What you “know” about Aleppo is not true

Aleppo war hypocrisy uncovered

translation and commentary by Don Hank

Featured below is my translation of an article on the site of Movimento 5 Stelle (m5s), an increasingly popular anti-Establishment party which, if it comes to power in the vacuum created by Prime Minister Renzi’s resignation, is likely to take Italy out of the euro. Unlike the UK, whose leaders tenaciously still cling to the EU following the Brexit, Italy’s exit from the euro could be more brusque and throw the EU into a tailspin. Of the major anti-elite parties in the EU core countries, m5s is the boldest, most astute and most brutally honest in its critical analysis of western military and foreign policy. The article below should be book-marked for reference because it lists casualty estimates for the “good” war in Mosul and the “bad” war in Aleppo and shows that the numbers of civilians killed in US-waged wars and the Israeli conflicts with Palestine are extremely high, making Western criticism of Russia and the Syrian government look hypocritical. The article does not list the casualties in Aleppo simply because we hear or read about these every day thanks to the media dutiful reporting them in a tone clearly condemnatory of Russia (and Assad), as if only Russian wars entailed collateral damage.  This article sets the record straight, highlighting the rank hypocrisy of the US and allies.

I took the trouble to investigate independently the casualty statistics listed by Fulvio Scaglione in his article below. Here are links to 3 months of UN figures cited:

http://www.iraqinews.com/features/unami-announces-death-toll-iraq-september/

http://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/un-casualty-figures-iraq-month-october-2016-enar

http://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/un-casualty-figures-iraq-month-october-2016-enar

Not all of the deaths can be attributed directly to US intervention. However, ISIS and its opponents killed a very large number of people as a result of the Obama administration’s refusal to prevent ISIS from entering the towns and cities. He did, however, provide arms to “moderate” terrorists in Syria.

While many conservatives take a dim view of the UN, this organization is the only one providing data of t his kind. Without the UN, the world would be reliant mostly on biased data from outlets loyal to the US government that caused  much of the suffering.

Sadly, from my personal association with prominent and less prominent Brexit activists I have seen that only a minority of them understand that declaring their independence from the EU is only half the battle. They seem unaware that the real enemies are the US and NATO, which constantly beat the war drums against Russia and Assad, despite their own illegal and failed invasions in the Middle East, Ukraine and Kosovo, which leave the world infinitely less safe than before their interventions.

I receive alerts from the main anti-EU parties and after reading their literature, for years in some cases, I would rank them as follows in terms of their grasp of the geopolitical reality, particularly regarding US-waged wars. From most aware to least aware, they are:

Movimento 5 Stelle (m5s) (founded by Beppe Grillo. they will field a candidate for prime minister)

Front National  (founded by Marine LePen, who is eyeing a run for president of France)

Partij voor de Vrijhijd /Freedom Party (founded by Geert Wilders, who is eying a run for prime minister of Holland)

I am not including UKIP (UK Independent Party) in this list because Brits are split on their feelings toward the Atlanticist Establishment; while UKIP was instrumental in bringing about the exit of the UK from the EU, they were only one of several influential groups in that endeavor.   I would put Nigel Farage personally high on the list, because he is in line with Donald Trump – willing to deal with, rather than demonize, the Russians and Syrians. He has in fact traveled to the US to endorse Trump. However, the Brexit groups are divided with regard to remaining in NATO. Some think NATO is necessary for “defence,” despite the fact that all of NATO’s actions in recent years have been offensive and have violated international law regarding sovereignty of states. I also am not including the AfD because there is, at this point, virtually no chance that Germany will exit the EU any time soon.

 

http://www.beppegrillo.it/2016/12/la_guerra_di_aleppo_non_e_solo_come_ve_la_raccontano.html

What they’re not telling you about the war in Aleppo

Movimento 5 Stelle /5 Star Movement   The blog of the stars

by Fulvio Scaglione for TPI

The battle of Aleppo, with the bloodshed of recent days and the terrible years that preceded them, marked among other things the collapse of the Western information system , which is almost indistinguishable from partisan propaganda at this point. Everything in the Western narrative about Aleppo smacks of fraud and deceit. Since the publication of unfiltered and unverified data provided by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, founded and headed by an adversary of Bashar al-Assad and maintained by the British government, the word “siege” has been applied liberally for Aleppo but only in recent months, and never in the over three years that the city was attacked from three sides by rebels and jihadis, who came to occupy 60 percent of the urban territory.

But in a way, these are small details. The real issue is the refusal to confront a reality which can be summarized as: what happened in Aleppo in recent weeks is not at all exceptional. On the contrary, it is the norm of contemporary war. Don’t believe us? Then let’s have a look around. Take Mosul, the largest Iraqi city, which has been occupied by ISIS for two and a half years.

In mid-October the offensive to free it from the jihadists got underway (finally). Great fanfare, triumphant tones, exultation for civilians who “were being freed” from areas previously under the control of militants (while civilians in Aleppo who come from the neighborhoods dominated by al-Nusra Front, are not liberated but rather “escape”). Now, two months later, everything has come to a standstill and no one is talking about liberating Mosul. Not only that, the offensive by Americans, Kurds and Iraqis has been halted to such an extent that ISIS has removed 4-5 thousand fighters from the Iraqi front and sent them to retake Palmyra in Syria. Why?

The answer is very simple. The two and a half years of grueling bombing campaign gave ISIS plenty of time to organize the defenses in the city. The roads were mined or boarded up or replaced by galleries known only to the militia fighters. Some buildings were demolished to clear lines of fire; elsewhere walls were built to block the lines of fire and passage of the attackers. Finally, thousands of civilians were trapped to be used as human shields.

To be “liberated” Mosul will have to become another Aleppo: the bombings, civilian casualties, children torn apart by the strikes, and so on. There is an alternative, namely, house to house combat with hundreds and hundreds of dead Iraqis and Kurds — which has already been going on, even if military operations are almost at a standstill.

The UN Mission for assistance to Iraq (UNAMI), directed by Jan Kubis, former Foreign Minister of Slovakia (2006-2009), has made available mind-boggling data on the number of Iraqi deaths, civilian and other, of the last few months. In September, ie before the offensive on Mosul, the number of Iraqi civilians killed was 609 (951 injured); the number rose to 1,120 (with 1,005 injured) in October and to 926 (930 injured) in November.

As for the military and other combatants, the figures are: 394 killed (208 injured) in September, 672 killed (353 injured) in October, 1959 killed (and 450 injured) in November. Result? Everything blocked, meaning further suffering for imprisoned civilians in Mosul and more time for ISIS to continue building up.

Of course, nouveaux philosophes [a group similar to the Neocons in the US—Don Hank] and other clowns can harp on atrocities and human rights violations in Aleppo. But they are nothing but hypocrites. In 2004, the US Army fought two battles to “liberate” the Iraqi city of Fallujah, in fact occupied by the militants of al-Qaeda, the forerunners of the militants of al-Nusra, which play such an important role in the battle of Aleppo.

According to the independent NGO Iraq Body Count, between 572 and 616 civilians died in the first battle (April 2004); between 581 and 670 died in the second (November 2004) battle. The Americans used phosphorus arms and apparently depleted uranium. Have you ever heard of any new philosophers rending their garments over this? Do you recall Corriere de Sera [an establishment newspaper–Don] ever mentioning “slaughterhouse” in headlines about Fallujah, as it did referring to Aleppo?

 

And what about Gaza? According to the most conservative data, which are those published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, only 45 percent of the 2,100 Palestinians killed in the Gaza Strip during the 2014 war were real civilians and non-combatants. That’s still 945 unarmed people killed in two months of clashes.

Thus it was the very countries that now cry foul over the Aleppo operations, that block motions censure Israel at the UN.  And isn’t Gaza a perfect copy of the eastern districts of Aleppo, attacked with bombs by the Russians and by Assad’s Syrians?

And yet UNICEF has informed us that in the first six months of 2016, Afghanistan had a record number of civilian casualties: 1,601 dead and 3,565 wounded. The worst half-year since the anti-Taliban invasion in 2001. According to UN estimates, 60 percent of Afghan civilians are vulnerable to attack by the Taliban and other insurgent groups and criminals.

But 40 percent of 1,601 deaths is still 640 deaths, or 640 innocent Afghans killed in six months (more than 3 per day) by troops arriving from our countries, that is, by those who are supposed to be protecting and “liberating” them. But everyone is silent; these dead do not deserve the indignation reserved for the dead of eastern  Aleppo.

Thus the war of our times is utterly disgusting. Those who pretend to believe that in Chechnya and Aleppo different things were done than elsewhere, for example in Fallujah or Gaza, are quite simply lying. All of today’s wars are fought on the backs of civilians. All of them.

And in all wars, the armed men, with or without uniforms, are, at the most, collateral victims. Politicians, military people and terrorists know this quite well. So the real issue is to avoid wars as much as possible, not to pretend that there are good wars and bad wars.

(translation from the Italian by Don Hank)

 

The US loses another battle for hearts and minds

The US loses another battle for hearts and minds

 

by Don Hank

I never see in the media or the political world any connecting of the dots with regard to the US’s loss of prestige, and yet the ground is giving way under our very feet even as we party on into oblivion. It seems incredible to me that almost no one notices this geopolitical tectonic shift. Much of the US’s lost prestige and respect is due to Obama’s heavy handedness but after all, the US has been busy creating disasters for years — particularly military ones — that erode the trust our partners have invested in us. We will not recover this trust easily or quickly — perhaps not in any of our lifetimes.

I have been tracking this phenomenon roughly since my report on the total blackout regarding the major dedollarization effort by the Eurasians, as reported here: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/141009

The next major shift was marked by RMB clearing centers being built all over the world, and most notably in Europe, as reported here: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/141219

This got very few comments and I did  not see any indication that the rest of the Western press — including the alternative media — noticed or cared.

This was followed not long thereafter by the accession of almost all US allies to the Chinese investment bank AIIB, as reported here: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/150319 in another attempted wake-up call that went unnoticed.

These were followed by low-key statements by European leaders indicating that European “alllies” were no longer willing to bow to the Washington hegemon. These included statements by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the most powerful national leader in Europe and no less than Jean-Claude Juncker, the head of the EU Commission, the most powerful man in Europe, as reported here: http://laiglesforum.com/game-over-for-obama-power-in-the-world/3523.htm

These statements showed that Europe’s allegiance was gradually turning from the US to Russia. NATO’s allegiance could no longer be taken for granted.

Now still another sign appears that Europe is ready to ditch its allegiance to the tyrant in DC. The EU Parliament has recently issued a statement in support of Edward Snowden, signaling that he could soon be welcomed in the EU despite all the accusations against him by US Neocons, whom Paul Craig Roberts aptly calls “inhuman filth” because of their interventions that sow chaos everywhere.

See:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20151022IPR98818/html/Mass-surveillance-EU-citizens%27-rights-still-in-danger-says-Parliament

Folks, please to not underestimate the importance of each of these small shots across the bow of the DC tyrant. They are all clear signals that the rest of the world is no longer willing to be pushed around by a government that:

1–Intentionally harmed the world economy with its subprime mortgages packaged and sold around the world under the watchless gaze of US agencies tasked with preventing such disasters

2–Intentionally threw the Middle East into near-total chaos with disastrous military interventions starting with Iraq.

The tyrant in Washington has been identified and is targeted for at least a major comeuppance that will definitely be felt as the US government falls into a deep isolation of its own making.

I fear the best we can hope for is lenience.

I will be updating this column from time to time because it is impossible to keep up with all the geopolitical shifts showing how the US is receiving rejection slips from the rest of the world:

Shift 11/3/2015:

 

Just today I saw an article in El País with an interview with Ban Ki-Moon, where he says (my translation):

“The future of president Assad must be decided by the Syrian people.”

That statement sounds innocuous to the uninitiated but it is in facta block buster because it is in fact a low-key challenge to the Washington policy that Assad must go no matter what the Syrians want, based on the highly dubious notion that the US is entitled to define morality and enforce it. It is also a perfect reflection of what Russia has been saying all long in favor of respecting national sovereignties and it flies in the face of Washington’s untenable position that the US should decide the fate of the Syrians. Washington in so doing fully intends to trample on the sovereignty of the Syrian people (just as it tramples on its own people), who have already suffered much. If anyone deserves to decide the fate of their president it is they.

Here, Ban Ki-Moon joins the swelling ranks of high level officials who cautiously oppose US policy and agree with Russia.

Shift 11/3/2015

Iraq has now effectively excluded the US from participation in military operations in that country against ISIS. Ater seeing the remarkable successes of Russia’s airstrikes in Syria, it realized only Russia will provide honest, sincere assistance in defeating ISIS in Iraq.

High noon in Syria

High noon in Syria

by Don Hank

Fox News is between a rock and a hard place. They have always generally been anti-Putin because they have a lot of Neocon supporters. But now Putin has scored big at the UN. Even the British PM is cautiously inching over to his side and Merkel stated last week that she thinks Assad must be included in negotiations over the fate of Syria. Most European countries are taking a wait and see position and will bolt the US monopoly if such is appropriate. Putin has a plan and clearly wants to stop ISIS. Obama sorta has a, well, you know, maybe a plan or something and has been pretending to fight ISIS for years now. Judging by his actions, his plan is to lose the war on ISIS and allow them to romp freely, slicing throats to their hearts content until Assad – the only leader who has been sincerely fighting ISIS for 4.5 years – is gone. While Obama’s position is incomprehensible and confusing, Putin’s position is clear and easily understood. One could articulate it in part as follows:

Syrian Christians overwhelmingly support Assad because they know that if he leaves power, their life expectancy is considerably shorter.

Assad is not a dictator (though Fox still calls him that in the article below). He was duly elected (unlike the Saudis whom we support – NO Neocon voices are calling for the unelected dictator king to step down. How phony and hypocritical can you get?)

Since the popular Assad is still the president, anyone entering Syria without his permission – including the US military in its pretend fight against ISIS – is there illegally per international law. Putin and his coalition have been invited by the Syrian people via their elected leader to fight ISIS and are there legally and legitimately.

In a court of law, no fair-minded judge would hand a victory to the US or find against Putin, but the US, as the “exceptional” and “indispensable” world manipulator, has in the past bought all the judges so to speak. That is changing. I had pointed out before that the accession of almost all US allies to the AIIB was a signal that the hegemon has lost his support in the world community. And without that, he cannot stand. I had also pointed out that Russia is now selling oil to China for yuan (RMB) as part of a larger campaign to dedollarize world trade. The less the USD is used in international transactions, the less it is worth internationally, as one can deduce from my commentary and translation here. Dollar hegemony (which gives the US government and FRB the extravagant ability to print unlimited dollars for its military adventures) is being fought successfully, a step at a time. We are witnessing the changing of the guard. The good news is that, as I pointed out here, the Eurasianism of Putin, China, the BRICS and other Eurasian partners strictly pursues the multipolar principle whereby there shall not be a hegemon. (BTW, if the countries that joined the AIIB had had any reason whatsoever to believe that the AIIB would enable a hegemon – world dictator in the image of the US – to emerge, they would not have rushed en masse to join it and turn their backs on the US-led World Bank and IMF).

I have added comments to the biased Fox report below.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/09/30/boots-on-ground-russian-lawmakers-back-putin-sending-troops-to-syria/

Russia launches airstrikes in northern Syria, senior military official says

Published September 30, 2015

FoxNews.com

 

EXCLUSIVE: Russian warplanes have begun bombarding Syrian opposition [FOX USES THE WORD “OPPOSITION” TO SUGGEST TO UNWARY READERS THAT THESE ARE GOOD FOLKS WHO RECEIVED ARMS FROM THE US TO FIGHT A DICTATOR. HOWEVER, THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN TERRORISTS AND “OPPOSITION” HAS LONG BEEN BLURRED. IT IS COMMONLY KNOWN THAT THE US GOVERNMENT ROUTINELY GIVES ARMS TO ANYONE FIGHTING ASSAD AND THESE PEOPLE THEN ROUTINELY TURN AROUND AND JOIN ISIS OR ANOTHER TERROR ORGANIZATION–DON] targets in the war torn nation’s north, working on behalf of dictator [NEOCON FOX IS OBLIGED TO PRETENT THAT ASSAD IS A DICTATOR BECAUSE THEY ARE BEHOLDEN TO THEIR RICH SUPPORTERS TO KEEP UP THIS CHARADE. BUT AS I POINTED OUT ABOVE, ASSAD IS NOT ONLY POPULAR, HE IS DULY ELECTED. THE WEST HAS CONDEMNED HIM FOR KILLING PEOPLE, BUT THE WEST KILLS ALL THE PEOPLE IT WANTS, INTERFERES IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF NATIONS, STARTS AND FUNDS COLOR REVOLUTIONS AND ARAB SPRING-LIKE UPRISINGS AND IN SO DOING PLUNGES NATION AFTER NATION INTO ANARCHY, CREATIG A VACUUM THAT IS PREDICTABLY FILLED BY ISLAMIC TERRORISTS, TRIGGERING A MASS MIGRATION THAT IS OUT OF CONTROL. THE KEY US ALLY IN THE MIDDLE EAST IS A TRUE DICTATOR, THE SAUDI KING WHO IS UNELECTED. THERE IS NO GREATER HYPOCRISY THAN FOX CALLING ASSAD A DICTATOR WHILE GIVING THE SAUDI ROYALS A PASS—DON HANK] Bashar al Assad, according to a senior military official.

The official said airstrikes targeted fighters in the vicinity of Homs, located roughly 60 miles east of a Russian naval facility in Tartus, and were carried out by a “couple” of Russian bombers. It was not clear if the strikes targeted ISIS, Al Qaeda or other forces opposed to Assad, who Moscow is aiding [ANOTHER DECEITFUL SUGGESTION THAT PUTIN IS KILLING US APPROVED FORCES OPPOSED TO ASSAD, ALTHOUGH OBAMA HAS ADMITTED HIS ADMINISTRATION HAD ONLY MANAGED TO TRAIN A HANDFUL AT A PRICE OF SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS PER CAPITA AND THAT THESE MEN HAD MOSTLY DISAPPEARED].  According to a Twitter handle belonging to the Syrian government, the Russian strikes were initiated at the request of Assad. [AGAIN, AS I POINTED OUT ABOVE, THE FACT THAT THE OFFICIAL DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF SYRIA GAVE THE RUSSIANS PERMISSION TO BE THERE SHOWS THAT NO INTERNATIONAL LAWS OR TREATIES HAVE BEEN VIOLATED BY PUTIN, WHO, AS A EURASIAN (AS EXPLAINED here), ADHERES TO THE PRINCIPLE OF HONORING NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTIES—SOMETHING THE US HAS NOT DONE FOR OVER A HALF-CENTURY, FALSELY TELLING ITS PEOPLE THAT IT HAS EVERY RIGHT TO INTERFERE IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF ANY NATION IT DISAGREES WITH. BY REPORTING THIS, FOX IS ALSO UNWITTINGLY HIGHLIGHTING THE FACT THAT THE US AND ITS ALLIES IN SYRIA ARE THERE ILLEGALLY AND AGAINST THE WILL OF THE SYRIAN PEOPLE. FOX, OF COURSE, WANTS US TO THINK RUSSIA IS THE VIOLATOR HERE BUT JUST THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE. THE CASE IS CLEAR CUT AND ONLY THE BRAIN DEAD COULD FAIL TO SEE WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING—DON]

The development came after Pentagon officials brushed aside an official request from Russia to clear air space over northern Syria, where Moscow intends to conduct airstrikes against ISIS on behalf of Syrian dictator [NO, FOX. HE IS NOT A DICTATOR, AS I HAVE SHOWN ABOVE. THE SAUDI KING IS INDEED A DICTATOR (WHO RECENTLY BOMBED A WEDDING PARTY AND KILLED DOZENS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE) BUT YOU WOULD NEVER CALL HIM THAT. WHY? —DON] Bashar al-Assad, according to sources who spoke to Fox News.

The request was made by a Russian three-star general who spoke with U.S. officials at the American embassy in Baghdad, sources said. The general, who was not identified, used the word “please” when delivering the verbal request, known as a “demarche,” according to the written transcript of the exchange.

“If you have forces in the area we request they leave,” the general said.

A senior Pentagon official said the U.S., which has also been conducting air strikes against ISIS, but does not support Assad, said the request was not honored.

[SO IF THE US ENTERS SYRIA IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND IS FIRED UPON BY A NATION THAT IS THERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW, THEN THE US HAS NO MORAL RIGHT OR AUTHORITY TO COMPLAIN ABOUT ANY DAMAGE IT SUFFERS AS A RESULT OF THIS TRESPASSING. (THE PENTAGON MUST ALSO EXPLAIN WHY IT ENDANGERED ITS PERSONNEL BY FORCING THEM TO ENTER TERRITORY ILLEGALLY). THE US HAS BEEN IGNORING INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR DECADES AND GETTING AWAY WITH IT BECAUSE IT WAS CLEARLY THE STRONGEST NATION. BUT NOW WE HAVE A COALITION OF RUSSIA WITH CHINA (THE LATTER MAY OR MAY NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE RUSSIAN LED COALITION). TOGETHER IT IS LIKELY THAT THEIR POWER IS GREATER THAN THAT OF THE US. FURTHER, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, OUR ALLIES ARE NO LONGER SOLIDLY BEHIND US. THIS CONFRONTATION BETWEEN THE US IN ITS ROLE AS A VIOLATOR OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND RUSSIA IN ITS ROLE OF THE PARTY REQUESTED BY THE SYRIAN PEOPLE TO ENTER SYRIA, HAS THE POTENTIAL TO SMASH WHAT IS LEFT OF US PRESTIGE AND POWER. IT DIDN’T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY BUT A COALITION OF THE TWO MAIN POLITICAL PARTIES RELENTLESSLY AND RECKLESSLY PURSUING INEXPLICABLE NEOCON POLICIES (WITH THE TACIT PERMISSION OF A BRAINWASHED PUBLIC THAT HAS BEEN TAUGHT TO FOLLOW THE LEADER AND NOT TO THINK FOR ITSELF) CAN’T BE EXPECTED TO WIN FRIENDS OR WARS. WE CAN ONLY HOPE AND PRAY THAT THE ABOVE-CITED PENTAGON OFFICIAL IS BLUFFING – DON]

 

SOVEREIGNTY: BACK TO WESTPHALIAN PRINCIPLES

 

BACK TO WESTPHALIAN PRINCIPLES

By Bernard CHALUMEAU

The treaties of Westphalia and the genesis of International law.

 

Like all French school children, we are aware that the Treaties of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War, which began with the defenestration of Prague in 1618, giving France the Three Bishopricks of Metz, Toul and Verdun  of the Holy Roman Empire.

However, let us take a closer look because there was much more to it than this:

These treaties are constituted of several agreements signed between the parties to the various conflicts:

– On January 30th, 1648, in Münster, the treaty between Spain and the United Provinces ended the war of Eighty Years.

– On October the 24th, in Münster, the treaty between France and the Holy Roman Empire ended the Thirty Years War, to which was added an act by which the Holy Empire gave to France the three Bishopricks of Alsace, Brisach and Pignerol, and another by which Emperor Ferdinand III, the archdukes of Austria, Charles, Ferdinand and Sigismund gave Alsace to France.

– On October 24, in Osnabrück, it also ended the 30 Years War.

-On July 2,1650, in Nuremberg, the two agreements between the Holy Empire and France and between the Holy Empire and Sweden relating to the enforcement of the peace.

These treaties were the bases for the organization of Germany up to the end of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806.

Unfortunately, most school texts fail to indicate that the principles of international law were born on the date these important treaties were signed.

The object of this article is not to describe the very complex progress of the Thirty Years War (1618-1848) where many conflicts pitted the Hapsburg of Spain and the Holy German Empire, supported by the Roman Catholic Church, against the Protestant German States of the Holy Empire allied with the nearby European powers with Protestant majorities, United Provinces and Scandinavian countries, as well as France, which intended to reduce the power of the Hapsburgs on the European continent.

However, one must bear in mind that it was the most dreadful slaughter of the entire 17th century, which killed several million men, women and children.

Since the demography of Europe was seriously affected, the belligerents thus looked for ways and means to avoid a recurrence of such horrific massacres.

The negotiations of these treaties lasted a long time (from 1644 till 1648), because it was necessary to establish new modes of relations between States with a view to limiting wars and to strengthen “the law of nations.”

In his work “The six books of the Republic”, published in 1576, the famous French lawyer Jean BODIN (1529-1596), had published his thoughts on public law, “res publica,” and on the powers of the king, as the first legal principles of sovereignty: “Sovereignty is the absolute  and perpetual power of the State, which is the greatest power to command. The State in the person of the monarch is supreme inside its territories, independent of any high authority, and legally equal to the other States”

Further, the Dutchman Hugo Grotius published in 1623 a work entitled “De Jure Belli et Pacis,” which proposed the establishment of a “mutual association” between nations, that is to say an international organization, thereby laying the groundwork for a code of public international law. Their ideas were intended to guide the negotiators of these treaties in establishing what has conventionally been called since that time “the Westphalian system” as a guideline for the concept of modern international relations.

– The balance of powers, meaning that any State, large or small, has the same importance on the international scene (For example, see the Article CXXII of the Münster Treaty in Old French below)

– The inviolability of national sovereign power (See article CXII of the Treaty below).

– The principle of non-intervention in the affairs of others (see article LXIV of the Treaty below).

Since the treaties of Wesphalia, a new actor succeeds the division of the power between villages, duchies and counties, namely, the modern State.  The world is organized with States whose sovereignty must be respected by the bordering states by virtue of the Westphalian concept of the border. International relations become interstate and the respected borders guarantee the peace.

These treaties proclaim the absolute sovereignty of the State as the fundamental principle of international law.

Europe becomes a set of States, having precise borders, recognized by others, in which the prince or monarch exercises his full and complete sovereignty. The characteristics of these modern States include the constitution of permanent armies and the expression by the elites of the fact of national existence. In these States, language appears as a factor of unity.

The Westphalian principles subsequently contributed to the emergence of the idea of the Nation States in the 19th century, as well as the principle of nationalities, where every National State enjoys, within its own borders, complete independence, being provided with the highest possible form of sovereign power with its own army, its own currency, its justice system, its police and an economy, allowing it to live as independently as possible of the other States.

Later the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, signed on December 26th 1933, would add four essential elements:

 

“To be sovereign, a State must have :

–          a permanent population.

–          a defined territory.

–          an operational government.

–          the capacity to enter directly in relation with other states.” 

 

It added a fundamental clause:

The political existence of a state is independent of its recognition by other states.

The United Nations, undoubtedly horrified by this measure, which it considered too Westphalian for its taste — since it paved the way for the emergence of multiple large or small States — then hurried to add notions of “internal sovereignty” and “external sovereignty,” so that, to be sovereign, States must have, in addition to their capacity to exercise their power over the population inside their territory without any outside constraint, the need to be recognized as sovereign States by the other States of the international system.

 

The law of nations (Jus gentium ) or public international law:

Established under the Treaties of Westphalia, this law governs the relations between the subjects of this legal system, which are States and international organizations.

A subject of international law must comply with this law and must be able to benefit from it. In the beginning, the State was the only subject of international law. But this concept became obsolete, because, after1815, the States found it necessary to join together in international organizations, gradually acquiring the status of legal subjects. Thus, the United Nations became, like the EU and other international organizations, subjects of derived law (generally referred to in American English as case law).

Introduction of the right of intervention in international relations:

Unfortunately, since the end of World War II, the increase in the number of treaties between States of the western world tended to suppress Westphalian principles by considerably developing their military, economic and financial interdependence.

At the end of the Cold War, the United States of America, an enormous consumer of energy and raw materials, desiring to extend its hegemony throughout the planet and to get energy and raw material at the lowest possible prices, noticed that the Westphalian ban on intervention in other States thwarted its designs.

The United States of America felt obliged to find a way to by-pass Paragraph 7 of Article 2 of the UN Charter, which stated:

“Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State,” summing up the very Westphalian-sounding article 8 of the Agreement of Montevideo, which banned intervention in the internal affairs of a State.

Based on the ideas of persons such as the philosopher Jean-François Revel in 1979 and of Bernard Kouchner, a new “right” called the “right of intervention,” was concocted, i.e., the recognition of a right of one or more States to violate the sovereignty of another State, within the framework of a mandate granted by a supranational authority.

It was a wondrous invention which allowed:

–          to abolish Westphalian principles,

–          to add the notion of supranationality,

–          to intervene on the territory of any State even against the will of that State,

–          to establish world governance under the aegis of ad hoc international organizations,

–          to subjugate the weakest States to one or more stronger States,

–          to establish the hegemony of the US government.

The precious Westphalian principles were thereby overturned and the whole world returned essentially to the monstrous situation of the Thirty Years War.

The desired ad hoc international organization in the hands of United States of America was found, namely, the UN. All that was needed was the pretexts for war.

No problem:

– The US oligarchy rushes to the target State to be destabilized, a CIA team, which will increasingly include, or be supplanted by, a Soros foundation, USAID or the like, providing camouflage in the form of “private” intervention.

– This team, relying on existing opposition or opposition to be created from whole cloth in the current regime, develops a “National Liberation Front” or the equivalent thereof.

– It equips it with the necessary weapons and bolsters it with troops, usually drawn from the Islamic sphere of influence.

– Thanks to mass media under its control, it floods public opinion with information and images, often doctored, that overwhelm the government in power.

– All that remains is for the UN to pass a “resolution” allowing the armed forces of several States, mainly of the EU and the US, to come to the aid of the young “National Liberation Front” and oust the current regime.

This system worked very well for the interventions in Romania, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Darfur, Ivory Coast, Libya, Syria, Nigeria, Ukraine, etc., spreading war throughout the planet.

The right of the bankers replaces the right of the people :

Thanks to the “legality” of the UN ad hoc resolution, the armed forces deployed in the target State destroy a maximum of infrastructure, such as power plants, factories, bridges, roads, railways, airports, runways, and so on…

Thus, when the target State is “pacified,” American companies share in the juicy reconstruction contracts. The new leader of the regime, set up by the “liberators,” is very helpful in awarding these contracts to said companies. At that point, the target State, its population and resources are under the control of the US oligarchs.

These operations are managed behind the scenes by bankers, generally US bankers. The bankers finance both belligerent parties, enjoining the winner to honor the loser’s debts. They finance the military-industrial lobbies committed in the conflict and manage the process in such a way that it is drawn out as long as possible.

So, the bankers win every time!

The superiority of the right of the bankers over the right of the people was established in Europe by the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 by the introduction of a single currency, the “euro,” controlled by the European Central Bank, completely independently of the Member States’ governments under Article 108 of that treaty.

ARTICLE 108

 

When exercising the powers and carrying out the tasks and duties conferred upon them by this Treaty and the Statute of the ESCB, neither the ECB, nor a national central bank, nor any member of their decision-making bodies shall seek or take instructions from Community institutions or bodies, governments of the Member State or from any other body.”

All European treaties since then have reinforced those provisions, resulting in an impoverishment of populations subject to this single currency and complete submission to a new slavery for the benefit of bankers.

It is no longer states that control the banks, but the banks that control the states.

Evidence of this is on flagrant display throughout the world, notably in Cyprus where depositors were ruined by bankers with the support of the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission in Brussels and the Central Bank of the EU.

 

The objective of Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty, expressed below:

 

“Let me produce and control the issue of currency of a state, and I do not care who can make laws”

 

has been achieved!

Having succeeded in removing Westphalian principles from international law, the bankers rule the planet, start wars wherever and whenever they want and enslave the people of the world.

Conlusion:

The Westphalian system described herein clearly shows that whoever advocates it, in France or elsewhere, i.e., patriots and the sovereignists, are peace activists! They are the future of nations. That is why the banker-controlled mass media are bent on either contradicting them with outright lies, or silencing them.

To secure peace in the world, Wesphalian principles must be restored!

History in fact shows that, as long as these principles were respected, the world (ie, Europe initially and then throughout the world from the 19th century onward) experienced overall stability, but when they were abandoned by a State or group of States, horrific conflict occurred again.

Many historians believe that the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 was responsible for World War II by violating Westphalian principles, substituting a collective security.

That is why I urge all patriots and French sovereigntists, particularly French youth, to enter into Resistance.

I invite them to partner with the youth of Europe and the rest of the world to fight by all possible means to restore Westphalian principles everywhere based on respect for the inalienable sovereignty and independence of States.

There is not only an absolute necessity to recover their freedom, their way of life, the kind of society they want to live in to escape this new slavery, but also and above all, the need to preserve their property, their lives and those of their descendants, who are, as we can see today, physically threatened.

As for me, I remain at their disposal to help them while strength and breath shall last.

French patriots!

The wind of hope is rising! It is bringing back our France! It is bringing back our freedom!

Bernard CHALUMEAU

Translation by Bernard Chalumeau, translation editing by Don Hank

Massive oil reserves found in ND / Moral case for Iraq / Homosexuality 101

A Moral Case for Overthrowing Saddam

By PVBLIUS

America had a moral imperative to overthrow Saddam that had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps you may remember that in 1991, President Bush encouraged the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam Hussein, but promptly abandoned them and the Iraqi people were left again under Hussein’s rule, but this time with the sanctions applied against Iraq as punishment (see http://puk.org/web/htm/news/nws/news030412e.html for more details). The moral toll of our abandonment of the Iraqis is bad enough; but add to that the responsibility for the number of children (and adults) who died in Iraq under the sanctions who would not have died if we had kept our commitment at the time. A reasonable estimate of the number of children who died as a result of the Oil for Food sanctions is 350,000, and so it can be seen that a simple act of abandonment and political expediency by Bush Sr. had terrible results. As a nation, we followed Bush Sr. and abandoned the Iraqi people even though they heeded our push for uprising, and so the results and responsibility are ours.

Such wrongs require restitution, and simply the best way to do so has been to finally keep our previously neglected commitment to aid the Iraqi people in being free from Saddam. Some have argued that 4000 soldiers dead is a heavy toll , or the civilian dead is a heavy toll, or that we should be entitled to the Iraqi oil in payment for the Iraqi people’s freedom, but such ideas neglect the fact that we have the blood of many Iraqis on our heads. The soldiers who died did not die in vain, as those opposed to the war in Iraq claim – they died honorably by helping our nation to pay a long overdue debt to the Iraqi people.

Anticipating Reasons for Disagreement

Some may claim that 350,000 children couldn’t have died under UN sanctions. While the exact number of dead is not known, a number of estimates have been made on the number of dead children resulting from the Oil for Food embargo. The numbers range from over a million, to as low as 350,000. The 350,000 is considered a conservative and realistic number, and is still quite large (and does not include adults!). For an extensive evaluation of the estimates of childhood deaths, see http://www.reason.com/news/show/28346.html.

Others may say we are not responsible as a nation, and therefore the deposing of Saddam and the Iraq War were not justified. At a simple level, to deny our responsibility as a nation is akin to someone who fathers a child but refuses to acknowledge any responsibility for that child. Did our nation make a commitment to the Iraqi people it hadn’t kept? Did the Iraqi people rise up in good faith, expecting us to keep our commitment? Did an embargo get placed upon Iraq because we failed to help the Iraqis get rid of Saddam? Did the embargo result in the death of many people? If the rhetorical questions are not sufficient to establish our responsibility, consider the Biblical case of Saul, David, and the Gibeonites as reported in 2 Samuel 21.

The Gibeonites were a nation of Hivites that feared the oncoming Israelites and tricked the Israelites into making a covenant for safety. The covenant could be argued to be illegal as the Israelites were not to make a covenant with any of the peoples in Canaan, but to drive them out. However, they were expected by God to keep their commitment once it had been made. Likewise, our leader made a commitment to the Iraqi people, and God expected us to keep it, even if the circumstances around it are not in keeping with our law or government structures.

You may say: “Ah, but two wrongs don’t make a right. We shouldn’t have gone to Iraq without declaring War, and therefore we should leave as quickly as possible.” Again, consider the actions of David with the Gibeonites. Hundreds of years after the covenant was made, David was told by the Lord that a famine has hit the land because of Saul’s attempts to exterminate the Gibeonites. David asked the Gibeonites how the crimes could be atoned for, and they desired to execute seven of Saul’s descendents. Note that the Law in Deuteronomy 24:16 does not allow for children to be put to death for the sins of their fathers; yet David, at the request of the Gibeonites, handed over seven of Saul’s descendants to be put to death. If it was against the Law, why did the Lord honor David’s actions by again hearing the prayers of the Israelites and ending the famine? (An excellent commentary on the Gibeonite situation can be found at: http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/1021.htm)

Perhaps such a situation strikes you as counterintuitive, but consider the Lord’s sending His own Son as a sacrifice on the cross. God used the actions of sinful leaders to accomplish a good in that the death of Jesus paid for the penalty of sin. What you see in these examples is that keeping and honoring a commitment is incredibly important to the Lord, and restitution for a broken commitment is of great importance to Him as well. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the restitution process that is occurring in Iraq (even if inadvertently accomplished by sinful man) is pleasing to the Lord, and therefore important to us!

Homosexuality 101:

Dr. Julie Harren Hamiltion tells you what you need to know but aren’t supposed to.

http://www.homosexuality101.com/

Libraries turn to gaming to attract “readers”

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/13/arts/State-of-Libraries.php

A FRIEND of Laigle’s Forum sent this in:

BAM–this is one of the many things that DHS, HPHS and every other high school in the country needs!

http://www6.district125.k12.il.us/clubs/truthseekers/default.html

Spread the word! Post it! Tell your kids to start one!

This is the high school club that is sponsoring the Ben Stein film Expelled at a local multi-plex theatre.

For those of you who are out of state, this is a large and excellent suburban high school in IL.

Massive oil reserves found in North Dakota

http://motownsports.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-57591.html