apt to fall into a partisanship that might not be in their interest.

    To quote something I only just left with Schlüter (to save myself some effort):

    Quote begins:

    We’ve been down this road before.

    Ordinary people once again are confronted with a choice: my working class identity or that of my belligerent nation.

    In the lead up to the last great wars, most ended up choosing in favor of their nation and thereby became the tools of their very oppressors, helping their ruling class attempt to crush its competitors, but in the end and at bottom helping the capitalists consolidate the subjugation of the working class everywhere.

    For ordinary people, the stakes are not about Russia and the U.S., the East and the West, although the propaganda at hand is certainly Western propaganda.

    Rather, this is at bottom about capitalist factions — be they Russian or American or British or German or French or whatever — all competing on a global scale, getting ready to throw their working class peons at one another in slaughter and bloodshed.

    The working class peons on all sides need to refuse to fight for their respective overlords and instead ally themselves with all other peons everywhere.

    A day or so ago, Mohandeer wrote in response to a piece by William Blum:

    “If we ever want to see an end to the right wing/capitalist dictatorship that dominates the Imperialist west’s “democracies” then we first need to acknowledge that those “democracies” are in fact an illusion, bought and paid for by the smallest minority with the greatest wealth and their cohorts like the CIA and MI5/6.”

    My reply:

    Agreed, and for all the reasons you adduce and to which you allude.

    By the same token, however, we will also need to acknowledge that countries like Syria, Russia, Iran, China, Philippines and Venezuela, such as they exist, cannot save us, because they, too, no less than the West, are capitalist — economically, politically, and culturally.

    That’s the mistake that most progressives make, to believe that because weaker capitalist states, be that in an economic or political or military dimension, are a target of future or imminent subjugation by the Imperial West, they are by definition anti-imperialist. They are not and cannot be, because ‘imperialism’ is the inescapable endgame of capital as soon as it begins to operate on a global scale.

    Consequently, it doesn’t matter which of any of the existing states ends up prevailing over any another if what prevails is in its inception is a capitalist order, as the oppression and exploitation that is the implicit logic of capital remains, when it is globalized, an imperializing subjugation.

    The way out, if it ever happens, will be the overturning of the existing capitalistic states by a self-aware and international working class.

    As Lenin rightly put it, revolutions happen “when the ‘lower classes’ do not want to live in the old way and the ‘upper classes’ cannot carry on in the old way.”

    But socialism — and hopefully thereafter and in good time, communism – will be born of revolutions when the ‘lower classes’ finally learn to discriminate between themselves and their oppressors, and clearly understand that for-profit production is an abomination, that the culture of ‘abstract labour,’ of working for wages, is the current bane of human existence.

    So yeah, don’t buy into the blatant propaganda, for sure. But don’t let yourself fall into a mistaken partisanship.

    As another person commented in reaction to a piece by Pepe Escobar, titled „The Myth of a Neo-imperial China:“

    If somehow the Chinese-Russian Imperialists can out-manuever the US Imperialists into the US not launching WW3 (extremely unlikely imo); then they, combined, will soon be the world’s new #1 super-power; and the #1 task of the world’s people will then become opposing them.

    Ordinary Russians are our brothers and sisters, just as are all other ordinary people worldwide. The capitalist elites, of whatever nationality, are not. Know who you are.

    Like

    • Chinese-Russian imperialists? This isn’t the first time I’ve seen an attempt — invariably made on the rhetorical level only, as there are no facts to support such a claim — at putting an equation mark between Western imperialism and the trading and infrastructure projects funded by China and Russia, respectively.

      At this juncture in history, the most important struggle is to prevent the establishment of fascism on a global scale, which is what the corporatist globalization being pushed by the West comes down to. Should China and/or Russia ever show tendencies at copying the West in this respect, it will become necessary to oppose them, too. Should India one day attempt it, the same will hold in relation to it, also. Until such a time arises, I see no real-life referent for that most tendentious phrase, “Chinese-Russian imperialists”.

      Liked by 3 people

      • “Chinese-Russian imperialists? This isn’t the first time I’ve seen an attempt — invariably made on the rhetorical level only, as there are no facts to support such a claim — at putting an equation mark between Western imperialism and the trading and infrastructure projects funded by China and Russia, respectively.”

        Did you follow the link to the comment? It may be less “rhetorical” than you think.

        Like

        • Well I tried the link, and it’s a dud. Here is the comment in full:

          Quote begins:

          Pablo Novi · 12 hours ago

          What the US says about China doesn’t make it true. Agreed.
          CHINA HAS NEVER BEEN SOCIALIST; AND NOW WITH ITS WELL-DEVELOPED CAPITALISM; IT’S A MONOPOLY-CAPITALIST / IMPERIALIST POWER
          BUT, China is not and has never been socialist; it’s always been capitalist and now it has 250 BILLIONAIRES – the 100% proof that it is not only capitalist, but MONOPOLY-CAPITALIST; and Lenin proved to the world that Monopoly-Capitalism IS Imperialism and Imperialism Means War.

          IF YOU CAN’T BEAT THE TOP DOG IMPERIALIST POWER (THE U.S.), TEMPORARILY CONTINUE TO TRY TO OUTMANUEVER THEM ECONOMICALLY
          True, TEMPORARILY, China is pushing peaceful projects – after all, what option does it have; neither it nor Russia is in the position YET to challenge the US militarily – or we would have seen Russia standing up the the US by now; Russia hesitates because it is NOT ready. China tries to out-compete the US thru peaceful commerce – this is SOP for competing imperialist powers; with the weaker ones using peaceful means for as long as possible.

          CHINESE BILLIONAIRES …
          But the Chinese billionaires are not investing in other countries for the good of the people of those countries – that just is not the way capitalism works; and the Chinese variant will not break that rule. Instead we see projects where the Chinese receive 50-year leases PLUS ownership of the land on either side of the high s***d rail lines; land that jumps in value because of its location; making Chinese ownership super-profitable – if that doesn’t sound like the classic “export of capital” and imperialist, neo-colonial relationships; nothing does.

          … AGAINST AMERICAN BILLIONAIRES
          The 545 American billionaires that run the US Gov (and dozens of puppet regimes around the world) long ago, sometime before THEY did 9/11; that their plan was for: never-ending, ever-expanding wars (leading to WW3 vs China-Russia), police states and poverty. China economically and Russia militarily are catching up. No ruling class in history has ever given up its power peacefully.

          WW3 ON THE HORIZON; IF TEMPORARILY PREVENTED, THE CHINESE-RUSSIANS WILL EVENTUALLY TAKE THE US’S PLACE
          If somehow the Chinese-Russian Imperialists can out-manuever the US Imperialists into the US not launching WW3 (extremely unlikely imo); then they, combined, will soon be the world’s new #1 super-power; and the #1 task of the world’s people will then become opposing them. Meanwhile, all signs point to WW3 being just beyond the horizon. For the suffering BILLIONS on the planet, none of these options offer any lasting peace nor freedom-from-poverty. If WW3 comes, ONLY world civil war against it will stop it from continuing. If WW3 doesn’t come, only world revolution will finally end the scourge of capitalism.

          Makes one wonder why Pepe NEVER mentions this basic truths?

          Quote ends.

          Here is the link to the piece by Escobar:

          http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/49016.htm

          Like

          • Mikalina says

            I think I’ll go with Escobar:

            “Yet BRI is not a matter of geopolitical control supported by military might; it’s about added geopolitical projection based on trade-and-investment connectivity.”

            …rather than your unsubstantiated ‘comment’.

            Like

          • @Pilon. Your fears are very reasonable, in a general sort of way; but when one comes down to specifics, right here and right now, the 1000-odd “Western” billionaires (including Israeli, Saudi and others funding terrorism and waging war in the ME) are a million times more destructive than the 250 Chinese billionaires. I smell Soros Fake Left.

            And Pepe smells Capitalist jealousy. From his article:

            It’s all about preventing the emergence not only of a “peer competitor,” but worse: a New Silk Road-enabled trade/connectivity condominium – featuring China, Russia, Iran and Turkey – as powerful across the East as the US still remains across the much-troubled “Western Hemisphere.”

            That has nothing to do with Chinese neo-imperialism.

            Like

          • Jen says

            At least the Russians and Chinese do not pretend that their variant of imperialism, currently manifested in cultivating trade relationships or building infrastructure projects in various parts of the Third World, will bring democracy, freedom and free market competition (and the benefits that is supposed to bring) that the US used to blindside other nations with in the past.

            Like

      • Vaska: you might want to check out who is buying the corporatocracy. Their biggest acquisition so far has been Syngenta for $44bn by ChemChina. Syngenta are a major GMO agrochemical biotechnology corporation: one of the beneficiaries of L Paul Bremer’s infamous Rule 81. Will they become an ethical monopoly under the majority control of Chinese capital? I think not.

        Without getting partisan and defensive: perhaps the best thing to do is take the overview …the holistic systems analytical POV. China is the main contributor to global GDP which is projected to grow at 3-4% pa: that means the global economy will double every 25-30 years. The laws of capital valorisation and accumulation determine this. What are we going to grow into: a new planet?

        Liked by 1 person

        • Jen says

          ChemChina’s Wikipedia entry, on how the company began:

          “… ChemChina began as a small solvents factory called Bluestar Company (Chinese: 蓝星公司), founded by Ren Jianxin in 1984 with a 10,000-yuan loan … Ren created the ChemChina empire by taking control of over 100 troubled state-owned chemical factories across China, with the government retaining ownership. Meanwhile, he avoided laying off excess workers by shifting them to the company’s Malan Noodle … restaurant chain … He brought in consultants to professionalize the company’s management, and it has become one of China’s most dynamic state enterprises … ”

          Chinese company demonstrating its imperialist credentials by moving workers away from the factory floor handling test tubes and syringes to the kitchen floor handling meat cleavers. Watch out, Mr Ren!

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChemChina

          Like

      • Michael Leigh says

        Actually, this is not to prove of a scientific fact, but by way of my own eccentricity it is purely out of curiosity and not intended to be definite proven fact(s), but in the spirit of amateurish pseudo-science !

        definetly, I decided to check the British Government’s ” believabllity ” among among website commentators of all political shades of bias and political orientation’ And, to checkout the number of reader comments, for and against Mde T May allegations against Russia ?

        So by visiting a random choice of so-called fake internet news sites, ( including Russia Today) among my random sample incidentally, and by simply counting the individual reader comments, particularly as to those individuals who did choose to believe; the British evidence-free Salisbury bullshit?

        In total I visited some 43 different websites to count and assess web-site visitor comments and opinions by individual internet visits, where I calulated and found a total of 87% of the comments were reflecting as being a record against the British claims?

        Surely, not-with-standing my own eccentricity this survey is not psephologically correct , but I think it represents a wide-spread growth of readers who do not believe in the ” status quo “.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Well said.
        How can any one argue otherwise.
        Verifiable fiduciary facts point to the obvious conclusion.
        Since the 70’s the financialisation of western economies gains steam.
        The blatant attacks on labour unions goes into full swing.
        Thatcherism becomes an economic and political meme.
        Reagan becomes POTUS .Becomes an extension of Thatcherism and coined Reaganomics. “TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS” The Atlanatacist gain full spectrum dominance in economics and perception management of social ,economics and political matters enters a Hollywoodian realm.
        Voodoo government accounting becomes the norm shifting government costs and then hiding the increases in service costs by indicating economic gains in the private sector to off set any losses.
        Wage gains since 1976 to 2014 when factoring year to year inflation compared to actual inflation are negligible .
        Purchasing power of the average Joanne and Joe has actually diminished according to UN ,EU and US data.
        The wage and economic gap has exceeded the gap that existed during the Gilded age.
        Multinational corporations have increased exponentially.
        In 1987 the average wage was 1/4 to 1/5 the value of an average dwelling today it is 1/10 to 1/15th.
        Lobby groups infest the halls of power from the EU to North America and most statute ,tax ,labour and corporate law has been to the advantage to the upper ten percent and multinational corporations hiding behind the meme of (LABOUR ,POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC REFORM).
        The financial crisis of 2007 was subsidized by the PAYE Taxpayer bailing out big banks TO BIG TO FAIL MEME.
        NATO since 1990’s has created failed states and aggressively bombed, and occupied many sovereign countries and violating article 50 and 51 Nuremberg principle.
        Did I forget anything?
        LO STATO CORPORATO

        Liked by 1 person

    • Mikalina says

      “That’s the mistake that most progressives make, to believe that because weaker capitalist states, be that in an economic or political or military dimension, are a target of future or imminent subjugation by the Imperial West, they are by definition anti-imperialist.”

      You base your opinion around this false assumption; in fact, this straw man, which you then attempt to demolish. You assign a ‘stupid’ herd attitude/response to “most progressives”, of the ‘two legs good, four legs bad’ dichotomy (a false dichotomy which appears to permeate your own logic). Pro something does not mean anti something else.+

      You are also arguing within a western paradigm of thoughts, experiences, philosophy and ‘awareness’. You are assuming that all peoples are like you and that the best way of life is your way of life. Fascism lies down that road, my friend.

      Like

      • Dear Mikalina,

        What is my contention? A society that is capitalist — economically, politically, and culturally — attempting to carve out a place for itself globally is ipso facto imperialistic.

        Investments, if they are capitalist, are always for a “profit” or a “return.” Consequently, if China — like any other capitalist bloc — is making “capitalist” “investments” in other jurisdictions, it does so because it “calculates” that it can make a “profit,” no? And what does it mean for China to make a profit in other jurisdictions? That “value” will have extracted from those jurisdictions, right? What is the essence of imperialism if not the extraction of value from other jurisdictions or nations? See how that works?

        Or is China providing services for free or at no cost, with no strings attached?

        But to return to my “most progressives” blunder, which admittedly should have been written as “some progressives” (if most of the one’s I myself have read): no sooner have I posted my contention, than Vaska, as but another example, one like the progressive Escobar, comes along to instruct me that China can’t be “imperialistic” because of “the trading and infrastructure projects funded by China and Russia.”

        What? Trading and infrastructure that is gratis, presumably?

        No strings attached?

        Or I’m I only imagining, for instance, that Russia inked a classic colonial deal for it to remain in Syria for 49 years?

        What is it that Putin is wont to say? Oh, yeah, that Russia has interests.

        And what are those interests?

        Something about “trade,” but surely to some advantage, eh? Or is Russia giving away its resources and manpower all for nothing?

        Like

        • Mikalina says

          Thank you for your answer. Do you think there is something in “I’ll scratch your back, if you’ll scratch mine” as opposed to “scratch my back, slave.”?

          Like

          • No. You will have to explain it to me. How does capital scratch labor’s back while labor scratches its back. I was under the impression that it made for a form of slavery. But what do I know.

            Like

  12. Yonatan says

    People think it was 911 that changed the US. It wasn’t. There were politicians and jpournalists, and ordinary people who opposed the US PATRIOT Act. It took the Anthrax attack, targetting those opponent journalists and politicians, that allowed the PATRIOT Act to be rammed through. The attack was also constructed to frame Muslims as the scapegoat. Who has form in attacking the US and getting away with it? Who benefitted from this?

    Liked by 2 people

  13. Remember that one note that came with one of the anthrax letters that said, “Death to America, death to Israel?”
    That’s all you need to know about who was behind the anthrax scares, the same SLC ME nation that masterminded the 9/11 False Flag had a hand in scaring Americans into backing the illegal and immoral Iraq War.

    http://www.911history.de/aaannxyz_ch11_en.html

    With Israeli PM Nuttyahoo’s pet as the American UN ambassador, we’re assured to get an endless barrage of war mongering from ‘Nutty’ Nikki.
    Which begs the question, was Nutty Nikki born a mean, hateful, blood-thirsty homicidal maniac or is she paid to act that way?

    Liked by 2 people

    • Paid to act that way. “Love of money is the root of many evils”. But many harmess people with no axe to grind (except the axe which chops the firewood to bake their daily bread) will just go with the flow, be it for good or evil, a multitude driven by warring winds following an ever changing flag — somewhat like the crowds in the Second Circle of Dante’s Inferno.

      “So many, I had not thought Death had undone so many” — TS Eliot, The Waste Land

      Like

  14. @Sivonda. “We aiirr doomed, I tell Ye, doomed!”. Don’t worry, nuclear weapons are only used against a defeated enemy or a small power who can’t lob one back. Syria, Iran/Hezb and Russia are actually doing very well against “our irresistble armed might” in the Middle East; and the Yanks still remember how many men they lost trying to take over NK and Vietnam in the Far East (a handy reminder was erected not far from the WhiteHouse).

    Like

  15. Harry Stotle says

    The parallels between operation anthrax and commie dust, sorry, I meant novichok are striking.

    The moral seems to be that the public will automatically suspend critical faculties once national security is invoked (presumably because they are all shitting themselves) while liars like Colin Powell (back then) and Boris Johnson today, both aided and abetted by the MSM, can lie to their hearts content safe in the knowledge that there will no meaningful consequences once their lies are exposed, and no matter how much suffering arises from their paranoia.

    What is particularly laughable is the way Johnson has made great efforts to rubbish the EU yet is now begging them to back Britain up against t’evil Rooskies – he really is the embodiment of everything that is rotten with the British establishment.

    Like

    • mog says

      What about ‘cosmic commie dust’….?

      The soviets hid it on a secret satellite, Putin spent years deciphering the command codes so as to bring it back to Earth, now they have it, the super weapon, it is ‘intelligent nerve agent’ which only affects dissidents, once imbibed it can lay poised to kill for hours, then can be activated via nanobots flown to the crime scene on Siberian winds….

      Will we ever be free of those Goddam Commies?

      Like

      • Harry Stotle says

        I must say, Mog, your theory seems far more plausible than the carefully crafted semantics employed by the British establishment to rationalise dodgy claims about what happened in Salisbury.

        If the science was solid why has the BEEB resorted to photo-shopping images of any politician who dare suggest a degree of caution before we are all enveloped by yet another neocon catastrophe?

        Like

      • Can’t you see Luke’s next book: “EAST WIND: how Putin’s Red Nanobots brought death to a sleepy English town”

        Like

  16. Michael Leigh says

    Presumably the international, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, OPCW team will be able to meet the current alleged Salisbury ‘ Novochik Poisoning victims ‘, and take from them blood samples, to evidence a direct connection between the victims samples and the Porton Down government samples ?

    And, if this does not happen it is to be hoped that current craven members of Parliament will immediately vote to imprison and charge Mde T May and her Government.

    Liked by 3 people

    • @Leigh. “Blood sample were taken [in Salisbury Hospital A&E] and showed no abnormalities. No patient is being treated for nerve poison” — Salisbury physician’s Letter to the Times, March 16.

      Funny how chicken images keeps popping up in my head. On the “Heading for War” thread I described the Theresa May regime as “no war, just running around like headless chickens”. Now it looks more like a Chicken Licken regime.

      Like

    • summitflyer says

      Back in the day ,not so long ago ,when the CBC had any semblance of integrity in reporting . Sad to say it no longer has.But thanks for the memories.

      Like

  17. Stephen Sivonda says

    Looking back ,at least as far as Reagan’s 2 terms and what went on during those years up to today and all the horrid things that the US has done is shocking . Of course many have gotten wealthy off of the illegal actions by our Govt. , and in turn it has cost millions of live, untold billions in destruction and many other far reaching ramifications . Now …with the ongoing targeting of Russia, Iran, Syria , North Korea and several other nations the very real possibility of a nuclear holocaust is becoming imminent . Once you step off the cliff…there is NO going back.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Mikalina says

      I am in blood/Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more,/Returning were as tedious as go o’er.

      Macbeth, Act III, Sc 4

      Like

.....................

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s