NATO’s double standard being exposed

NATO’s double standard being exposed

Don Hank

Long before Russia got involved militarily in Syria, I had read in the Greek press about the frequent invasions of Greek airspace by Turkish fighters. No international organization — not the EU, not NATO, not the US government — none of them even issued an opinion let alone a scintilla of a rebuke in Turkey’s direction. Except for Greece and Russia, the msm were mum. Then when Turkey shot down the Russian fighter over Syria and the pilot was murdered by Turkish allies on the ground, the Western allies finally issued an opinion. Obama said only that all countries have a right to defend their borders. He didn’t mention that countries who are in the same coalition on the same identical mission are not expected to shoot down each other’s planes on the grounds that these planes spent a few seconds in the other ally’s airspace. Besides, why didn’t he say that when Turkey started making regular incursions into Greek airspace? His silence was deafening.

Now Barack Obama, as president of the US, has more power over NATO than anyone alive today. So what does the Obama-led NATO say about the shootdown of the Russian jet?

Why they say that NATO-member Turkey has every right to defend its airspace but NATO-member Greece does not.

Here’s what the Greek press says:

 

http://www.takaluteraedo.gr/2015/12/blog-post_19.html

 

My translation of excerpt:

PROTOFANIS CHALLENGES NATO Secretary General:

“the Turkish violations in Greek air space are a different thing”

Commenting on the downing of the Russian aircraft in Syria, NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg reaffirmed Turkey’s right to defend its borders. However, when reminded of the violations of Greek airspace by Turkey, he stressed that these are “two completely different situations.”

Well-known CNN journalist Hala Gorani said that the NATO Secretary General has essentially “double standards” in this case and should apply the same standards to everyone, reports Russian news agency RIA Novosti.

Therefore, according to Mr. Stoltenberg, Turkey has the absolute right to defend its airspace, but Greece “may not.” In other words, one NATO country is free to violate the air borders of another, and the latter is not allowed to “respond.”

 

END EXCERPT

 

This story of the Turkish encroachments on Greek airspace is all over the Greek press. Here is another of many examples:

 

My translation of excerpt:

 

http://www.enikos.gr/international/356097,Kasoylidhs-Oi-Ellhnes-pilotoi-panta-deixnoyn-egkrateia-stis-Toyrkikes-paraviase.html

 

Kasoulides: Greeks pilots always show restraint in Turkish violations – VIDEO

During the joint press conference of Foreign Minister of Cyprus, Ioannis Kasoulides and his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, the Cypriot official was asked about the Turkish violations in Greek air space.

“I fully support the position of the Greek prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, that Greek pilots always show restraint whenever Turkish fighters invade Greek airspace, without having tragic results and hoped the Turks would show similar behavior when their own air space was violated for a few seconds”, said Ioannis Kasoulides.

 

END EXCERPT

 

This goes to show that the world is noticing the extreme hypocrisy of NATO and the West in general.

Of course, if it stopped at Greece, the hypocrites may not have much to worry about.

But the story of Erdogan as a villain is spreading around the world. A search of the German press yesterday showed that even the most popular news sites, such as Bild, were spreading Putin’s story about Turkish president Erdogan’s involvement with ISIS and how, for example, Erdogan’s son Bilal had purchased millions of dollars worth of stolen ISIS oil for resale.

This morning I saw ample coverage of the Erdogan scandal on Italian cable channel RAI. Only at the very end of this coverage did they briefly mention Turkey’s denial of the story. Italian viewers saw a Moscow war room with oversized satellite photos of the ISIS oil installations and tank trucks headed for Turkey in various directions. The presentation was done as a clear indictment, showing Erdogan as a culprit funding ISIS and offering no excuses.

No matter how hard the Madwoman of Berlin tries to persuade Europe to accept Turkey as a member of the EU, the public pressure is building and will not stop.

Thanks to Putin’s saintly restraint and his fearlessness in sharing these satellite images, Erdogan is emerging as the big loser in this propaganda war and the public is gradually siding with Putin.

 

President Hollande finally notices ISIS war

President Hollande finally notices ISIS’ war on civilization

 

By Don Hank

 

French President Hollande said after last night’s terror attacks in Paris:

“C’est un acte de guerre” commis par une “armée terroriste, Daech” — This is an act of war committed by a terrorist army, Daesh (ISIS)

Another report says: Francois Hollande [whose government, by the way, fully supports the EU’s open borders and the introduction of thousands of unvetted “refugees” from various Muslim countries that is threatening the integrity of Europe — my comment], accused ISIS of orchestrating the worst attacks in France for more than 70 years, declaring it an ‘act of war’ and vowing to ‘mercilessly’ strike back.

This is how it starts. Recall that GW Bush used the 911 attacks as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, which had not aided the perpetrators in any known way. He stood on ground zero in NY and said “the people who knocked down these buildings are going to hear from us,” thereby setting the stage for a false connection in the minds of Americans, most of whom unthinkingly supported the ensuing non-sequitur and disastrous wars, which led, incidentally, to the creation of ISIS. The 911 perpetrators had been mostly Saudi terrorists, supported by Saudi money, but the Saudis did not “hear from us” at all, did they? The State Department did not so much as breathe a hint of caution in their direction. The Saudi conspirators and perpetrators were in fact fully absolved of all blame, which was heaped instead on scapegoats, at a tragic cost of American blood, treasure and prestige.

A slick documentary was aired on French cable TV station TV5 about a month ago showing a typical work day of President François Hollande, during which he said on the phone, apparently to a cabinet member, that he still wants to remove President Bashar Assad. This was a hint for the French people and a red flag for the world.

Thus when Hollande said he would “mercilessly strike back,” we need to ask ourselves: did he mean he would strike at Assad or at the real perpetrators? We can hope that he will join the coalition of Russia and Syria to effectively strike ISIS, but his past statements and actions suggest the opposite.

Think about what Hollande said in the above-referenced documentary. There were definitely ISIS sleeper cells in France at that time, some of which later perpetrated the Paris attacks, but Hollande was blithely ignoring them in his obsession with removing Bashar al-Assad, the only man in the world who had been fighting ISIS since its inception. Instead of focusing on the obvious real enemy, Hollande was hatching plots to remove Assad, the only man truly engaging the enemy. One can assume that Hollande’s aims have not changed since then. After all, Hollande had to know all along that Daesh (ISIS) was the enemy of France and all of civilization, so last night’s statement that this is war was out of place because he had to know before the attack that every murder that Daesh had committed in Syria and Iraq for years was in fact an act of war on France and on every other country purporting to be civilized  – particularly since 100s of French fighters were mingled among ISIS fighters at the time.

Let’s put this in plain English, shall we?

By focusing on removing Assad and his loyal forces – the only effective resistance against ISIS – and by refusing to ally with Assad (despite the latter’s blemishes), Hollande  – like all Western “leaders” –  was in fact assisting ISIS from the start. So now when he says the Paris attacks are an acte de guerre – effectively declaring war on ISIS, this sounds hollow. Indeed, in view of Hollande’s past neglect of ISIS’s warlike behavior and his focus on eliminating the most effective opponents of ISIS (including Russia), François Hollande has been a de facto ally of ISIS.

Now on the US side, my wife and I were watching Fox News this morning (I never watch that channel voluntarily but wanted to be sociable) where various commentators spoke about the Paris attacks and on ISIS in Syria. One “expert” said it would now be necessary for the US to get involved because otherwise, ISIS would never be defeated. I could hardly believe it. It was as if Russia had never accomplished a thing in Syria, and yet, the Russian accomplishments were astonishing, as evidenced here, here, here and by a host of news outlets easily found by a quick search using the search terms “russian accomplishments syria isis.” By the way, as evidence of the West’s crass duplicity, while the entire Western establishment had initially insisted that Russia was only attacking the “moderates,” the downing of a Russian plane over Egypt was graphic evidence that the entire West had been lying in unison.

As shown in the last-linked commentary above, Putin did more in one month than the entire West had done in years to defeat ISIS. Thus, the entire West, including Hollande, clearly had never once intended to effectively answer ISIS’s call to war. So why the fuss now?

Despite the mountain of proof that Russia and the Syrian army have been the only effective resistance to ISIS, not one commentator on Fox this morning gave any credit whatsoever to the forces in Syria that have been shedding their blood to stop ISIS. No one mentioned Russia and their highly effective attacks which now have routed ISIS in various places (places invaded as the US government twiddled its thumbs), and of course, no one mentioned the brave Syrian army which lost a huge percentage of its troops to ISIS over the years.

No, they absurdly insisted that the demonstrably unwilling and ineffective US military leaders are the only chance we have to stop ISIS. In contrast, when my wife switched to CNN, we heard Christiane Amanpour reminding her audience that Russia had also suffered an attack by ISIS on its airliner in Egypt and had received threats of domestic attacks on its soil. So who’s fair and balanced?

All in all, it would appear as if the world is being brainwashed by the Neocons to support another military adventure in the Middle East that is doomed to fail because it is focused on eliminating the only effective forces against ISIS rather than on defeating them once and for all.

Look, let’s make it easy: If you want to eliminate a plague of rabbits, do you start out by killing all the foxes?

Based on Hollande’s clear desire to take out Assad and based on the US position on Assad, there is little hope that the world will ever see an end to Islamic terror as long as “leaders” like him are in power. Sadly, most Western leaders are clones of Hollande.

 

Strengthening the enemies

Read the article and then take the poll:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/mubarak-speaks-to-protesters-but-not-stepping-down-should-he/question-1503457/?uuid=2dc1ffe2742a4410a17379ab63e824a2

 

Strengthening the enemies

 Olavo de Carvalho

Discounting the brief interruption in the Reagan era, American foreign policy since the end of World War II can be summarized by two rules which the State Department has followed with exemplary faithfulness and consistency:

1. Trade allied dictators for enemy dictators.

2.  In so doing, trade authoritarian governments for totalitarian governments a thousand times more corrupt.

Sometimes in a direct, brutal, and overt way, sometimes in an indirect, subtle, and underhanded way, and sometimes helping those against whom they had fought until the day before, the United States replaced Chiang Kai-Shek with Mao Zedong, Fulgencio Batista with Fidel Castro, Shah Reza Pahlevi with Ayatollah Khomeini, Ngo Dinh Diem with Ho Chi Minh, and General Lon Nol with Pol Pot. In human terms, the cost of all this tinkering was no less than 80 million deaths. Because of specific differences beyond the scope of this paper I am not including in the list the fact that Americans managed to get rid of Adolf Hitler at the cost of a hundred fold increase in Josef Stalin’s power and half a century of Cold War that cost them dearly.

Now the United States is replacing an ally, Hosni Mubarak, with the superlatively hostile Muslim Brotherhood, mother of all anti-American movements in the Islamic world.

In all of these cases, the government thrown overboard was on the right, while its triumphant successor was on the left. The leftists’ international outcry against Washington’s support for right-wing dictatorships is, quite obviously a disinformation engineering job calculated to obscure the stark fact that, in terms of dictators, the communists and pro-communists have been by far the biggest recipients of American aid. Some right-wing tyrants may have been “lackeys” of the United States, as the threadbare communist rhetoric proclaims, but the left-wing ones are not lackeys: they are their protégés. If the former have to work hard to repay the aid, the latter are given everything and asked for nothing in return.

Anthony Sutton, the English economist who for decades studied the generous and never-repaid flow of American money to communist countries, summarized the subject by saying that the United States always strove to get “the best enemy money could buy.”

In one of these calamitous operations, the beneficiary himself proved somewhat shocked by the generosity bestowed on him. When Americans overthrew Ngo Din Diem, Ho Chi Minh remarked: “I cannot believe Americans are that stupid.” Diem was, after all, according to North Vietnam’s Politbureau, “the greatest force of anti-communist resistance” in the region.

In all cases, without exception, the official pretext was the promotion of democracy.

The only amazing thing in this whole sequence of events is the slowness of the population—and the deliberate refusal of the media—to realize the obstinate and patent consistency of the official anti-Americanism installed in the upper echelons of Washington. The contrast between historical reality and its public image could not be sharper. The majority of the American electorate continue to believe in the legend that its country is an imperialist power committed to valiantly defending national interests and halting the advance of communists, Islamists, and all potential enemies of America, when in fact these enemies could not survive a single day without the assistance they receive from Washington.

As early as the 1950s, an investigative committee of the House of Representatives proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the massive support that communist governments, parties, and movements had been receiving from major billion-dollar foundations—the same ones that through the Council on Foreign Relations and similar institutions have played a major role in the selection and approval of candidates for any public office in the federal upper echelons of the US. In recent decades, the volume of contributions to universal anti-Americanism has increased mightily, turning what was once the leading nation in the world into a walled-in, hated, and cowed country, fearing to take any serious initiative against its aggressors, even within its own territory. Today there are more Chinese and Russian spies in the United States than during the Cold War, while organizations that support Islamic terrorism are allowed to operate freely, and any attempt to denounce them is repelled as an intolerable sign of extremism.

American intervention in the Egyptian crisis does not deviate from the long-established course. From the outset, both the Obama administration and George Soros—one of the chief sponsors of the current president’s career—have had friendly contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood and have encouraged it to unleash a rebellion against an ally of the US government.

The likelihood that the Brotherhood, once in power, will establish a democratic, pluralistic system is so remote and contrived as was the chance that Josef Stalin might have done the same thing once he succeeded Lenin. The regime which will possibly come after Mubarak’s removal has already shown its true colors even before coming to power, by promoting the slaughter of Christians and the burning of churches. Both the American government and the entire journalistic class are well aware of this, but they refrain from drawing the most obvious and compelling conclusions from these facts. Instead they continue to present the conflict as a struggle between Egyptian idealist democrats and the evil dictator Mubarak.

For many decades the American mainstream media —starting with The New York Times and CNN—have radically abdicated their journalistic duties and become a mere instrument of social engineering. Their current mission is not to spread information, but to meticulously control its flow so as to encourage behaviors desired by the globalist establishment and to discourage inconvenient questions.

Within the American national environment, the effectiveness of this control is quite relative, because the big media in the United States are not as big as their counterpart in Brazil, and there is a vast number of independent publications and radio stations that reach at least 50 percent of the population, showing the American people all of what the global elite would like to completely black out behind a lead shield.

It so happens, however, that the non-aligned media have strictly national circulation. They do not reach other countries. In particular, they are completely unknown in Brazil. Thus, the official view, which fails to subdue the American electorate, ultimately spreads freely throughout the world, and is construed as a kind of universal consensus.

Though limited, the credibility of the official view still seems excessive to me, since this view is daily challenged by facts which never shake in the slightest the faith of the devotees. A brief historical study will suffice to show that the principles and criteria of judgment which now guide the American mainstream media are literally the same as those that Soviet propagandists tried, unsuccessfully, to impose on the American population between the 1940’s and the 1950’s. The change was profound and overwhelming. In a few decades, at least half of the American population has grown to hate what it once loved and to accuse its own country of a thousand crimes committed by external and internal enemies, and yet these Americans have no idea that they were induced into this by the action of an omnipresent and hostile foreign force. Just as communist infiltration in the Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower administrations was far greater than Joe McCarthy himself then imagined (read Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America, John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr and Alexander Vassiliev, Yale University Press, 2009), and just as the communist cultural war effort ended up dominating almost the entire education system in the United States to the extent that it merged with the local atmosphere and passed itself off as a spontaneous home-grown movement, the penetration of Islamic agents into all of the upper echelons of Washington was so quick and efficient an action that I can’t describe it here. One must read the book of P. David Gaubatz, Paul Sperry, Muslim Mafia: Inside The Secret Underworld That’s conspiring to Islamize America (WND Books, 2009), to understand how these things happen before the blind and foolish eyes of so many people.

In vain will the reader search the pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post, or the comments by CNN or MSNBC for any mention of the fact that Obama is acting, in Egypt, in favor of the largest anti-American organization in the universe. In the United States there is no official censorship, and that information, with sufficient evidence, reaches us from thousands of channels. But it does not reach the believers in the mainstream media, and above all, it does not leave American shores.

Even if the government that emerges out of Mubarak’s downfall is a coalition government, the Muslim Brotherhood will certainly play the predominant role in it, and this is the surest guarantee that the country will move towards a regime which will be at once dictatorial, murderous to Christians, and openly hostile to the state of Israel.

The Obama administration is fostering not only another anti-American dictatorship, but a war.

Olavo de Carvalho taught Political Philosophy at the Catholic University of Parana (Brazil) from 2001 to 2005 and is the author of twelve books. He is the founder of the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government and Social Thought. He now lives in the United States as a correspondent for Brazilian newspapers. Website: www.olavodecarvalho.org.

Translator: Alessandro Cota

Translation reviewer: Don Hank

Take the poll:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/mubarak-speaks-to-protesters-but-not-stepping-down-should-he/question-1503457/?uuid=2dc1ffe2742a4410a17379ab63e824a2

The Young Pay the Price for Dutch Drug Experiment

 by Don Hank

 Ever hear a liberal or libertarian say that we need to legalize “soft” drugs like cocaine and marijuana because they did this in Holland and it was wildly successful? You know: kids immediately lost interest in these drugs and stopped taking them?

 Here’s what Republican Governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico said on CNN on Feb 22, 2001: 

 “Holland has 60 percent the drug use as that of the United States by kids and adults and that’s for hard drugs and marijuana both. So if you want to look at a country that really has rational drug policy, Holland would not suggest that it would be a worse alternative than what we’ve currently got.” 

 Gary was referring to the fact that Holland had legalized soft drugs and was implying that it wouldn’t hurt American kids a bit to have these drugs available. He was apparently trying to appear “progressive.”

He was not the only one.  

The web is awash with the same kind of conclusions, drawn by liberals and libertarians, that drug use must be legalized because drug laws are antiquated and the more we enforce them, the more drugs kids will use. In fact, a quick search shows that the number of sites that agree with this hypothesis far outweighs the number that don’t [1], [2], [3]. Guess we old fogies need to stop holding up progress, then, right? 

I love it when objective information proves what people with common sense knew in the first place. On May 6, the web site for the Dutch paper Volkskrant ran an article on a group of mothers in Holland who are concerned about their kids’ drug habits. Seems drugs are out of control there. Surprise surprise! 

The writer says (my translation): 

“One out of every 20 kids has at least experimented with hard drugs such as cocaine [note that they admit this drug is not soft!] or xtc. Coke is becoming more and more popular as a starting drug. The mothers have nothing good to say about regular social services, which are usually located too far away.” 

The article ends with: 

“ ‘The problem is a major one and is prevalent everywhere’ says Bak [one of the moms interviewed]. She gets calls from mothers from all over the region with the same stories. Kids of 12 or 13 who deceive their own parents. School kids tell her that the lockers at the high schools are sold to dealers so that they can deal from them.”  

Notice that it seems not to have occurred to any of the mothers to call for making these drugs illegal. They only call for help from mothers themselves tackling the problem. You see: banning drugs is now a dead issue in that part of Europe (and may soon be in other parts as well). There can be no reasonable discussion of legalization of soft drugs. That is “settled law.”

Does this sound like the “enlightened” Europeans are years ahead of us? More progressive? Just remove the barriers and kids will follow their good instincts? Kids only do things that are forbidden, and since cocaine isn’t forbidden in Holland any more, kids will stop taking it, right? 

Christians know that man is born in sin. He does not have the sweet nature that European philosophers believe he does. In “L’éducation d’Emile,” Jean Jacques Rousseau recommends letting kids do whatever they want to when they are very young. For example, he says that it is foolish to tell a child not to break a window. The child should be allowed to break one so that he can see that breaking windows is not a good thing.  

Today’s Europe is proof enough that trusting in human nature simply doesn’t work. And that whenever people try social experiments, it is the young who pay the heaviest price. 

 Truly it can be said of Europe: eyes they have but they do not see (Psalms 115: 5).