22. november 2015 – Robert Farley, en seniorlektor ved Patterson School for Diplomati og International Handel ved Kentucky Universitet, advarer om, at der er fem mulige måder, hvorpå Tredje Verdenskrig (eller efter hans mening snarere Femte Verdenskrig, idet han tæller Syvårskrigen og Napoleonskrigene med som verdenskrige) kunne begynde.

Brændpunkterne omfatter de følgende:

* Syrien – Enten kunne en konfrontation mellem amerikanske og russiske fly i luften over Syrien eskalere ud af kontrol, eller også bliver ISIS besejret, men USA, Frankrig og Rusland bliver rivaler over, hvordan Syrien efter ISIS skal se ud.

* Indien og Pakistan – Indien og Pakistan kunne komme i krig igen af flere grunde. USA har generelt været tæt på Pakistan, men har været i færd med at dyrke tættere relationer med Indien. Kina har længe miltært været tæt på Pakistan. Farley nævner ikke Rusland, der rent historisk har haft tætte relationer til Indien, inklusive militært.

* Det Østkinesiske Hav – Kina og Japan er modstandere mht. Senkaku/Daioyu-øerne. USA er traktatmæssigt forpligtet til at forsvare Japan, hvilket gør det næsten sikkert, at, skulle der udbryde kampe, ville USA gå ind på Japans side.

* Det Sydkinesiske Hav – En krig mellem USA og Kina kunne trække Japan og Indien med og kunne resultere i en udveksling af atomvåben.

* Ukraine – En konfrontation mellem NATO og Rusland kunne forårsage, at Rusland tyer til taktiske atomvåben, hvis det mener, det ikke kan overleve.

Farley konkluderer, at vi mangler den Kolde Krigs »rædselsvækkende« klarhed. »Der kunne udbryde krig flere steder, som kunne trække krigsførende parter med ind på uforudsigelige måder«, skriver han. »Krigsførende parter begynder meget sjældent en krig med overlæg; lederne af verdens mest magtfulde nationer må være på vagt over for truslen om en optrapning af kriser.«

Foto: Russiske jets under en “aerobatic” flyveopvisning i Rusland. Kunne en konfrontation mellem amerikanske og russiske fly over Syrien komme ud af kontrol og eskalere?

Med Bruxelles i højeste alarmberedskab på anden dag i forventning om endnu et større terrorangreb fra Islamisk Stat på samme skala som massakren i Paris den 13. november, er der stigende opmærksomhed omkring den kendsgerning, at omdrejningspunktet for jihadistisk terrorisme i realiteten findes i hjertet af Europa. Bruxelles, hovedstad for både NATO og Den europæiske Union, har nu fået kaldenavnet Brusselstan, ligesom London længe er blevet refereret til som Londonistan på grund af den kendsgerning, at bogstavelig talt enhver jihadistisk, narko- og separatistterrororganisation har fået husly, beskyttelse og finansiering af det britiske monarki. For nylig frafaldt den britiske regering alle anklager imod en angiveligt jihadistisk våbensmugler, fordi hans forsvarsadvokat påpegede, at de samme grupper, som han stod anklaget for at bevæbne, blev åbenlyst støttet af det britiske efterretningsvæsens MI6.

Dette er en gammel historie. London har været centrum for global terrorisme i årtier. Executive Intelligence Review var ophavsmand til et dossier, som blev overgivet USA’s Udenrigsministerium i 2000, og som krævede, at Storbritannien blev sat på listen over stater, der sponsorerede terrorisme. Dossieret byggede udelukkende på bevismateriale, der var fremkommet gennem regeringer i hele verden, inklusive Rusland, Egypten, Indien, Pakistan, Colombia og Peru, og som på afgørende vis viste, at den britiske krone husede verdens værste terrorister, som en del af imperiesystemet. De største britiske banker, med HSBC (tidligere HonKong og Shanghai Bankselskab, berygtet for opiumskrigene) i spidsen, er verdens mest berygtede hvidvaskningsinstitutioner for narkopenge, som det for nylig er blevet dokumenteret af USA’s Senat.

Det er ligeledes det britiske kongehus, der har udsendt Ridderkommandør John Schnellnhuber til at kapre Paven og Vatikanet for ideen om en radikal befolkningsreduktion, baseret på den videnskabelige svindel med menneskeskabt, global opvarmning.

Alle de grusomheder, som præsident Obama har begået – fra hans massedronedrab i Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen og Somalia, til hans voldelige afsættelse og koldblodige mord på Gaddafi i Libyen, der skabte en zone af kaos, terror og utilstrækkelige stater i store dele af Nordafrika og Mellemøsten, og til decimeringen af livsvilkårene for det store flertal af amerikanere – kan anbringes på det britiske kongehus’ dørtærskel. Obama er intet andet end en britisk agent, der blev udvalgt af briterne til at blive installeret som præsident for USA, på vegne af Kronen og City of London.

Efter grusomhederne i Paris er det i stigende grad ved at blive åbenlyst gennemskueligt for et voksende antal tænkende mennesker, at Islamisk Stat er en skabelse af Obama og briterne. Al-Qaeda blev skabt og næret af briterne, USA og Saudi Arabien i 1980’erne, som kollektivt samlede et slæng af terrorister fra fængsler i hele den arabiske og islamiske verden, for at drive sovjetrusserne ud af Afghanistan. I 1985 sluttede Prins Bandar bin Sultan, bogstavelig talt et medlem af Bush-familien, sig til den britiske premierminister Margaret Thatcher for at lancere Al-Yamamah-byttehandelen (våben for olie), under hvilken en 100 milliarder dollar stor, hemmelig fond blev etableret for i hemmelighed at bevæbne al-Qaeda og andre terrororganisationer. I 2001 deployerede Bandar nogle af disse Al Yamamah-midler til at finansiere 11. september-flykaprernes angreb på World Trade Tårnene og angribe Pentagon.

Hvis man vil forstå, hvorfor den britiske agent Barack Obama har nægtet at ophæve hemmeligstemplingen af de 28 sider af den Fælles Kongresundersøgelsesrapport om 11. september, må man begynde fra toppen, med denne redegørelse for, hvordan briterne og Obama skabte al-Qaeda og, senere, Islamisk Stat. Tidligere chef for USA’s Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste, general Michael Flynn, har åbenlyst rapporteret om, at præsident Obama bevæbnede de syriske oprørere fra Benghazi og fortsatte med at gøre det, fordi det var regeringens politik. DIA-dokumenter fra sommeren og efteråret 2012 forklarer i detaljer de fælles britisk-amerikanske operationer fra Benghazi til smuglerhavne i de områder i Syrien, der kontrolleredes af oprørerne.

Lyndon LaRouche sagde ligefremt til medarbejdere søndag den 22. november, at man må udrydde det britiske monarki, eller også vil der ikke være nogen løsning på krigen i Syrien eller andre globale brændpunkter. Med mindre Det britiske Imperium fjernes, står vi over for en global krig imod Rusland og Kina, der vil føre til udslettelsen af store dele af menneskeheden. Barack Obama er en britisk agent, der blev selekteret til at blive USA’s præsident af briterne. Vi må sænke Det britiske Imperium og alt, hvad det repræsenterer, eller også vil vi stå over for en optrapning af rædselsforestillinger over hele planeten.

21. november 2015 – (Nouvelle Solidarité) – En fransk og mellemøstlig kilde, der har gode forbindelser, sagde i dag til EIR’s kontor i Paris, at han er bange for, at tingene kunne, og også vil, blive værre i Europa pga. karakteren af terrorist-monstret, der er blevet skabt. Med andre ord, så vil der komme flere angreb.

Han sagde, at Hollandes beslutning om at arbejde med Rusland er det bedste initiativ, han kunne have taget. »Forandring« er ved at finde sted i fransk udenrigspolitik, og en del af de mere positive effekter efter angrebene er de mere og mere vedvarende rygter om, at den franske udenrigsminister Fabius er på vej ud af Quai d’Orsay. Han kunne blive erstattet af Elisabeth Guigou, en tidligere Mitterandist, der på det seneste har gennemgået en interessant udvikling, hvor hun har nærmet sig tidl. premierminister Raffarin og er venligtsindet over for Kina og Rusland.

Desuden er Guigou forbundet med interesser med handelsforbindelser og økonomiske forbindelser til Marokko og Middelhavsområdet gennem Institut Prospective Economique Monde Mediterranée, som hendes ægtemand Jean-Louis, et medlem af tidl. premierminister Michel Rocards regering, er chef for.

For at fuldstændiggøre det aktuelle billede af den igangværende »forandring«, der diskuteredes med denne kilde, har en delegation af højtplacerede Houthis-personer fra Yemen været i Paris nu, og den blev for allerførste gang modtaget af Udenrigsministeriet. »Forandring« pga. denne regering i Paris’ hidtidige totale alliance med Saudi Arabien.

Med hensyn til de eventuelle fremtidige angreb bør man bemærke, at muligheden for et kemisk angreb seriøst er blevet nævnt af premierministeren. Nogle mennesker har anklaget ham for at føre skræmmekampagne af politiske grunde. Men i dag rapporterer Le Parisien, at »Daesh [ISIS] ved, hvordan man fremstiller sennepsgas«. Informationen, som premierministeren kom med, kommer fra franske efterretningskilder. ISIL’s anvendelse af sennepsgas har været bekræftet siden sidste sommer. Den blev brugt den 21. august i kamp mod »oprørsgrupper«, der var fjendtlige over for regimet og Daesh. Kurderne har også fordømt ISIL’s anvendelse af denne gas.

Det er øjensynligt nu bekræftet, at de kan fremstille det, og at de fremstiller det i Mosul-området. Og minsandten, om ikke 10 NBC-dragter (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) og 30 par specialstøvler, handsker og anti-bakteriemasker »forsvandt« i sidste uge fra Necker Hospitalet (i Paris).

Det bør også bemærkes mht. »forandringen« i Hollandes politik over for Syrien og Bashar al-Assad i kølvandet på angrebene, at Hollandes og Fabius’ »hverken/eller«-politik (hverken Assad eller ISIL) er blevet voldsomt angrebet fra stort set alle partierne. Blandt disse det tidligere UMP, der nu hedder Les Républicains, hvor mange af toplederne: Sarkozy, François Fillon, Thierry Mariani, Jacques Myard, blandt andre, står Moskva nær og har bedt Hollande om at droppe denne politik. For ikke at nævne Marine Le Pen. På det yderste venstre er Mélenchon fra Venstrepartiet også på denne linje. Alle disse strømninger siger nu højlydt, hvad vi har fordømt i årevis.

Hollande balancerer på en line i sit forsøg på at gennemføre et politisk skift uden at skabe alt for mange fjender i USA og Storbritannien, samt deres allierede i Frankrig.

19. november 2015 – Ifølge opinionsundersøgelser er det fremmedfjendske parti, Alternativ for Tyskland, AfD, allerede blevet det tredjestørste parti i Tyskland. Støtte til AfD er hastigt steget i de seneste måneder og uger, først som en reaktion på flygtningekrisen, og nu efter terrorangrebene i Paris og den politiske debat, der er domineret af panik.

Krisen og den politiske debat »er som et program, der er skræddersyet til at fremme AfD«, sagde prof. Jürgen Falter, der har hjemme i Mainz, på tysk Tv i dag. AfD »nærmer sig tocifrede tal nationalt – i de østlige stater nåede de derop for længe siden. Med andre ord, så har vi her en politisk magt, der er ved at komme ind i delstatsparlamenterne og sluttelig i det nationale parlament (Forbundsdagen), og som vil styre det politiske spil i en totalt anden retning. Denne magt vil af de andre parter blive anset som værende uegnet til at indgå koalition med.«

20. november 2015 – Hvis klimaforandrings-alarmisterne ønsker at diskutere den virkelige klimakrise i horisonten ved den forestående FN-COP21 Paris klimaforandrings-extravaganza, bør de formulere en plan til at forhindre, at ti tusinder af flygtninge fryser ihjel i Europa. Dette er temaet i en ny erklæring, »Terrorisme og Flygtningekrise i en Kold Vinter«, der blev udlagt den 19. november af videnskabsfolkene Paul Dreissen og Joe D’Aleo, med Allan MacRae og Madhav Khandekar, på icecap.us og nu også på mange andre websider.

Som de forklarer, så er ti tusinder af europæiske borgere frosset ihjel i vintre med ekstremt koldt vejr, hvilket er, hvad Europa har oplevet i en stor del af det forgangne årti. Disse dramatiske udsving i temperaturen er i realiteten fremkaldt, ikke af menneskelig aktivitet, men af Solen og andre relaterede kræfter. Men det er de handlinger, som de politiske beslutningstagere skrider til, der vil udgøre forskellen mellem liv og død.

Forfatterne påpeger, at, i ekstremt kolde år kan USA opleve omkring 100.000 ekstraordinære dødsfald. De rapporterer, at der generelt forekommer mere end 20 gange så mange dødsfald som følge af ekstrem kulde end ekstrem varme. For flygtningene, der lever i »ekstrem fattigdom, med dårlig ernæring, utilstrækkelig beklædning og tæpper, og som i forvejen er syge og har improviseret husly«, kunne tallet for ekstraordinære vinterdødsfald blive svimlende; endda højere end de ekstraordinære vinterdødsfald på 50.000 mennesker i Storbritannien.

»Når en million flygtninge fryser under forringede omgivelser med utilstrækkeligt husly, mad, varme, beklædning og lægehjælp, og når 1,3 milliard mennesker stadig ikke har elektricitet – hvorfor i alverden skulle verden så indgå et forpligtende engagement om at bruge milliarder på angivelige, fremtidige katastrofer som følge af global opvarmning?«, spørger de. »Vi må anerkende, at rædselsfulde scenarier, fremkommet i computermodeller, ikke er en refleksion af virkeligheden på planeten … «

»Det ville være en samvittighedsløs forbrydelse imod menneskeheden, hvis de nationer, der mødes i Paris, gennemtvinger politiske tiltag for at beskytte vores planets energi-berøvede masser fra hypotetiske, menneskeskabte klimakatastrofer, der skulle optræde årtier frem i tiden, ved at forevige fattigdom og sygdom, der dræber millioner af flere mennesker i morgen. Dette er de virkelige grunde til, at klimaforandring er et afgørende, moralsk spørgsmål, understreger de. »Dette er, hvad vi må erkende, og holde op med at lege med menneskers liv.«

Paul Dreissen er analytiker for Komiteen for et Kontruktivt I morgen (CFACT). Jason Ross fra LPAC’s Videnskabsteam interviewede for nylig Paul Dreissen, forfatter af ’Miljø-imperialisme: Grøn magt, Sort død’, til EIR’s seneste Specialrapport, »Skræmmekampagne mod Global Opvarmning er Befolkningsreduktion – ikke Videnskab« (Se interviewet på dansk). Joe D’Aleo, akademisk seniorstabsmedlem ved American Meteorological Society, er medstifter af The Weather Channel.

Som hr. LaRouche eftertrykkeligt erklærede under vores diskussion med ham, så er den amerikanske præsident Obamas politik den førende årsag til det kaos, som verden nu befinder sig i, og har ikke alene bevirket skabelsen af en frugtbar yngleplads for vækst og deployering af terrororganisationer som ISIS i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika, men har også bragt os helt ud på randen af krig med Rusland og Kina – en krig, som ville blive en verdenskrig med anvendelse af atomvåben, som ville betyde udslettelsen af det store flertal af denne planets befolkning. Med Jeff Steinberg m. fl.

Engelsk udskrift.

International LaRouche PAC Webcast for Friday November 20 2015

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s November 20, 2015. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you’re joining us for our weekly broadcast
here from larouchepac.com. I’m joined in the studio tonight by
both Jeffrey Steinberg from Executive Intelligence Review, and
Benjamin Deniston from the LaRouche PAC Science Team, and we have
a very timely and important presentation prepared for you
tonight, which was informed by a meeting that the three of us had
earlier today with both Lyndon LaRouche, as well as Helga
Zepp-LaRouche, who joined us via video-call from Europe.
Obviously we’re meeting here tonight exactly one week
following the horrific terrorist attacks in Paris last Friday. As
Helga LaRouche emphasized during our discussion with her earlier,
the sheer horror of these attacks, striking as they did at the
heart of one of the leading cities of Europe, claiming the lives
of 130 innocent people, who were slaughtered in cold blood as
they went around their usual business on a Friday night — this
has absolutely changed everything, and has served to force people
across Europe, and in the United States, to recognize that a
sudden and dramatic change in policy must be adopted, or else the
entirety of Western Civilization is on the verge of descending
into a total hell on earth, from which it would be virtually
impossible to return.
As Mr. LaRouche emphatically stated in our discussion with
him, the policies of US President Barack Obama are the leading
cause of the chaos which the world now finds itself in, and have
served not only to create a fertile breeding ground for the
growth and deployment of terrorist organizations like ISIS in the
Middle East and North Africa, but have brought us right to the
edge of a war with Russia, and with China — a war that would be
world war, which would involve the use of thermonuclear weapons,
which would mean the extermination of a vast majority of the
population on this planet.
Now in a very significant development, which I know Jeff
will go a little bit more into, and will elaborate on in his
remarks, this fact has been explicitly stated by a Congresswoman,
whom we’ve spoken about previously on these broadcasts, Rep.
Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat from Hawaii, in a press release which
she issued earlier today, announcing the filing of a bill in the
House of Representatives that, in her words, would bring an
immediate end to the illegal, counter-productive war to overthrow
the Syrian government of Assad, Barack Obama’s war. Congresswoman
Gabbard explains:
“The war to overthrow Assad is illegal and
counterproductive, because it actually helps ISIS and other
Islamic extremists achieve their goal of overthrowing the Syrian
government of Assad and taking control of all of Syria.” Then she
lists 10 reasons, which include the fact that if we are to
succeed in overthrowing Assad, as Barack Obama wishes, it would
open the door for ISIS to take over all of Syria, including
Damascus, in which case, she says, “there will be genocide and
suffering on a scale beyond our imagination.”
She also states that the overthrowing of the government of
Assad is the goal of ISIS, and other Islamic extremist groups,
and “we should not be allying ourselves with these Islamic
extremists by helping them achieve their goal, because it is
against the security interests of the United States and all of
civilization.” And she also says that we should learn from the
past mistakes in both the regime changes in Iraq and in Libya,
which is saying something from a combat veteran, Congresswoman
Gabbard, who was herself deployed in the war in Iraq.
Now, she also makes the point that Obama’s war has been the
direct exacerbation of the chaos and the carnage in Syria
inflicted by ISIS on the innocent people of that country, which
has caused the number of refugees being forced to flee Syria and
elsewhere, to continue to increase at a rapid rate. And later in
the broadcast that is something that I know Ben Deniston will
also be addressing.
But most significantly, she lists as reason number 10:
“Because our war to overthrow the Assad government puts us in
direct conflict with Russia, and increases the likelihood of war
between the United States and Russia, and the possibility of
another world war.” So, as far as I know, that makes Tulsi
Gabbard the only sitting member of Congress to have had the guts
to state that fact as explicitly and clearly.
I just want to read one more short excerpt from her press
release before introducing our institutional question for this
evening. Congresswoman Gabbard concludes her press release by
stating: “To destroy ISIS will take international alliances. If
we are serious about defeating ISIS, and solving the refugee
problem, we’ll work in partnership with Russia, with France, and
anyone else who is serious about destroying ISIS and affiliated
Islamic extremist organizations worldwide. The problem is because
the U.S. is trying to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad,
and Russia is supporting the government of Assad, it is
impossible for us to have an effective cooperative relationship
with Russia in our mutual fight against ISIS. Our focus on
overthrowing Assad is interfering with our ability to destroy
ISIS. We must immediately end the illegal, counterproductive war
to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad, and ally ourselves
with any countries willing to focus on destroying the Islamic
extremists who pose a genuine threat to civilization.”
So this brings us directly to our institutional question for
this evening, to which I’m going to ask Jeff to deliver Mr.
LaRouche’s response. The question reads as follows: “Mr.
LaRouche, the Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev has said
that the best way to combat the so-called Islamic State of Iraq
and Syria, or ISIS, is for Russia to unite with the West in a
grand alliance to defeat this common threat of terrorism. In this
regard, Russia is already coordinating airstrikes against ISIS
with France. How do you envision a closer collaboration between
the United States and Russia in this fight to defeat ISIS, and
all of its affiliated terrorist organizations?”

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. Mr. LaRouche was very
blunt, as you’ll hear in a just a moment, and in fact, he took
the question one step beyond the otherwise very important and
admirable comments made by Congresswoman Gabbard today. And by
the way, that press release was announcing the introduction of a
bill into the U.S. House of Representatives that would formally
ban the Obama administration from any further actions to
overthrow the Assad government.
Now, during our discussion with Mr. LaRouche, I took rather
detailed notes so what I’m about to read to you are not verbatim
transcripts of what Mr. LaRouche had to say, but they will give
you a very clear flavor, and represent I think a pretty accurate
accounting from Mr. LaRouche’s comments. And the very first thing
that he said is, to defeat ISIS in partnership with the Russians,
you have to get rid of Obama. Putin surprised everyone with his
military move into Syria in September; and it was the only way to
do it. Obama is sunk in, and there is no alternative until he is
removed; and this cannot be postponed. We’re running out of time,
and we are on the verge of the total collapse of the US system;
he must be thrown out immediately. And LaRouche went on to add,
we must totally dump Wall Street and adopt the approach of FDR at
the start of his New Deal. Roosevelt solved the problem within
weeks of taking office, by changing the entire direction of the
nation after the disaster of President Herbert Hoover. Everything
changed within a few years. The idea of totally shutting down
Wall Street is not difficult for intelligent people to
understand; nothing else works. Congress is pussyfooting around.
Wall Street must be shut, and a new Federal operation must be
launched to rebuild the nation. Do not try to salvage any part of
the old system. The problem is that most people in Congress are
idiots; and the President of the United States is a criminal.
When you have a criminal leading idiots, you have a system that
will not work. So, Obama must be thrown out, and there is no
alternative to that. All of the evidence is there. Shut down Wall
Street! It’s not needed.
Furthermore, Obama has committed so many crimes in fact,
that he can be removed from office at any moment. Start with his
Tuesday kill sessions; these are crimes that not only demand his
removal from office, but should land him in prison for mass
murder. Obama has presided over the destruction of the US
economy, to the point that a majority of our citizens are facing
the disaster of impoverishment. He has followed the George
Bush/Dick Cheney cover-up of 9/11; this is typical for Obama, who
is nothing but a British agent protecting the brutish.
And so, the problem is not with the evidence; the problem is
that most members of Congress lack guts. The Tuesday kill
meetings tell it all. The vast majority of people killed on
Obama’s personal orders, were innocent bystanders; not even the
so-called “legitimate targets”. And Obama personally signed off
on every one of those killings.
Now, I want you to take a look at one of the documents that
was released as part of the “Drone Papers”. We’ve talked about
this repeatedly for the last four or five weeks. The “Drone
Papers” that were published by {The Intercept}, a web-based news
organization founded by Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill, are
hundreds of pages of documents from the Pentagon and from the
House Select Committee on Intelligence. Now the specific document
that you’re looking at, is a flowchart that goes through
step-by-step the procedures that are used to establish who will
be killed. This is the process that ultimately leads up to those
Tuesday kill meetings, where President Obama personally presides.
If you follow the chain of command — and this is dealing with
two specific operations within the overall drone kill program —
one operation in Somalia called Operation Jupiter Garrett; and
another operation in Yemen called Copper Dune. In every instance,
the process for deciding on the kill order goes up from the local
military intelligence units on the ground, up through the
military command all the way through the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
up to the Secretary of Defense, and up to the Principals
Committee and the Deputy Principals Committee; these are the
Cabinet and Deputy Cabinet officials of the government. But
ultimately, everything leads back to the President of the United
States. And it’s only with President Obama’s personal signature
that the kill orders go out; the clock starts, and there is a
60-day deadline to track down and kill the designated target.
Now, even by the criteria that are contained in this
document, we know from the House Intelligence review and from
other exposés that none of the guidelines have been followed; and
that all of procedures that were supposedly built in to make sure
that innocent civilian casualties were avoided, that there was
direct confirmation of the whereabouts of the target — none of
those things were adhered to. At the very bottom, it says that
“At every level, the targetting window suitability is determined
by rules of engagement.” The rules of engagement are that there
must be low collateral damage estimates; meaning “collateral
damage” is a polite word for innocent civilians being killed in
the course of the attacks. There must be “near certainty” of the
high-value individual’s presence, based on two forms of
intelligence and no contradictory intelligence; and then, all the
way up the chain of command — including the host government —
must all concur, or otherwise no strike is allowed to take place.
Now, I can tell you that having reviewed the totality of the
“Drone Papers”, that these procedures — as minimal and as
limited as they are — were never adhered to. None of these
conditions were met in the overwhelming majority of these kill
incidents. And to give you an idea of the callousness of this
structure under President Obama, the formal name given to the
summary documents; the photographs and documentary evidence that
was used to determine whether or not the President will sign off
on a kill order, is referred to in these meetings as the
“baseball card”. So, in other words, the lack of any sense of
what this program is all about, is absolutely stunning.
Now, let me just add that, earlier today, President Obama,
Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, and CIA Director John Brennan
received a letter that was written by four former US Air Force
Drone Team members. They are: Brandon Bryant, Sion Westmoreland,
Stephen Lewis, and Michael Haas; all four of them operated for
years as members of the drone crew. And they wrote this letter,
urging the President to end the program right now; and I want to
read you what they had to say, because I think it’s one of the
most powerful testaments to the murderous criminality of our
President. And it should make very clear that anything short of
immediate removal from office, by impeachment, or invoking of the
25th Amendment, or forcing his immediate resignation is
unacceptable and doesn’t rise to the magnitude of the crisis that
we’re in, or the crimes that he’s committed. Here’s the letter:
“We are former Air Force service members. We joined the Air
Force to protect American lives and to protect our Constitution.
We came to the realization that the innocent civilians we were
killing, only fueled the feelings of hatred that ignited
terrorism and groups like ISIS, while also serving as a
fundamental recruitment tool similar to Guantanamo Bay. This
administration and its predecessors have built a drone program
that is one of the most devastating driving forces for terrorism
and destabilization around the world. When the guilt of our roles
in facilitating this systematic loss of innocent life became too
much, all of us succumbed to PTSD — post-traumatic stress
disorder. We were cut loose by the same government we gave so
much to, sent out in the world without adequate medical care,
reliable public health services, or necessary benefits. Some of
us are now homeless. Others of us barely make it. We witnessed
gross waste, mismanagement, abuse of power, and our country’s
leaders lying publicly about the effectiveness of the drone
program. We cannot sit silently by and witness tragedies like the
attacks in Paris, knowing the devastating effects the drone
program has, overseas and at home. Such silence would violate the
very oaths we took to support and defend the Constitution. We
request that you consider our perspective, though perhaps that
request is in vain, given the unprecedented prosecutions of
truth-tellers who came before us, like Chelsea Manning, Julian
Assange, and Edward Snowden. For the sake of this country, we
hope it is otherwise.”
Now, again, Mr. LaRouche has put the right punctuation mark
on the situation, and has made clear that nothing can be
accomplished, nothing can be effectively achieved in partnership
with the Russians, unless Obama is removed. I want to continue
briefly reading the remainder of Mr. LaRouche’s comments to us
this afternoon, and then we’ll move on. ` He said, the
gutlessness of the Congress really started in the current context
with the attacks of 9/11, with Cheney and company. He said, I
still have vivid recollection of the planes crashing into the
twin towers. This is a Manhattan issue. It goes to the heart of
the Bush family, and the heart of the Obama legacy. Obama’s
personality was shaped by his step-father, who was a cold
murderer. Obama has blood on his hands; he’s too dangerous for
mankind. Since the Russians launched their Syria operations in
September, and especially since the Paris attacks of one week
ago, there is an implicit taming of Obama, but he is still too
dangerous to be allowed to remain in office. Imagine where we
would be today without Putin’s actions and the actions of China.
The Victory Day parade in Beijing attended by Xi Jinping and
Putin established the Asian factor as a supreme factor in world
affairs. Compare that to the mess we see in France, the mess we
see in Germany, and elsewhere. So you must remove Obama from
office, or we can’t make it.
Now, he then returned to the question of Wall Street, which
Obama’s Presidency has protected up and down the line. Wall
Street is about to implode, and we must shut it down now. Treat
Wall Street as something that no longer exists. Use FDR’s methods
with even more emphasis. Write off all of Wall Street’s assets
out of existence, and develop a program, an FDR program, to
change the direction of the economy. Create a credit system, and
make it known that nothing will be paid on the useless assets of
Wall Street. And Mr. LaRouche ended by simply noting, Clinton was
blackmailed into going along with the end of Glass-Steagall, and
Hillary was unfortunately used as a tool in that process.
So, again, there is no question that a coordinated alliance
between the United States and Russia to defeat ISIS, using the
same approach that was used to defeat Hitler in World War II, is
feasible. Some leading retired American military officials have
openly called for a formal military alliance between the United
States and Russia. Let Russia, which has been formally invited
into Syria, handle the assault on the ISIS forces from the Syrian
side, and let the United States, which has been invited-in by the
Iraqi government, handle the assault against the Islamic State
from the Iraqi side. Run that as a pincer operation. Hit them
from both flanks, and crush them under the weight of the
capability that could be brought to bear by the United States and
Russia in combination. But again, while that is absolutely
feasible, there is no reason to assume that the British will let
that happen, so long as Obama remains in office. And therefore,
it is essential, if we are going to have this alliance, if we are
going to avoid many more Paris-es — perhaps the next one on the
streets of New York City, or Washington DC, or Chicago, or Los
Angeles — then Obama must be removed now, and Congress
collectively must find the guts to take the necessary action.
OGDEN: Thank you, Jeff. Now, as we mentioned last week on
our broadcast here, which we recorded just hours after the
initial attacks occurred in Paris, before there was last Friday’s
attacks in Paris, which killed 130 people, there were also the
fore-going attacks in January of this year, against the editorial
offices of the satirical magazine {Charlie Hebdo}.
As a matter of very eerie coincidence, just hours after
those attacks occurred, on January 7th of this year, several
members of Congress, including Walter Jones, and Stephen Lynch,
as well as former Senator Bob Graham, of the State of Florida,
and additionally, family members of the victims of 9/11, convened
a press conference on Capitol Hill, on the morning of January
7th, which had been previously scheduled, on the subject of a
bill to release the redacted 28 pages of the Congressional Joint
Inquiry Report into the attacks on 9/11, an inquiry of which
former Senator Bob Graham had been co-chair at the time. We are
going to replay a very short excerpt of Senator Graham’s remarks
at that press conference then, January 7th of this year, but
while we play this for you, I want you to reflect on how even
more relevant and urgent his statements are, now, in the wake, in
the aftermath of last Friday’s attacks in Paris, not to mention
the attacks in Beirut, the attacks in Mali earlier today, and
elsewhere, and the fact that the failure to release these pages
{then}, on January 7th, or January 8th, in the immediate wake of
that press conference, the failure to release the 28 pages
{then}, puts the blood of the innocent victims of these
subsequent attacks on the hands of those who insist on
perpetuating this cover-up to this day. So watch this brief
excerpt from the press conference on January 7th.

[RECORDING] CONG. WALTER JONES: I introduce the esteemed
Senator from Florida, Bob Graham. Thank you.

SENATOR BOB GRAHAM: Walter, thank you very much. And I, too,
want to thank Walter and Steve — Congressmen Jones and Lynch —
for their leadership in bringing this matter to the attention of
the Congress. I want to thank the family members, who have been
without question the most influential force in all of the changes
that have occurred as a result of 9/11, and will be the most
significant force in terms of convincing the President that it is
time to give the American people the truth. Needless to say, my
remarks that I will espouse this morning, are considerably
different than they would have been, but for events in Paris this
morning, which in my judgment, bring this matter into its proper
focus.
What have been the consequences of this refusal to release
the pages? The consequences, in my judgment are three:
One, is a denial of the truth. A core question in 9/11 is,
did these 19 people act alone, or did they have a network of
support which facilitated their ability to carry out a very
complex plot? No one who has looked closely at the facts,
including the individuals that I just named, has come to a
conclusion other than that it is highly improbable that the 19
people could have acted alone. Yet, the official position of the
United States government has been that they did act alone, and
that there is no necessity for further inquiry into the question
of whether there was a support network.
The second issue, is the issue of justice. Some 3,000
members of the families who were lost on 9/11 have been trying
for years to get justice through our system for the losses that
they have suffered. The position of the United States government
has been to protect Saudi Arabia, at virtually every step of the
judicial process. When the United States government was called
upon to take a position, it has been a position adverse to the
interests of the United States citizens seeking justice, and
protective of the government which, in my judgment, was the most
responsible for that network of support.
The third consequence is the issue of national security, and
frequently those who have defended nondisclosure, have said, this
cannot be made available to the American people, because it would
be adverse to our national security. It will affect methods and
sources of information, or other information that is
inappropriate to be made publicly known. As the two Congressmen
have just said, they both read the reportnot 12 years ago, when I
participated in writing the reportbut they have read it recently,
and have both come to the same conclusion that we did a dozen
years ago: that there is no threat to national security in
disclosure.
I’m going to make the case today, that there is a threat to
national security by non-disclosure, and we saw another chapter
of that today in Paris.
Here are some facts:
The Saudis know what they did. They are not persons who are
unaware of the consequences of their government’s actions.
Second, the Saudis know that we know what they did! Somebody in
the Federal government has read these 28 pages, someone in the
Federal government has read all the other documents that have
been covered up so far. And the Saudis know that.
What would you think the Saudis’ position would be, if they
knew what they had done, they knew that the United States knew
what they had done, and they also observed that the United States
had taken a position of either passivity, or actual hostility to
letting those facts be known? What would the Saudi government do
in that circumstance, which is precisely where they have been,
for more than a decade?
Well, one, they have continued, maybe accelerated, their
support for one of the most extreme forms of Islam, Wahhabism,
throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East. And
second, they have supported the religious fervor, with financial
and other forms of support, of the institutions which were going
to carry out those extreme forms of Islam. Those institutions
have included mosques, madrassas, and military. Al-Qaeda was a
creature of Saudi Arabia; the regional groups such as al-Shabaab
have been largely creatures of Saudi Arabia; and now, ISIS is the
latest creature!
Yes, I hope and I trust that the United States will crush
ISIS, but if we think that is the definition of victory, we are
being very naive! ISIS is a consequence, not a causeit is a
consequence of the spread of extremism, largely by Saudi Arabia,
and if it is crushed, there will be another institution
established, financed, supported, to carry on the cause.
So the consequences of our passivity to Saudi Arabia, have
been that we have tolerated this succession of
institutionsviolent, extreme, extremely hurtful to the region of
the Middle East, and a threat to the world, as we saw this
morning in Paris.
So I conclude by saying, this is a very important issue. It
may seem stale to some, but it is as current as the headlines
that we will read today. It is an issue that goes to the core of
the United States’ contract with its people, that the people
would give the government the credibility and support to govern;
the government would give the people the information upon which
they can make good judgments, as to the appropriateness of
governmental action. It’s as fundamental as justice to our
people, who have suffered so, by this evil union of extremism and
a very powerful nation-state. And it is the security of the
people of the United States of America.
So, I again thank the Congressmen for their leadership. I
hope that they will soon be joined by a rising tide of other
members of Congress who recognize the importance of this issue.
And then, finally, that the President of the United States will
declare that he is going to adopt the Lincolnesque standard of
full disclosure, and rely on the intelligence and judgment and
patriotism of the American people to decide what the appropriate
course of action should be.
Thank you.

OGDEN: Now both Jeff Steinberg and myself had the
opportunity to be in that room on that day, January 7, present at
that press conference, and I know Senator Graham’s presentation
sent chills through the audience, especially because it came in
such proximity to these terrible attacks on that day, on the
headquarters of {Charlie Hebdo}; but especially when he said —
and I think this stood out for you, probably, when you were just
listening to this again — when he said, this is a very important
issue. It may seem stale to some, but it is as current as the
headlines we will read today.
And tragically, that applies just as much this week, in the
aftermath of the horrific attacks in Paris of last Friday, as it
did then, in the aftermath of the attacks at {Charlie Hebdo}. And
as long as this cover-up continues, innocent people continue to
die. Paris, Beirut, Mali, the Russian airliner — what’s next?
What must be done to ensure there {is} no next time?
So I know that Jeff has been deeply involved in this issue
for several years, over a decade, and I’d like him to come to the
podium to briefly comment on the significance of what you just
heard Senator Bob Graham say.

STEINBERG: The statement I read a few moments ago from the
four former drone pilots reminded me that among the documents
that were released in 2010 by WikiLeaks, which of course began
the process of revealing some of the murderous behavior of the
Obama administration, included a document which was a cable from
then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Richard Holbrooke, who
was the Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, who was
preparing to make a visit to Saudi Arabia soon after that memo
was written, towards the end of 2009. And what that memo said was
well, we’re in possession of massive evidence that the number one
source of financing for all of the various Sunni jihadist terror
groups is Saudi Arabia. And we’ve got to begin to develop a
policy for putting some kind of pressure on Saudi Arabia so
they’ll cut it out.
So, in other words, there was full knowledge in 2009 at the
very beginning of the Obama administration throughout the
administration that Saudi Arabia was still continuing to be a
major source of support for the al-Qaeda networks that carried
out the 9/11 atrocities. Remember also that General Michael
Flynn, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency until he was
unceremoniously fired last year by President Obama for daring to
continue to supply intelligence on the fact that Obama’s own
policies were fueling the growth of al-Qaeda and eventually
fueling the growth of the Islamic State — ISIS. So, this should
be a further reminder of the points that were made by Senator
Graham and the others that this administration, from day one, has
been fully on notice about the continuing role of Saudi Arabia as
the principal source of financing and logistical support for the
activities of these hideous jihadist terrorists.
Now just in the past week, really in the past several weeks,
we can account for hundreds of people who’ve been killed by the
very apparatus that this President has refused to take any action
against. You had the bombing of the Metro Jet airliner — 224
people killed when the plane blew up by a terrorist bomb over the
Sinai Desert. Secondly, you had two suicide bombings in the
southern portions of Beirut, targetting a largely Shi’ite
neighborhood. We don’t have the precise number of people killed,
but it was a large number of people killed and wounded. And of
course, we now have a death toll of 130 in Paris. And even
earlier today, you had a jihadist assault on the Radisson Blue
Hotel in Mali, where again we’re still awaiting the body count;
but 180 or so people were taken hostage by a group of armed
gunmen, and ultimately Malian, French and American commandoes
raided the hotel. And again, we witnessed a significant fire
fight; people were killed — innocent civilians arbitrarily
targetted simply because they were in the wrong place at the
wrong time.
Now, let’s face the reality. If those 28 pages had been
published back in 2002, and had revealed the indications of the
role of the Saudi monarchy and Saudi intelligence and Saudi
defense industrial company in providing the key support for the
9/11 hijackers, there would have been a public outcry. There
would have been a serious investigation into Saudi Arabia. There
would have been a fundamental change in the US relationship to
Saudi Arabia. And by the way, the investigation into the specific
funds provided by Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan to
the Saudi intelligence agents who were managing and supporting
two of the hijackers in San Diego, would have directly led to the
doorsteps of the British; because some of the money that went
from Bandar’s personal account into the hands of those
terrorists, came from the al Yamamah agreement — the
British/Saudi barter agreement, which {EIR} documented created an
offshore slush fund of tens of billions of dollars, perhaps
hundreds of billions of dollars over the scope and sweep of that
agreement — that was used to finance terrorism. Prince Bandar
openly boasted that funds from the al Yamamah project went to
financing what were then called the Afghan mujahideen; the
so-called freedom fighters who soon were known as al-Qaeda and
Taliban.
So, the track record is enormous; it’s unambiguous. There
has been a top-down Presidential cover-up of the Saudis and
British and their role in this terrorism under the Bush/Cheney
administration, and continuing under Obama. And in spite of all
of that evidence, the Obama administration continued to smuggle
weapons out of Benghazi into the hands of Syrian rebels;
including those who became part of ISIS and the Nusra Front. And
that’s not idle speculation; that’s from documents from the
Defense Intelligence Agency that were presented to the President
by no later than the Fall of 2012. One of those documents
specifically said, why are we still smuggling weapons into the
Syrian rebels out of Benghazi, when those networks just
assassinated a US ambassador and three other American officials?
So again, let’s go back to the original comments in response
to tonight’s institutional question by Mr. LaRouche. Obama’s got
to be removed from office because he’s got blood on his hands.
And the United States will never ever be able to actually
re-establish its role as a leading force for good in the world,
so long as we tolerate a President in office who’s got that much
blood on his hands and continues to carry forward the same
policies despite all of the evidence and all of the warnings.

OGDEN: Now, a direct correlative of this entire situation in
Syria, Libya, Iraq, and elsewhere is the unprecedented refugee
crisis now being experienced by the people of this region; who
are flooding across the Mediterranean and into Europe. And I know
this is one of the items that was directly cited by Congresswoman
Tulsi Gabbard in her list of ten reasons why the illegal war
against Bashar al-Assad must be ended. And it’s impossible to
underestimate the urgency and the significance of the currently
ongoing refugee crisis. This is a massive displacement of human
beings on the scale of millions, flooding into Europe from the
Middle East and North Africa; fleeing from the carnage and the
chaos which have taken over that region, which is a direct result
of the regime-change wars of first the George W Bush
administration, and now the Barack Obama administration. Again,
the culpability lies on the doorstep of Obama. And in Europe,
even before the terrorist attacks in Paris last Friday, we saw a
frightening rise of a right-wing, proto-fascist, xenophobic
backlash within the European population against these refugees;
driven by the effects of the policies of such persons as Schäuble
and his so-called “Black Zero” policy. And the danger is that
this could drastically worsen and spin out of control as the
economic breakdown in the trans-Atlantic region continually gets
worse; and it will get worse rapidly, as long as the necessary
policies of a top-down complete bankruptcy re-organization of
this Wall Street system are not taken, which must begin with
Glass-Steagall, and the correlated policies that Franklin
Roosevelt enacted at the beginning of his New Deal.
Now this is the real civilizational crisis, threatening
Europe, the United States and the entire world, and {not}, as
Obama and his fellow travelers in the British Royal Family would
have you believe, the so-called crisis of anthropogenic global
warming. This is the real crisis: this refugee crisis, the crisis
of the destabilization of the entire region of the Middle East
and North Africa, and the threat of a total blow-out of the
trans-Atlantic bankrupt financial system. This is the real
crisis, which responsible leaders of the world’s leading powers
should be discussing as they gather in Paris next week for the
so-called COP21 Summit in Paris.
So before I say more about that, I would like to ask Ben
Deniston to come to the podium to make some very relevant
comments in that regard.
BEN DENISTON: Thanks, Matthew. From our discussion with
Lyndon and Helga Zepp-LaRouche earlier today, we were discussing
a certain article that had just been released in the last couple
days, and Helga and all of us thought it would be an important
thing to highlight, given the relevance of this article to what
Matt just referenced. You should have graphic on your screen,
just a screen-shot of one publication, one blog, which is hosting
this article. The title is, as you can read, “Terrorism and a
Cold Winter Refugee Crisis,” with a subline reading “A Brutal
Cold Spell Could Kill Refugees.” Paris COP21 delegates need to
discuss this climate issue.
Now this article was authored by two leading so-called
climate skeptics, two individuals who have been out front
fighting against this fraudulent claim of a man-made climate
change crisis. One individual, just to give you a sense of who
they are, Joseph D’Aleo, is a certified consulting meteorologist;
he’s a fellow of the American Meteorology Society; and he’s one
of the original co-founders of the Weather Channel. So, he’s
somebody familiar with climate and weather. The other author is
Paul Driessen, who is a self-proclaimed former environmentalist,
until the environmentalist movement went against human beings,
and he decided it wasn’t a good thing to stick with. But he’s the
author of such books as the 2003 book “Eco-Imperialism: Green
Power, Black Death.” And he’s also done a number of interviews
with {Executive Intelligence Review} magazine, one of which is
part of the 2015 report put out by {Executive Intelligence
Review}, which, if you don’t have a copy of, we encourage you to
get a copy of immediately. Our recent report “Global Warming
Scare is Population Reduction, not Science”
So, they came out with a rather interesting piece which we
want to just put on the table and then comment upon. But just to
quote the beginning of their article. They open by saying “Even
after these latest Paris massacres, and previous radical Islamist
atrocities in the USA, in France, in Britain, in Canada, in
Spain, India, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria and elsewhere, politicians
still absurdly say that hypothetical man-made global warming is
the greatest threat facing humanity. In reality, fossil fuel
contributions to the climate change pose few dangers to people or
planet, and winters actually kill 20 times more people than hot
weather.”
So after that lunge, they go on to highlight some very
relevant facts. They go into focus on the millions of refugees
that Matthew just referenced, who are desperately now trying to
escape the horrors of what frankly Obama has unleashed with the
Islamic State. As we discussed, many of them fleeing into Europe.
Well, the authors of this article make the relevant point that
these people are coming from a climate that is on average
generally 20 to 30 degrees warmer in the winter time than their
current destinations they’re heading into in Eastern and Northern
Europe. That this people who are fleeing desperately to get out
with their lives intact, are simply not prepared to just plunge
into this much colder climate of Europe, and especially if
they’re just simply left to try and survive in makeshift shelters
or tents, we could be seeing the beginnings of a very horrific
mass death scene, as these people suffer the horrors of a cold
European winter.
And these authors give a warning, that this could actually
be worse, this particular winter, if we see the return of some of
these periodic blasts or movements of frigid, extremely cold
Siberian air transfer over Europe, which is a not-uncommon
phenomenon, and could give rise to, again, a very cold, deadly
cold in this case, winter over Europe.
Now, they make the point: this prospect of a potentially
harsh cold is obviously in stark contrast to just the insane
propaganda lies about global warming, including, for example — a
couple of their highlights are rather useful, if anything, for
comic relief. But they cite a headline article from the German
publication {Der Spiegel} from 15 years [ago], from the year
2000. And the title of this article was: ” Goodbye, Winter. In
Germany cold winters are now a thing of the past.” This was
declared in 2000 to be the reality. Or a scientist with a British
Climate research unit, who was quoted saying, again about 15
years ago, around the year 2000: “Children are not going to know
what snow is.”
So, despite these crazy lies that have been spouted for
decades, and are being spouted again now, they make the relevant
point that for five years, between 2008 and 2013, you had a whole
series of extremely cold winters throughout Europe, in some cases
setting many records. England, for example, having one of the
coldest winters they had in centuries. Mind you, 8 to 12 years
after it was proclaimed that children in England would no longer
know what snow is, they had the coldest winter they’ve had since
sometime in the 1600s, in the Little Ice Age.
So anyway, they go on to point out that with most recent
scientific knowledge, these particular climate conditions, these
blasts, this movement of very frigid, cold air from the Siberian
region into Europe, tends to be associated with certain
fluctuation in the Atlantic ocean, certain multi-decadal cycles
in the Atlantic, in correspondence with certain changes in solar
activity. There’s a very close correlation and indications
between these solar phenomena and this particular process leading
to extremely cold winters in Europe. And they — obviously none
of this having anything to do with human CO2 emissions.
But Driessen and D’Aleo do make the point that the fact of
the matter is that the current phase of what the ocean is doing
in the Atlantic, the current phase of solar activity, generally
points to the possibility that we could be seeing another very
harsh, very cold winter in Europe. Now, it’s not to say for
certain that’s going to happen, but that is the type of reality,
the type of threat to these people, that we should be thinking of
— that the people in Paris should actually be addressing.
So, with literally millions of lives on the line, we thought
today in our discussion that these authors’ call could not be
more correct, could not be more relevant: their call on the
delegates to this upcoming UN conference on climate change —
which, as Matt said, is going to start in just a little over a
week and run for two weeks in December — that at this event,
this is the climate issue that should be being discussed. And
they present this refugee crisis against evidence for a broader
reality, that quite frankly — and as has been shown even in more
detail on some recent studies — cold weather generally kills
something on the order of 20 times more people than hot weather.
Periods of extreme cold, winter is on average, averaged over many
locations, far more deadly than warming. And on top of that, this
entire Green energy program makes it even worse; it’s making it
more expensive if not impossible for many people — especially in
cold regions — to be able to afford basic heating for their home
to keep themselves alive during the winters.
So with this framework, this particular article concludes
rather sharply that it would be an “unconscionable crime against
humanity if the nations gathering in Paris implement policies to
protect our planet’s energy-depraved masses from hypothetical
manmade climate change occurring decades from now by perpetuating
poverty and disease that will kill millions of people tomorrow.
These are the reasons that climate change is a critical, moral
issue. We need to recognize that and stop playing games with
people’s lives.”
So again, in the discussion earlier today, we thought that
this recent article, Helga Zepp-LaRouche said in particular that
this should serve as a real challenge to people. This should be a
challenge to many of the so-called “climate skeptics” out there;
it should be a challenge to really all individuals who, for one
reason or another might be claiming they’re opposing this
upcoming UN climate conference. And it should really be a
challenge obviously, to anybody participating directly in this
process. This is not an academic debate; this is not a debate
about one scientific theory against another in academia. This is
a life or death issue for millions upon millions of people. This
has real world consequences; it has had them, it’s having them
now, it’s going to have them in the future. If this type of thing
is going to go through, you’re literally condemning millions of
people — potentially billions — to unnecessary poverty, to
suffering, and to early death. Those are the facts of the matter.
So the question on the table right now is, will you let this
happen? Will you go down in history as having let this happen?
And as we’ve documented, especially in this report and in other
locations, we know what this is all about. This is intentional;
this is the 21st Century version of Thomas Malthus’ policy. This
is the modern Zeus policy.
Who did we just hear is going to be one of the leading
prominent speakers at this Paris COP 21 conference? Prince
Charles, the British Empire; the next in the series of
degenerations of the British Royal Family, following Prince
Phillip and Queen Elizabeth. And it’s no secret these people are
promoting a policy of outright genocide; they’re advocating and
promoting a policy saying the world can only support 1-2 billion
people. And we need to push to reduce the world’s population to a
few billion people. So if you let this type of program to go
through, this will go down in history as the greatest mass
killing on record; save perhaps Obama’s thermonuclear war if we
let him launch that. But if that’s not launched by Obama, this
would go down in history as the greatest mass death; and you will
be the people who let that happen.
So the crisis conditions facing these refugees are a leading
expression of this more general threat. And this is occurring at
the same time as we’re seeing this gathering for this fake global
warming scare conference in Paris, which is just about to occur.
If you reflect on this process, it really almost sounds like
you’re describing the opening scenario of a rather famous short
story by Edgar Allan Poe; it’s almost reminiscent of something
like {The Mask of the Red Death}. We have some major gathering of
representatives of upper class layers of society, gathering in
some isolated, climate-controlled conference halls — very
comfortable; hoping they can celebrate their own delusional
picture of the world. Hoping they can celebrate their
determination of the fate of the masses of people, under the
fantasy that they themselves are going to free from the effects
of their actions. Well at the same time that this absurd scene is
going on, you have millions of desperate people gathering around
them throughout Europe; fleeing into Europe. Running from the
policies which most of the people at this conference refuse to
address; Obama’s policies. Masses of people suffering from the
reality that those people at this conference refuse to accept;
which is the fact that global warming is nothing but a Malthusian
hoax. So, it’s got an eerie similarity to some stories of the
past, but unlike Poe’s dramatic account, what we have now is that
you still have the time to act.

OGDEN: Thank you very much Ben. And let me just say in
conclusion, there is a petition which is circulating; it was
authored by the Schiller Institute, and it is now posted on the
LaRouche PAC website titled, “A Resolution To Defend Billions of
Lives; We Say ‘No’ to Paris COP 21”. So, we invite you to sign
that and to circulate that as widely as you can in the coming
days. Also, as Ben mentioned, that {EIR} Special Report is
available from {Executive Intelligence Review}. So, that’s
available for you to obtain as well. So, I’m going to bring a
conclusion to our broadcast here tonight. I want to thank very
much both Ben and Jeff for joining me here; I want to thank you
for tuning in, and please, stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

19. november 2015 – I en tale til en forsamling af Frankrigs borgmestre den 18. nov. sagde præsident François Hollande, at begivenhederne i Saint-Denis bekræftede, at Frankrig var »i krig … det, som er disse terroristers mål, er det, som Frankrig repræsenterer. Det var det, der blev angrebet den 13. nov. Disse barbarers mål var at ramme Frankrig i sin forskelligartethed. Det er Frankrigs ungdom, der var målet, simpelt hen fordi den repræsenterer livet.«

Premierminister Manuel Valls har bekræftet, at Abdelhamid Abaaoud, den angivelige planlægger bag angrebene den 13. nov., blev dræbt under en politirazzia i Saint-Denis. Indenrigsministeriet sagde, at politiet havde ransaget yderligere 118 adresser i hele landet natten mellem den 17. og 18. november og havde foretaget 25 arrestationer og beslaglagt 34 våben. Der er foretaget razzia mod flere end 400 huse, og 60 mennesker er blevet tilbageholdt, siden Frankrig erklærede undtagelsestilstand fredag, den 13. nov.

Efter planen skal Hollande besøge den amerikanske præsident Barack Obama for at vise den bydende nødvendighed af kampen mod Islamisk Stat, når de mødes i Washington i næste uge. Den britiske avis Guardian citerede en unavngiven diplomatisk kilde, der beskrev, hvad det er, Hollande vil klargøre for Obama.

»Det budskab, vi ønsker at sende USA, er simplet hen, at krisen er i færd med at destabilisere Europa. Problemet er, at angrebene i Paris og flygtningekrisen viser, at vi ikke har tid. Der er en nødsituation«, sagde kilden til Guardian. Han tilføjede: »Det er de udenlandske krigere, men det er også migranterne, der splitter europæerne og destabiliserer kontinentet, så vi må handle hurtigt og fortælle USA’s regering, at kerneinteresser for europæerne, jeres bedste allierede, står på spil.« Pointen er, at Obama efter Frankrigs mening nægter at handle hurtigt nok. »Det er grunden til, at den franske præsident vil være i Washington på tirsdag, før han flyver videre til Moskva for at mødes med præsident Putin.«

I sin tale til Nationalforsamlingen for at forlænge undtagelsestilstanden advarede den franske premierminister Manuel Valls om, at terrorister i fremtiden kunne benytte kemiske og biologiske våben.

Ansøgninger til den franske hær er steget voldsomt, fra 135 om dagen til 500 om dagen, siden regeringen meddelte, at den vil rekruttere yderligere 15.000 personel i år og yderligere 16.000 i 2016. Den franske hær består i øjeblikket af 115.000 mænd og kvinder.

Foto: Soldater på Champs Elysées, Paris, med Triumfbuen i baggrunden. Undtagelsestilstanden er efter premierminister Manuel Valls begæring til Nationalforsamlingen blevet forlænget med 3 måneder.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

17. november 2015 – Det Russiske Udenrigsministerium meddelte i dag, at, i overensstemmelse med artikel 51 i FN’s Charter, der indeholder bestemmelser om en stats ret til selvforsvar, opfordrede det til en global respons på terrorbølgen som den, vi har set i Paris, samt angrebet på den russiske Airbus fra selskabet Metro.

»Rusland anmoder alle stater, organisationer og individuelle personer, alle sine venner og partnere, om at stille assistance til rådighed i denne indsats for at sikre, at gerningsmændene bliver behørigt straffet.« Erklæringen slutter: »Vi opfordrer FN’s Sikkerhedsråd til ikke at spilde tiden og gøre udkastet til en resolution om at danne en bred, antiterror-front på basis af normerne og principperne i international lov og FN’s Charter, og som Rusland initierede den 30. september, færdigt.«

Den russiske Duma har udstedt en lignende erklæring, der opfordrer alle parlamentariske kolleger i Europa, Nordamerika, Mellemøsten og andetsteds »til ikke at spare nogen indsats for at danne en international antiterror-koalition … med anti-Hitler-koalitionen som et model for foreningen af mange lande og nationer imod en fælles fjende«. Duma-erklæringen påminder også om »Ruslands uophørlige advarsel om, at en permanent destabilisering i Mellemøsten udført af dem, der gør krav på global dominans, primært USA, kunne føre til en udbredelse af den blodige kaoszone og medføre utallige menneskelige tragedier. Frankrig og andre europæiske stater høster nu i realiteten konsekvenserne af Washingtons kortsynede og selviske politik.«

Den stærkt formulerede Duma-erklæring tilføjer: »Det er åbenlyst, at Vestens uansvarlige og fejlagtige politik, der forfølges under sloganet ’eksport af demokrati’, har resulteret i fremvæksten og styrkelsen af den såkaldte Islamiske Stat. Forsøg på at bruge radikale grupper som rambuk for at vælte uønskede regimer er fyldt med yderligere negative scenarier.«

Foto: Plenarmøde i den russiske Statsduma 

Vi kan måske ikke forhindre alle terrorangreb, der nu er på vej, men vi har nu en unik chance for at få etableret det internationale samarbejde, der på sigt kan få nedkæmpet IS og andre terrorbevægelser og fjerne grobunden for, at andre kan komme i deres sted. Følgende fem indsatspunkter er afgørende:

Download (PDF, Unknown)

17. november 2015 – I går eftermiddag talte den franske præsident François Hollande til begge de to, samlede parlamenter i Versailles. Præsidenten valgte denne meget sjældne procedure, der kun er forekommet to gange tidligere, for at markere det betydningsfulde øjeblik. De fleste af de meddelte forholdsregler har fået de vigtigste politiske partiers godkendelse; med undtagelse af ændringer i Forfatningen (se nedenfor), som nogle fornuftige personer stiller spørgsmålstegn ved, på grund af sagens mulige rækkevidde. Alle kommenterer de pro-russiske skift.

I en meget højspændt situation, hvor hele den nationale, politiske repræsentation ved, at Republikkens overlevelse står på spil, meddelte Hollande de hovedforholdsregler, som han har til hensigt at tage, for at bekæmpe denne terrorisme. Dette er ikke en »krig mellem civilisationer«, sagde han, fordi feje personer, der skød ind i en ubevæbnet forsamling af mennesker, »ikke repræsenterer en sådan«. »Det er en krig imod jihadistisk terrorisme.«

Hollande sagde, at han havde bedt FN’s Sikkerhedsråd om at træde sammen for at vedtage en resolution, der markerer den fælles vilje til at bekæmpe terrorisme, eftersom dette er et internationalt spørgsmål. Siden årets begyndelse har ISIS/ISIL/Daesh slået til i Paris, Danmark, Tunesien, Egypten, Libanon, Kuwait, Saudi-Arabien, Tyrkiet og Libyen.

Franske deployeringer vil øges i Syrien, sagde Hollande og rapporterede, at søndag aften, den 15. nov., blev der gennemført en massiv bombekampagne imod ISIS’ hovedkvarter i Raqqa med støtte fra USA. På et spørgsmål om, hvorvidt den syriske præsident Bashar al-Assad kunne forblive i embedet efter en politisk overgangsperiode, gentog Hollande, at Frankrig søger »en politisk løsning, en, der ikke inkluderer Bashar al-Assad«. Han understregede imidlertid hurtigt to gange, »men vores fjende, vores fjende er Daesh«.

I et markant skift i Vestens krigsdoktrin i området sagde han, »Der kan ikke være tale om at begrænse det. Denne organisation må knuses.«

Hollande sagde, at »vi har brug for, at alle de, der virkelig kan bekæmpe denne terroristhær, går i forening som del af en eneste, stor koalition. Det er, hvad vi tilstræber. I løbet af de næste par dage vil jeg derfor mødes med præsident Obama og præsident Putin for at forene vore styrker og opnå et resultat, som, på dette tidspunkt, alt for længe er blevet udsat.«

Idet han fremførte den kendsgerning, at konsekvenserne af situationen i Mellemøsten rammer alle EU-lande som en bølge af migranter, sagde Hollande, at han havde bedt Forsvarsministeriet om at mødes med andre EU-forsvarsministre under artikel 42-7 i EU-traktaten, der garanterer europæisk solidaritet med et medlemsland, der er blevet angrebet.

På aftenen for angrebet meddelte Hollande, at han havde beordret den omgående genetablering af grænsekontrol og udråbte en undtagelsestilstand, som nu er i kraft i hele det franske territorium. Det blev udvidet til muligheden for at gennemføre eftersøgningsoperationer i hele Frankrig.

Hollande meddelte, at, den 18. nov., vil et lovforslag blive fremstillet i parlamentet for at forlænge undtagelsestilstanden til tre måneder, den periode ud over de indledende 12 dage, der ikke kræver en parlamentsvedtagelse.

Hollande sagde, at han vil benytte lejligheden til at foreslå en forfatningsreform mht. to højst delikate paragraffer, der i den franske forfatning drejer sig om forholdsregler, der tages under exceptionelle omstændigheder. Det drejer sig om artikel 16 og 36. I artikel 16, sagde han, »specificeres det, at den ordinære funktion af offentlige myndigheder kan suspenderes. Præsidenten vil derefter tage sådanne forholdsregler, som omstændighederne måtte kræve, og som tager forrang over den forfatningsmæssige magtfordeling.« I artikel 36, fortsatte han, »erklæres en undtagelsestilstand (opr. belejringstilstand) i situationer med umiddelbar fare som resultat af en udenlandsk krig eller en bevæbnet opstand. I denne situation overføres diverse magtbeføjelser fra de civile til de militære myndigheder.« Han sagde, at ingen af disse to planer er tilpasset til kampen imod jihadistisk terrorisme.

Der vil blive introduceret love, der giver Frankrig mulighed for at fratage et individ dobbelt nationalitet, hvis individet er blevet dømt for at krænke nationens fundamentale interesser eller for terrorisme, også selv om personen er født fransk. En fransk person med dobbelt nationalitet, der vender hjem fra en krigsskueplads, kan kun vende hjem, hvis han eller hun underkaster sig streng overvågning.

Undersøgelsestjenester og anti-terror-dommere må have adgang til de mest moderne efterretningsteknikker. De må især have alle midlerne til at bekæmpe »våbenhandel«, og »domme vil blive væsentligt strengere«, sagde han.

Henved 5.000 jobs i politiet og gendarmeriet vil blive skabt for at udvide sikkerhedsstyrkerne til 10.000 frem til 2017. Dette vil blot genetablere denne organisations størrelse til det, den var før nedskæringerne i 2007.

Henved 2.500 jobs vil blive skabt i Justitsministeriet og 1.000 jobs i grænsepolitiet.

Der kommer ikke flere indskrænkninger i hærens personel fra nu og frem til 2019, og disse styrker vil indgå i efterretning, operationer og cyber-forsvar.

Hollande krævede, at man undersøgte den mulighed, om reservister »i fremtiden kunne danne en nationalgarde, der er trænet og til rådighed.«

Alt dette kræver finansiering, sagde Hollande, og »jeg mener, at sikkerhedspagten vil tage forrang over stabilitetspagten«, idet han refererede til EU’s forholdsregler for budgetnedskæring.

Citaterne stammer fra den officielle oversættelse (til engelsk, og herfra til dansk, –red.): http://www.franceonu.org/Francois-Hollande-s-Speech-Before-a-Joint-Session-of-Parliament

Foto: Det exceptionelle sammentræde af begge de franske parlamentshuse tirsdag aften i Versailles, Frankrig.   

LaRouche: Okay. Der er ingen grund til, at vi nogensinde behøvede at tolerere afskaffelsen af Glass-Steagall. Glass/Steagall-loven blev indført af præsident Franklin Roosevelt. Og alt, hvad Franklin Roosevelt gjorde imod Wall Street-slænget, var dårligt for Wall Street.

Så i samme øjeblik, som Roosevelt døde, tog Wall Street over, og det blev værre og værre og værre. Og i efterkrigstiden opdelte man den ameri-kanske befolkning, og der var dem, som blev ’underdog’ (lavest i hakkeordenen) og dem, som var bagdels-kyssere. Og jeg vil gerne forsikre dig om, at det ikke virkede særlig godt.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

16. november 2015 – Franske kampfly lancerede et »massivt« angreb på Raqqa, Islamisk Stats de facto hovedstad, sent den 15. nov. som gengældelse for angrebene i Paris den 13. nov. Ifølge det Franske Forsvarsministerium ødelagde de et kommandocenter og en træningslejr for oprørere med 20 bomber. Frankrig udførte missionen i samarbejde med amerikanske styrker, og de trak på informationer, der var indsamlet under tidligere rekognosceringsmissioner, sagde ministeriet, rapporterer Defense News. Det første mål tjente som kommandocenter, rekruttering og lagerfacilitet for våben og ammunition, mens det andet mål var en træningspost.

Talsmand for Pentagon, flådekaptajn Jeff Davis, sagde under en briefing til reportere i Pentagon i dag, at franskmændene havde udvalgt målene på baggrund af amerikanskleverede efterretninger, og at de franske angreb havde koalitionens »fulde vægt« bag sig. Han fortalte også, at, som et resultat af to telefonsamtaler i løbet af weekenden mellem forsvarsministrene for hhv. USA og Frankrig, Ash Carter og Jean-Yves Le Drian, vil USA og Frankrig gøre deres samarbejde omkring efterretninger tættere i kampen mod ISIS. Carter og direktør for den nationale efterretningstjeneste James Clapper har udstedt nye instruktioner, sagde Davis, der »vil gøre det lettere for amerikansk militærpersonel at dele information om planlagte operationer og efterretninger med vore franske modparter vedr. en hel række af fælles udfordringer, til den yderste grænse af, hvad der er tilladt iht. eksisterende lov og politik«.

Mens det franske angreb på Raqqa fandt sted, ødelagde amerikanske A-10 angrebsfly og AC-130 ’gunships’ 116 olielastbiler i byen Abu Kamal, på bredden af floden Eufrat nær grænsen til Irak. Angrebet var det seneste i kampagnen med navnet »Operation Tidal Wave II« (Operation Tidevandsbølge II) for at eliminere ISIS’ olieindtægter. »Denne del skulle angribe distributionsdelen af ISIS’ oliesmuglingsoperation«, sagde Davis, »samt nedgradere deres evne til at finansiere militære operationer«. Davis rapporterede, at det amerikanske Finansministerium sidste år vurderede, at ISIS’ illegale olieindtægter beløb sig til næsten 1 mio. dollar om dagen.

Davis var imidlertid i lidt af en kattepine, da han skulle forklare, hvorfor kampagnen imod ISIS’ oliehandel nu intensiveres, når det har været åbenlyst kendt siden kampagnens begyndelse, at oliesmugling fra territorier, som ISIS kontrollerer i Irak og Syrien, har fremskaffet en væsentlig del af ISIS’ indtægter. Davis sagde, at, indtil for nylig havde balancen tilgodeset beskyttelsen af syrisk og irakisk olieinfrastruktur, til brug for disse lande efter besejringen af ISIS, men at denne balance nu har ændret sig.

15. november 2015 – Med den tyske udenrigsminister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, der spiller en ledende rolle i at bringe Rusland og USA sammen ved drøftelserne om Syrien og G20, og på trods af chokket ang. terrormassakren i Paris, måtte pensionerede, tyske general Harald Kujat, under en ZDF TV-specialudsendelse om angrebene sent lørdag, meget eftertrykkeligt holde fast ved at fokusere diskussionen på årsagerne og de mulige løsninger på ISIS-terroren, i særdeleshed om det nødvendige i, at Frankrig og Vesten samarbejder militært og politisk med Rusland og den syriske hær. Først sent i udsendelsens løb bragte spørgsmålet om en NATO-mulighed spørgsmålet om samarbejde med Putin og Syrien frem.

Den tyske justitsminister Heiko Maas, der var gæst i studiet, reagerede på en gavnlig måde på, at general Kujat bragte spørgsmålet om en NATO-mulighed på bane, idet han selv bragte samarbejde med Rusland, og ikke kun en militær løsning, på bane. General Kujat brugte Maas’ bekymringer om NATO og USA til at komme med den afgørende pointe om Putins flanke i Syrien: »Med hensyn til Ruslands intervention, den russiske intervention, den militære intervention, så har det transformeret situationen, militært og politisk. Det faktum, at vi i dag kan tale om, at der forhandles om en politisk løsning, er en konsekvens af den russiske intervention i Syrien, og hvis Frankrig ønsker at engagere sig militært i Syrien, inklusive med landtropper, så må de tale med russerne, hvilket amerikanerne for resten også gør, og som har gjort det lettere at sætte sig sammen ved forhandlingsbordet [i Wien] for at drøfte en politisk løsning.«

General Kujat sagde, på et spørgsmål om, hvad han foreslog: »Det, vi ser nu, er, at Rusland har grebet initiativet og går fremefter militært. Alle stater, der kunne udøve militær indflydelse på situationen, har hidtil afvist at sende landtroper dertil, også Rusland, europæerne under alle omstændigheder, og også USA. Rusland bruger nu Assads hær som landtropper og støtter dem med luftangreb. Og det, vi ser, er fremskridt på den russiske side, selv om dette ikke behandles på en fremtrædende plads i de tyske medier. I Irak ser vi fremskridt deri, at kurderne har styrket deres offensiv. Det har alt sammen naturligvis ført til den kendsgerning, at IS på andre måder [angrebene i Paris, -red.] forsøger at tiltrække sig opmærksomhed. Det har brug for støtte og indstrømning af kæmpere.

Foto: Som udtryk for deltagelse i sorgen var Brandenburger Tor i Berlin lørdag og søndag dækket i de franske farver.   

Hvad kan Tyskland gøre? Meget, i modstrid med dem, der hævder, at vi er for små til at gøre noget som helst. For det første må vi starte en debat om, hvad Tysklands virkelige interesser er. Vi bør hæve sanktionerne mod Rusland. Helmut Schmidt havde ret, da han sagde, at krisen i Ukraine var begyndt med Maastrichttraktaten. Vi bør også afslutte enhver mission og alle missioner, som Bundeswehr deltager i til støtte for USA’s/Storbritanniens politik. Vi bør promovere en offentlig debat om alle nationers sikkerhedsinteresser. Vi må have en ny, inkluderende sikkerhedsarkitektur. Den tyske finansminister Wolfgang Schäuble bør træde tilbage, fordi hans »sorte nul«-politik giver næring til optrapningen af højrefløjen.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

15. november 2015 – Den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin og den amerikanske præsident Barack Obama holdt et uformelt, fokuseret og tilsyneladende produktivt møde på over 30 minutter på sidelinjen af G20-topmødet i Antalya, Tyrkiet, hvor de adresserede både Syrien og Ukraine.

Efter mødet sagde den russiske, præsidentielle assistent Yuri Ushakov, da han blev spurgt, om de to ledere havde kunnet bringe deres holdninger om Syrien nærmere hinanden: »Med hensyn til strategiske mål vedr. kampen mod Islamisk Stat, står de generelt nær hinanden; men der er stadig uenigheder om taktik«, rapporterede Tass den 15. nov. Ushakov fortsatte og sagde, at de havde diskuteret »den temmelig kritiske situation« med terrorismen, der blev sat i relief gennem angrebene i Paris.

En regeringsperson fra Det Hvide Hus sagde til Reuters, iflg. RT den 15. nov., at »præsident Obama og præsident Putin blev enige om, at der var behov for en syrisk ledet og syrisk ejet overgang, forud for hvilken der ville være FN-formidlede forhandlinger mellem den syriske opposition og det syriske regime, så vel som en våbenhvile«. Regeringspersonen tilføjede, at Obama gentog sin støtte til Minsk-aftalen i Ukraine, iflg. RT.

Parallelt hermed understregede flere udenrigsministre, der mødtes i Wien, Østrig, den 14. nov., at der var fremskridt. Iflg. den erklæring, der blev udgivet af både det russiske og det amerikanske Udenrigsministerium, indgik deltagerne i Wien-forhandlingerne aftale om at støtte og arbejde for en ikrafttræden af en landsdækkende våbenhvile, »så snart repræsentanterne for den syriske regering har taget indledende skridt til overgangen under FN’s opsyn på basis af Geneve-kommunikeet«. En mulig tidsramme blev etableret for Syrien til at udvikle en forfatning inden for 6 måneder og for at afholde nationale valg inden for 18 måneder.

Ved forhandlingernes afslutning satte udenrigsministrene for Rusland og USA, hhv. Sergei Lavrov og John Kerry, sig sammen for at udfærdige erklæringer. Kerry erklærede, at, alt imens »vi stadig er uenige om, hvad der skal ske med Bashar al-Assad, … så er vi enige om dette: Tiden er inde til, at Syrien skal ophøre med at bløde; tiden er inde til at berøve terroristerne hver eneste kilometer at gemme sig på« rapporterede Associated Press, iflg. den tyrkiske avis Hurriyet den 15. nov.

Alt imens Ruslands Lavrov erklærede sig enig i ånden, så forklarede han, at konflikten – og dens løsning – »ikke handler om Assad. Det er lige meget, om man er for eller imod Assad. ISIL er fjenden«.

Den tyske udenrigsminister Frank-Walter Steinmeier meddelte: »Ingen lyver for sig selv om de vanskeligheder, vi står overfor, men den faste beslutning om at finde en løsning har gjort fremskridt i løbet af 14 dage«, iflg. Agence France Presse med henvisning til de første forhandlinger i Wien, der afholdtes den 30. okt.

Iflg. Wall Street Journal den 14. nov. tilføjede Steinmeier optimistisk: »De forfærdelige angreb i Paris har kun gjort vores fælles faste beslutning om at bekæmpe ISIS større og stærkere. Vi må, og ønsker, at bryde denne årelange uoverstigelige, onde cirkel, idet vi nu optrapper drøftelserne og forhandlingerne mellem syrerne.«

Drøftelser om det vigtige spørgsmål om, hvem, der skal klassificeres som terrorister, der opererer i Syrien – ud over ISIS og al-Nusra – skal efter planen finde sted i Jordan.

Foto: Puttin og Obama mødtes på sidelinjen af G20-topmødet i Antalya, Tyrkiet.

15. november 2015 – Det er nu et åbent spørgsmål, hvorvidt Frankrig vil anmode om aktiveringen af NATO, under bestemmelserne om kollektivt forsvar i NATO’s artikel 5, i kølvandet på terrorangrebene i Paris den 13. november. Pensionerede admiral James Stavridis, en tidligere NATO-øverstbefalende og et nuværende seniorstabsmedlem af Fletcherskolen for Jura og Diplomati ved Tufts Universitet, skriver i en artikel 14. nov. på avisen Foreign Journals webside, at Frankrig bør anråbe artikel 5, og at NATO nu må gå ind i kampen mod ISIS.

»Paris ville være i sin gode ret til at forvente, at NATO spiller en betydningsfuld rolle i at organisere en afgørende, militær respons på angrebene«, skriver admiral Staviridis. »Det fundamentale formål med NATO’s mission bør være at besejre Islamisk Stat i Syrien og ødelægge den infrastruktur, som de dér har skabt.« Dernæst forklarer Stavridis de skridt, som NATO bør tage, inklusive at gå til FN’s Sikkerhedsråd.

Stavridis går imidlertid et skridt videre og kræver, at man inviterer Rusland til at deltage i denne NATO-mission. »NATO bør lægge vægt på, at det opbygger en »åben koalition«, en koalition, der ikke kun kan omfatte de traditionelle allieredes styrker, men også styrker fra NATO’s traditionelle modstander, Rusland«, skriver Stavridis. »Rusland bør inviteres til at deltage sammen med NATO og andre koalitionsmedlemmer imod Islamisk Stat.«

Foto: Pensionerede admiral James Stavridis, 15. nov. 2015.

USA og Europa har fået et alarmsignal til at vågne op gennem det barbariske terroristangreb i Paris. Mange ledende personer kræver nu, at Obamas vanvittige politik for regimeskift i Syrien – som, ligesom tidligere i Irak og Libyen, er i færd med at udløse kaos i hele verden – omgående må afsluttes, så verden kan gå sammen imod ISIS-svøben.

Lørdag sagde præsident Putin:

»Det er klart, at, for effektivt at bekæmpe dette onde, har vi brug for en reel, fælles indsats fra hele det internationale samfund.«

Tidligere NATO-øverstbefalende admiral James Stavridis sagde til Foreign Policy, at Frankrig kunne forvente, at NATO anråbte artikel 5, der bemyndiger en NATO-respons på angrebet, med det »fundamentale formål« fra NATO-missionens side at »besejre Islamisk Stat i Syrien og ødelægge den infrastruktur, den dér har skabt«. Hvad der er vigtigere, så tilføjede admiralen: »Rusland bør inviteres til at deltage sammen med NATO og andre koalitionsmedlemmer imod Islamisk Stat.«

I Wien lørdag anførte den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry og den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov en bred koalition af nationer med et krav om en våbenhvile i Syrien, med en tidsramme på 18 måneder til almene valg. Præsident Assad er ikke ekskluderet fra denne proces.

Søndag talte præsidenterne Obama og Putin på sidelinjen af G20-topmødet i Tyrkiet, hvor en regeringsperson fra Det Hvide Hus til Reuters sagde, at

»Præsident Obama og præsident Putin enedes om behovet for en syrisk ledet og syrisk ejet politisk overgang, forud for hvilken ville være FN-formidlede forhandlinger mellem den syriske opposition og det syriske regime, så vel som en våbenhvile.«    

Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde søndag fra Tyskland, at amerikanerne må forstå, at »intet vil være det samme i Europa efter dette«. Det overlagte angreb mod hverdagslivet – koncerter, sportsbegivenheder, restauranter – viser, at alle er sårbare, ikke blot i Frankrig, men i hele Europa. Hun rapporterede, at højtplacerede europæiske kilder ved, at amerikanske og britiske efterretningskræfter åbenlyst har støttet terroristerne, både gennem saudierne og direkte, som tidligere chef for den amerikanske Forsvarsintelligenstjeneste (DIA), general Michael Flynn, allerede har afsløret.

Hun påpegede den kendsgerning, at i januar, den dag, da angrebet mod Charlie Hebdo fandt sted i Paris, sagde den tidligere amerikanske senator Bob Graham ved en pressekonference, at, hvis de hemmeligstemplede 28 sider af Kongressens undersøgelsesrapport om angrebet mod USA den 11. september var blevet frigivet, ville angrebet i Paris ikke have fundet sted. Vi må nu, sagde fr. LaRouche, atter fokusere på vores indsats for at få dette ødelæggende bevis frigivet, der viser, at Obama er i en åben alliance med terroristerne med det formål at opnå sin kriminelle politik med regimeskifte.

Lyndon LaRouches ven, den amerikanske, tidl. senator Mike Gravel, har udstedt et følgebrev til et juridisk dokument, der viser, at hans sejr i Højesteret i 1971 – da retten dømte, at hans offentliggørelse af de hemmeligstemplede Pentagon-papirer i Kongressens arbejdsprocedure, var legal under Forfatningen – også gjaldt for de 28 sider, og at ethvert medlem af Kongressen kunne indlæse dem i Kongressens journal. Lyndon LaRouche har pålagt en fuld mobilisering af sin organisation over de næste par dage for at frigive dette dokument til alle kongresmedlemmer, pressen og alle borgere.

LaRouche understregede, at Obama nu er den mest hadede person i verden, og at der ikke er, og ikke vil være, nogen tillid til USA, så længe han forbliver i præsidentembedet.

Supplerende dokumentation:

Amerikansk admiral: Aktiver NATO imod ISIS og inviter Rusland til at være med

15. november 2015 – Det er nu et åbent spørgsmål, hvorvidt Frankrig vil anmode om aktiveringen af NATO, under bestemmelserne om kollektivt forsvar i NATO’s artikel 5, i kølvandet på terrorangrebene i Paris den 13. november. Pensionerede admiral James Stavridis, en tidligere NATO-øverstbefalende og et nuværende seniorstabsmedlem af Fletcherskolen for Jura og Diplomati ved Tufts Universitet, skriver i en artikel 14. nov. på avisen Foreign Journals webside, at Frankrig bør anråbe artikel 5, og at NATO nu må gå ind i kampen mod ISIS.

»Paris ville være i sin gode ret til at forvente, at NATO spiller en betydningsfuld rolle i at organisere en afgørende, militær respons på angrebene«, skriver admiral Staviridis. »Det fundamentale formål med NATO’s mission bør være at besejre Islamisk Stat i Syrien og ødelægge den infrastruktur, som de dér har skabt.« Dernæst forklarer Stavridis de skridt, som NATO bør tage, inklusive at gå til FN’s Sikkerhedsråd.

Stavridis går imidlertid et skridt videre og kræver, at man inviterer Rusland til at deltage i denne NATO-mission. »NATO bør lægge vægt på, at det opbygger en »åben koalition«, en koalition, der ikke kun kan omfatte de traditionelle allieredes styrker, men også styrker fra NATO’s traditionelle modstander, Rusland«, skriver Stavridis. »Rusland bør inviteres til at deltage sammen med NATO og andre koalitionsmedlemmer imod Islamisk Stat.«

Paris, 14. november 2015 – Rædsel har slået Paris. Massakrer er blevet begået i blinde for at sætte vores land i en tilstand af chok. Med det samme barbari og de samme metoder som i Mellemøsten, Libanon, Irak og Israel, eller i Syrien. Seks samtidige angreb i hjertet af vores hovedstad og ved Stade de France-sportsstadion, med det formål at mangfoldiggøre ofrene, bunkerne af lig i gaderne, restauranter, der er forvandlet til lighuse, udrykningskøretøjer for hylende sirener: en strategi af frygt, omhyggeligt planlagt, for at levere det budskab, at det værste kan ske overalt og for alle mennesker.

Vores reaktion må modsvare udfordringen. Vi må kun frygte selve frygten, for frygten inspirerer til vanvittige reaktioner, der kommer oven i det første vanvid. At beherske den kan ikke lade sig gøre i passivitet eller fornægtelse, men ved at se tingene i øjnene, i sandhedens navn. Kun kampen for sandheden gør det muligt at undfly angstens kvælertag.

Erklæringen af undtagelsestilstand og lukningen af grænserne, som Republikkens præsident har annonceret, så vel som også deployeringen af politi- og militærstyrker, er de umiddelbart nødvendige forholdsregler, for vi er i krig. At forblive forenet og gøre fælles front i de værdiers navn, der er indskrevet i Republikkens Forfatning, er umiddelbart uundværligt.

Man må imidlertid gå til de første årsager, uden hvilket rædslen vil gentage sig og endda optrappes. Hvilket vil sige skabe en verden, i hvilken de nationale og internationale omgivelser ikke længere skaber kriminalitet, som de gør i dag. For man kan ikke undfly det onde ved simpelt hen at undertrykke det, men ved at virkeliggøre vilkår, under hvilke det gode overlader det onde mindre og mindre plads.

Det er NATO’s krige, de økonomiske uretfærdigheder og ødelæggelsen af værdige livsvilkår, der har skabt betingelserne for terrorisme. Det samme gælder for den kyniske og forbryderiske politik med del og hersk i traditionen efter Det britiske Imperium, og imod hvilket intet i realiteten har modsat sig i vores transatlantiske univers.

At sætte en stopper for rædslen indebærer således en absolut politisk kursændring. Med lanceringen af gensidig udvikling, »win-win«, der sikrer, at vores børn og børnebørn lever bedre end vi selv, er denne lancering, der er annonceret af de kinesiske og indiske ledere, den eneste, virkelige kilde til fred. Samtidig med, at vi i Mellemøsten bekæmper alle terroristgrupper, Islamisk Stat såvel som al-Nusra-Front og Erobringshæren.

Denne lørdag, den 14. november, i Wien, bør Frankrig spille en aktiv rolle i forhandlingerne, der tilsigter at lancere en fredsproces i Syrien, idet vi koordinerer vores indsats med det russiske diplomati, og ikke spiller i hænderne på dem, der tager friheden som gidsel.

I Mellemøsten må Islamisk Stat slås i hjertet af sine økonomiske ressourcer, med bombardementer af deres olieledninger og ved at slå de banker, der hvidvasker deres ressourcer, hvilket hidtil ikke er sket.

Der må sættes en stopper for medskyldigheden i terrorismen hos Qatar, Saudi-Arabien og Emiraterne, uden at vise dette klientel nogen forekommenhed. Og sluttelig må man samtidig genskabe økonomiske udviklingsbetingelser i alle regionens lande, for at migranterne dér kan genfinde værdige livsbetingelser, hvilket Kina tilbyder os ved at udstrække sit koncept med Den nye Silkevej. I mellemtiden må man, i alle regionens flygtningelejre, og i samarbejde med de internationale, humanitære organisationer, skabe disse værdige vilkår ved at sikre tilstrækkelige fødevarer, lægebehandling, anstændige, midlertidige beboelser og uddannelse til børnene.

Dette koncept er ikke russisk, kinesisk, amerikansk eller fransk, det er det koncept, der retfærdiggør nationalstatens eksistens: at tjene menneskehedens sag. Frankrig bør indtage en prominent plads i dette afgørende engagement, og ikke underkaste sig barbarer i djellaba, kameez eller jakkesæt.  

Jacques Cheminade, leder af Solidarité et Progrès.

Ovenstående leder af Jacques Cheminade er oversat fra fransk. Vore fransktalende læsere kan følge med i situationen i Frankrig på Solidarité & Progrès’ hjemmeside: http://www.solidariteetprogres.org/

13. november 2015 – Det forlyder, at der er en aftale på vej mellem Den europæiske Union og Tyrkiet om flygtningespørgsmålet, der, som forventet, er fuldstændig utilstrækkelig i forhold til opgaven. The Guardian rapporterer, at det blev besluttet, under et EU-hastetopmøde på Malta på sidelinjen af EU-Afrika-topmødet, at tilbyde Tyrkiet 3 mia. euro til gengæld for at systematisere flygtningestrømmen til Europa, og som ville omfatte registrering af flygtninge i Tyrkiet og med Europa, der indvilliger i at tage et vist antal hvert år. Tyrkiet skal så acceptere ikke-syriske flygtninge, der forlod Tyrkiet for Europa, men som ikke kvalificerer til flygtningestatus. Pengene skal gå til flygtningenes underhold i Tyrkiet. Der skal være et topmøde senere på måneden eller i december med Tyrkiet for en endelig aftale.

Den tyrkiske avis Hurriyet rapporterer ligeledes, at der har været forhandlinger mellem EU-kommissionsvicepræsident Frans Timmermans og højtrangerende tyrkiske regeringsfolk den 11. nov. i Ankara, hvor en flygtningeaftale, der er parallel med den, Guardian rapporterer om, blev udarbejdet i udkast. Udkastet kræver også en genoplivelse af forhandlinger om Tyrkiets medlemskab af EU, ved at åbne for flere kapitler og bestemmelser om tyrkiske borgeres rejse uden visum til Schengen-zonen. Til gengæld vil Tyrkiet begynde at gennemføre en aftale om, at migranter igen kan komme ind i landet. Aftalen skal ratificeres af regeringslederne. Timmermans vil fremlægge aftalen for EU-rådet i december, hvor man vil søge enstemmig godkendelse.

I mellemtiden vil præsident for EU-kommissionen Jean-Claude Juncker afholde diskussioner med den tyrkiske præsident Recep Tayyip Erdogan på sidelinjen af G20-topmødet i Antalya, Tyrkiet, den 15.-16. nov.

Det er interessant, at, alt imens Tyrkiet tilbydes 3 mia. euro, så har EU-medlemmet Grækenland, hvor henved 600.000 flygtninge er ankommet til siden januar i år, modtaget sølle 8 mio. euro.

EU-Afrika-topmødet den 10. nov. domineredes også af flygtningespørgsmålet, hvor europæerne krævede, at de afrikanske lande tager såkaldte økonomiske flygtninge tilbage til gengæld for blot 2 mia. euro. De afrikanske ledere siges at have været rasende over EU’s holdning.

Vi mødes naturligvis i aften under meget alvorlige og forfærdelige omstændigheder, mens rapporter løber ind om, at over 100 mennesker er blevet dræbt i noget, der synes at være terrorangreb i hele Paris. Hele den franske nation er nu i undtagelsestilstand. Jeff Steinberg vil kommentere hele denne situation senere i aftenens udsendelse.

Engelsk udskrift.

MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good evening. It’s November 13, 2015. My
name is Matthew Ogden, and you’re watching our weekly Friday
evening webcast here from larouchepac.com. I’m joined in the
studio tonight by Jeffrey Steinberg from {Executive Intelligence
Review.}
Now, obviously, we are meeting here tonight under very
solemn and horrifying conditions, as we are hearing reports that
over 100 people have died in what seem to be terrorist attacks
across Paris. The entire nation of France is currently under a
state of emergency, and obviously details of these attacks are
still coming in, as this is an ongoing situation. I know Jeff
will have something to say later on this subject, later on this
evening, during this broadcast, as pertains to these horrific
events.
But this evening we’re going to be beginning our broadcast
with an on-the-ground video report from New York City, where the
LaRouche Political Action Committee held a rally earlier today in
front of the headquarters of the {New York Times}. I’m sure many
of our viewers have had a chance to see on the front page of the
LaRouche PAC website a press release which was published on this
website yesterday, which is titled, “Why won’t the {New York
Times} publish Obama’s Drone Papers?”, which makes the point
that, despite the fact that the Times played a central role back
in 1971 in publishing the so-called “Pentagon Papers”, which were
revealed by Daniel Ellsberg, and were released to the American
people by the courageous actions which Senator Mike Gravel took
by reading them into the {Congressional Record} — despite the
fact that the Times was instrumental in this action, which was
instrumental in laying the foundation for the downfall of Richard
Nixon, and the ultimate end of the Vietnam War — today the {New
York Times} has made the willful choice {not} to publish any
serious coverage of the so-called “Drone Papers”, which were
likewise leaked by a courageous whistleblower from within the
drone program itself, a so-called second Edward Snowden, and
published by Glenn Greenwald’s internet-based publication, {The
Intercept.}
Despite thoroughly damning new details that have emerged and
are contained within these documents, the Drone Papers, which
pull back the curtain on the murderous and completely out of
control targetted assassination program that’s being run,
top-down by President Barack Obama, in his weekly kill sessions,
without any due oversight, and from behind closed doors, despite
this, the editors of the {New York Times} have publicly stated
that in their opinion, these new revelations do not “warrant
their own story.”
The truth is — and you can be assured that the {New York
Times} editorial staff well knows this — any widespread and
serious coverage of the “Drone Papers” today. by a major national
newspaper of record, such as the New York Times, in the fashion
of the Times’ own coverage of the Pentagon Papers in 1971, would
have an utterly devastating effect on revealing to the American
people the true reality of how this secret drone program is
actually run, and the character of the President who runs it. And
just as the Pentagon Papers did back then, major publication of
the “Drone Papers” today would likewise lay the foundation for
the indictment and political downfall of this President — as his
murderous proclivities are put on full display for the entire
country to see.
The question is: Knowing all of this, as the press release
puts it, “Is the {New York Times} more afraid of Barack Obama
than it was of Richard Nixon? And will that fear of taking on the
true characteristic of what this President stands for, cause the
{New York Times} to fail to address that awful reality at the
very time that Obama is leading the United States into
unprecedented war-provocations against both Russia and China, and
by failing to do so, thus finding themselves  — the {New York
Times} —  complicit in actions which threaten the outbreak of a
Third World War, and endanger the continued existence of all
mankind.
With that said as an opening statement, we bring the
on-the-ground report from New York City, delivered by LaRouche
PAC’s Daniel Burke:
“Hi, I’m Daniel Burke, and this is a LaRouche
Political Action Committee rally that you’re witness to at the
moment, in front of the {New York Times} headquarters on 41st
Street and 8th Avenue. And we stand here today in the midst of
certainly the gravest crisis that our species has ever faced,
which is well expressed in this banner that we have before us
“Obama Leads America to Hell.” But our mission is to unify the
United States, to have the courage to stand up against the
insanity that is dominating  our government today.
“At the moment, we are on the brink of a thermonuclear war,
because of the fact that this man has been tolerated, and his
provocations against Russia, and against China, are unprecedented
in the history of humanity, in terms of the danger that they
pose. But as we’ve laid out in webcasts over the recent weeks,
there is a clear train of abuses; the evidence is before you, and
now it’s a matter of having the courage to stand up against it.
So that’s what we’re doing today, because the fact of the matter
is that the {New York Times} has been covering up for Obama’s
Satanic drone murders. It’s been released through {The
Intercept}, from a new whistleblower, as we’ve documented in our
webcasts so far: that Obama is at the top of a chain that is
mass-murdering civilians. And the {New York Times} buried the
release of these documents at the bottom of a column a couple of
weeks ago, and then they justified this, by claiming that it did
not warrant its own story.
“So, we stand here to specifically indicate the editors, the
writers, who were involved in this cover-up; demand that this be
brought to justice; and in the meanwhile to consider that what we
need today is for one Senator to stand up, and to move against
Obama. This is what happened with Richard Nixon, and it was in
that case that the {New York Times} had the courage in 1971 to
publish the ‘Pentagon Papers’. Why will they remain silent on
these Satanic murders from Barack Obama?”
OGDEN: Now, Mr. LaRouche wanted to feature this video report
from New York City for the reason that he has placed Manhattan at
the center of his strategy to restore the United States to its
original founding principle as embodied in Alexander Hamilton,
the very opposite of everything that Obama has come to represent
today. Further coverage of this rally will be available on the
LaRouche PAC website, including a longer version of this
on-the-ground report, as well as the text of the press release,
which I mentioned at the outset of tonight’s proceedings.
But, when you place Obama’s drone program in the context of
his open and blatant war provocations against both Russia and now
increasingly against China, in the recent days and weeks, which
will lead to a global thermonuclear war if not stopped.  In that
context, I would like to ask Jeff to elaborate a little bit on
what Mr. LaRouche’s assessment was of the importance of using
this campaign, as you just saw, centered in Manhattan around the
revelations that are now contained and released in the “Drone
Papers” in order to drive Obama from office before he has the
chance to lead the world into World War III.

STEINBERG:  I learned earlier today that there is a joke
circulating very widely in Israel, and I’m sure in other places
around the world.  And the joke goes something like this:  What’s
the difference between God and Barack Obama?  The answer?  God
doesn’t think he’s Barack Obama.
What we’re dealing with here is truly a Satanic personality,
and yet, he’s been permitted to carry out atrocity after
atrocity; all on behalf of the British, whose policy, at the
level of the British Empire, at the level of the British
monarchy, has been always one of massive population reduction
through policies of genocide.  I think that’s the way you’ve got
to understand the events that are unfolding right now in Paris.
In a very real sense, the slaughter that’s taken place over the
last few hours — and of course French authorities are not sure
that it’s over; there were seven attacks against seven different
random targetted popular nightspots all around the city of Paris,
highly coordinated.  Kind of what we saw in 2008 in Mumbai, but
on a much more elaborate scale.  And you’ve got to ask yourself,
where does this kind of Satanic behavior come from?  What are the
roots of this Islamic State jihadist apparatus?
Well, remember that the former head of the Defense
Intelligence Agency, General Michael Flynn, warned earlier this
year in a now widely circulated interview with Al-Jazeera
America, that he had gone to President Obama in the summer of
2012 and warned that the policies that the US was pursuing —
particularly the policies of facilitating the running of heavy
weapons from the Libyan port city of Benghazi into various Syrian
rebel groups — was going to result in the creation of a jihadist
caliphate on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, and in that
general Middle Eastern region.  Now, this was two years prior to
the formal surfacing of the Islamic State, which really launched
its operations in Iraq with the dramatic takeover of Mosul; and
that was in June of 2014.  So you’ve got high-level US Defense
Intelligence officials telling the President of the United
States, “Drop your fixation with the overthrow of the Assad
government in Syria.  Halt the flow of weapons that were
unleashed on the world as the result of the overthrow of Qaddafi
and his instant execution back in the fall of 2011; which
unleashed floods of weapons throughout Africa.  And through this
Benghazi operation of British Intelligence and John Brennan as
the Counterintelligence Director of the Obama administration, the
weapons began to flow into Syria; and these weapons went into the
hands of the very jihadist networks that we’ve now seen operating
on the streets of Paris.
So, is there a causal relationship between the British
Satanic policies of mass population reduction, often stated by
Prince Philip — the royal consort who insists that the world’s
population must be reduced by 80%.  The fact that General Flynn
openly said that President Obama did not ignore the warnings, but
pursued a willful policy of continuing with the arming of the
Syrian rebels after he was repeatedly told what the consequences
of that would be.  And now we’ve seen those consequences, with
the establishment of the Islamic State; we’ve seen those events
now spilling over into the streets of Paris.  The situation in
France is still unfolding; there’s no definitive answers in terms
of who particularly carried out these heinous attacks.  But we
know that the circumstances under which those kinds of events
could happen, were the product of a persistent line of policy
that has come out of the Presidency of the United States for at
least the last 15 years; the 8 years of Bush and Cheney, and now
the 7-plus years of Barack Obama. So you’re dealing with somebody
who is by his character, pursuing outright policies that are
evil, that are Satanic, and that at their core are British; that
directly go to the demands of the Prince Philips of the world,
who call for mass population reduction.
Now we know that in two weeks, the COP21 climate change
conference is scheduled to happen in Paris; we may very well find
that there was a relationship between these attacks that we’re
now just seeing unfolding on the streets of Paris right now, and
that upcoming conference.  Earlier this week, Secretary of State
John Kerry bluntly stated what has now become obvious; namely
that that COP21 conference — despite the efforts of the papal
encyclical and John Schellnhüber and other outright proponents of
genocide — that conference is likely to fail.  There’s too much
resistance from developing sector countries that realize that
what they’re looking at is a recipe for genocide.  So, what we
have before us then, are other means by which the world is
careening towards the kind of events that can lead to the mass
population reduction policies that are being demanded principally
out of the British monarchy; and are being carried out
principally through agents of that monarchy such as Barack Obama.
So, what have we seen just in the recent days?  The
administration has continued with the drone kill policy; and as
we saw in the rally out in front of the {New York Times}, it’s
quite clear that the White House has put enormous pressure on the
major US media outlets to suppress the story.  Because if the
story were to get national media attention through the {New York
Times}, through the {Washington Post}, through CNN or one of the
major cable news outlets, there would be a groundswell of demand
for President Obama’s removal from office.  These policies are
policies of outright genocide.  And we’ve been continuing our own
investigation into the drone kill policy of Obama; looking beyond
the “Drone Papers” that were released by {The Intercept} about
three or four weeks ago.  And when you dig deeper into this
policy, what you find is that there have been repeated and
consistent studies carried out by the military, carried out by
major thinktanks whose job it is to do analysis of the actions of
the military.  You have the Stimson Center producing a series of
two reports in 2012 and in 2014; the Naval Post-Graduate School
out in Monterrey, California, produced a major study; the Rand
Corporation produced a major study.  In every instance, they can
to the identical conclusion: the drone policy is a failed policy;
it can never work; it will never work. The idea of targetting
priority terrorist agents for elimination, does nothing to reduce
the spread of these kinds of jihadists. If anything, it becomes a
major means of further recruitment, of expansion of operations.
These are not things that are unknown at the levels of the
National Security Council, the Obama White House, and similar
locations. It is {willfully known} that these polices do not curb
terrorism, do not defeat insurgent movements. They feed them,
they fuel them, they expand them.
And so, you really do have a principle here, in which the
objective is not to defeat terrorism, but the objective is to
spread the kind of murderous chaos that weve seen engulf Syria
for the last four and a half years; that weve seen in Iraq and
Afghanistan, going back to the beginning of the Bush/Cheney
administration in 2001, with the aftermath of the 9/11 events
that have been systematically covered up, first by President
Bush, now by President Obama.
The real issue, here, is not exposing the role of the Saudis
in this kind of sponsorship of terrorism, including the 9/11
attacks. The real issue here, is that there is a {conscious
policy} of creating conditions of global instability and chaos,
that ensure that the targetted population- reduction goals are
being met, and war is still one of the major means for that to be
carried out. So, we have a period that weve been living through,
that constitutes more than a Thirty Years War, a period of
perpetual war, and these last two Presidencies have been major
instrumentalities to make sure that that policy happens.
Now, in the past days, in addition to the continuing
cover-up of the Obama drone kill programs which go directly and
personally to Obamas desk in the Oval Office, every single one of
these kill orders has Barack Obamas personal signature on it.
Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, when he was asked to
comment about the drone program, simply said, Its the only game
in town. So, this has been the {signature policy} — an
indiscriminate mass murder policy, of this President and of this
administration. The idea of toleration for that, for one moment
more, is something that now clearly threatens us all. If these
kinds of actions can happen in the streets of Paris, France, then
they can happen anywhere, including here in the United States.
Now, not only is Obama continuing to pursue and defend this
policy of drone kill, but, in the past week, weve seen an
escalation on the strategic scale, as well. Defense Secretary Ash
Carter spent last week in Asia, attending the ASEAN Defense
Ministers Meeting. He tried to turn that event, unsuccessfully,
fortunately, into a gang-up against China. The host government,
Malaysia, refused to include a reference to the South China Sea
situation in the draft communiqué for that conference. Carter
showed up — and by the way, the United States is not a member of
ASEAN. Carter was there as an invited guest of the ASEAN
countries, the ten nations of Southeast Asia. But, he basically
intervened to try to hijack the entire direction of that
conference. Fortunately, many of those countries of the region
simply refused to do it. As the result, the conference ended in a
shambles; there was no final communiqué.
From Kuala Lumpur, Carter returned to the United States via
Simi Valley, California, where he gave a major speech at the
Reagan Library, and assailed both Russia and China, and accused
them of sabre-rattling around the threat of nuclear war. What he
was referring to, in the specific case of Russia, is that Russia,
in response to the United States deployment of ABM systems right
along the southern borders of Russia, the expansion of NATO
throughout eastern Europe, in violation of the agreements that
were reached at the time of German reunification. In response to
all of those provocations, the Russians have moved to establish
new levels of defense against what President Putin this week
described as a clear attempt by the U.S. and its allies, to break
up the strategic balance that had existed throughout the period
of the Cold War and the post-Cold War period, up until this time,
and that the United States, by refusing to collaborate with
Russia on some kind of global missile defense program, as
President Reagan had proposed back in 1983, when he was in close
collaboration with Lyndon LaRouche on that project. The United
States policy, is to create a thermonuclear war-winning option.
That poses not just an existential threat to Russia, but a grave
threat to all of mankind.
Now, middle of this past week, President Putin convened the
annual meeting with top Russian defense officials and leaders of
the defense-industrial sector of Russia, at Sochi, on the Black
Sea. In opening remarks to that event, which were widely
televised throughout Russia, Putin made very clear: the United
States has been targeting Russia with the ABM deployment. The
fact is clearly demonstrated, because even after the P5+1 deal
was reached with Iran, the United States announced it was
continuing to move full steam ahead with the ABM deployment, not
in partnership with Russia, but unilaterally, with U.S. allies.
Since the original argument had been made that this ABM system
was strictly directed against Iran, now that Iran has come into
compliance with the nuclear deal, with the P5+1, it just shows
the lie to everything that Obama has been saying on this. Putin
made very clear, that Russia is moving forward to develop new
weapon systems that can defeat any kind of ABM program that the
U.S. puts in place, which {will} be directed against Russia.
At the same time, as reported this week in the {Guardian} —
weve mentioned it here on these Friday night webcasts for some
time — the United States is going ahead with the deployment of
what is, in effect, a new generation of tactical nuclear weapons
that will be forward-based in central and eastern and western
Europe, which will be a new generation. Theyre called the B61-12,
with highly accurate tail-guidance systems, that will penetrate
deeper into Russian territory, with much more precision accuracy,
and therefore these nuclear weapons will have greatly-reduced
thermonuclear payloads, which means that the gap between
strategic nuclear war and tactical-theater conventional nuclear
war, is greatly reduced. In other words, were moving towards a
policy of having a deployable force of thermonuclear weapons,
directed at close range, against targets in Russia.
Now, we learned this past week, through excerpts from a
forthcoming authorized biography of George Herbert Walter Bush
[{Destiny and Power}, by Jon Meacham], that at the time of the
1991 Operation Desert Storm, and again during 2003, during the
period of the invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq,
[Vice President] Dick Cheney was persistently pushing for the use
of nuclear weapons. In the case of the first war in the Gulf,
Cheney was promoting the idea that the U.S. should use 17
tactical nuclear weapons against targets in Iraq. So now we’ve
got a continuation of that policy under President Obama.
So, here we are, more than 25 years after the end of the
Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the collapse of the
Warsaw Pact — we’re facing the gravest threat of thermonuclear
war not because of any actions on the part of Russia, but because
of the character of the President of the United States, a Satanic
character who has no sense whatsoever of the consequences of
pursuing this kind of policy of genocide.
So, whether it’s preparing the groundwork for thermonuclear
confrontation with Russia, and similarly with China — we’ve had
B-52 bombers, which are bombers that are capable of carrying
thermonuclear warheads, flying over territory that China claims
in the South China Sea, as China’s sovereign territory, as part
of the Spratly Islands. That happened just in the last several
days, and it’s only now been first acknowledged by the Pentagon.
There was an earlier incident involving naval ships, incursions,
into those same waters.
So we’ve got the targetting of Russia, the beginnings of a
similar outright targetting of China. We have the drone policy,
and the cover-up of that policy. So here we are, literally
looking at somebody whose track record, documented proven track
record, is that of mass murder. And yet there is toleration for
his remaining in office.
Now in our discussion this afternoon with Mr. LaRouche, he
very much placed the emphasis on the situation in Manhattan.
You’ve got a unique characteristic of the population of
Manhattan, the population of New York City and the great
metropolitan area — but particularly the population of
Manhattan. They still have a greater sense of reality, at least
large segments of the population do. They have a greater sense of
the morality that goes with recognizing the great danger that
we’re facing in the world today. And so, if you look back
historically, Manhattan was the place where the core concepts
around which our Constitutional republic was organized were
formulated. They were formulated in Manhattan in particular by
our First Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. There is a
Hamiltonian tradition that prevails, and that tradition is the
organizing principle for our nation, for our republic.
So Manhattan holds a special place for the nation as a
whole. Mr. LaRouche pointed out that if you do a survey, region
by region around the United States, you will find that region by
region the economy has been destroyed. The social fabric has been
gutted. We have drug addiction, suicide, all kinds of social
dislocation because region by region, the economies of these
areas of the United States have been gutted, particularly during
the period first of the Bush-Cheney administration, and at a
greater and greater accelerating rate, under President Obama.
Never mind that since 9/11, $44 {billion} in your taxpayers’
money has gone into the establishment of this drone kill program
that is one of the critical factors that keeps expanding the size
and brutality of the terrorist apparatus that we’ve now seen
playing out on the streets of Paris just in the last few hours.
So we’re dealing with an assault against the American people, an
assault that has weakened the social fabrics of many parts of our
country. So again, Manhattan represents a certain kind of glue, a
potential critical point of inspiration for saving this nation,
and this event that you’ve just seen a brief excerpt of in front
of the {New York Times} headquarters today, is indicative of the
kind of thing that we will be doing at an accelerating and
continuing rate of expansion in Manhattan.
And we’ve got a situation in Washington, where there are a
precious handful of elected officials, people in other positions
within the Federal government, within the military, within the
diplomatic corps, within the intelligence services — a handful
of people — who remain truly committed to the survival of this
nation and the planet, and we call on you, the American people,
to put maximum pressure on them to step outside the bounds of
what’s required to “go along to get along” and for a handful of
these people to step forward and speak the absolute truth about
what has gone on in this country, particularly during the seven
years of this Obama presidency.
One or two leading members of the U.S. Senate, in
particular, taking their oath of office seriously, can bring this
President down and start the process of reversal of this
destructive, literally Satanic takedown of the United States and
everything it has historically stood for. We need that step, but
we need the voice of the American people, led by Manhattan, to
make sure that that actually happens, and that it happens in
time.
OGDEN: Thank you, Jeff. Jeff’s comments just now regarding
the events which occurred in Paris this evening prompted me to
recall the remarks that former Senator Bob Graham made at a press
conference on Capitol Hill on Jan. 6 of this year, which was
nearly hours after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, also in Paris. And
in that press conference, former Senator Bob Graham laid the
responsibility right at the doorstep of President Obama, and put
the fault right on Obama’s doorstep, because of his refusal to
end the cover-up of the 28 pages of the 9/11 Joint Inquiry
report. And as Jeff  just said, this indictment of Obama’s fault
on this matter, obviously still applies, and Bob Graham at that
press conference, called for a Lincolnesque standard of full
disclosure of the contents of the 28 pages in that count, but
also this obviously applies to the “Drone Papers”, and all the
other crimes that remain in the shadows.
Bob Graham was referring to Abraham Lincoln’s full
disclosure of the role of the British in supporting the
Confederacy during the Civil War. And what Senator Graham said at
that time, was that the national security threat lies {not} in
the disclosure of these documents, but in the non-disclosure, as
could be seen then in the case of the attacks on {Charlie Hebdo},
and I believe as can be seen again today in the continuing
attacks in Paris. Also, I would say the 28 pages warrant the
Pentagon Papers treatment by some courageous member of the United
States Senate, or U.S. House.
Now, with that said, we have a question which has come in
from our institutional source, and I’m going to read it. It’s
very brief, and I’m going to ask Jeff to respond: “Mr. LaRouche.
What are your thoughts on the immigration crises in Europe, and
what is our advice to European leaders?”
STEINBERG: Mr. LaRouche’s answer to this question was very
brief and very blunt. He said the first step toward solving this
problem is that Wolfgang Schaüble, the Finance Minister of
Germany, has got to be dumped. Schaüble, in Mr. LaRouche’s words,
belongs to be put in a pig pen, because his ideas and his
opinions stink. He’s terrible, he’s disgusting, and he
personifies those in Europe who are trying to stir up this
refugee crisis into a showdown, a kind of a confrontation that
could ultimately lead to the eruption of an outright civil war in
Europe.  In fact, I greatly feat that in the wake of these Paris
attacks, that you’re going to see an enormous backlash.  German
Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is increasingly becoming a captive
of the revolt by people like Schaüble in her own party, actually
took the surprising, but courageous stance, of saying that these
refugees must be assisted; they must be protected, and they must
be given an opportunity to be integrated into European society.
And so, there’s a deep split over this issue.
The Russians, through President Putin, have intervened
forcefully into the Syria situation to bring the Syria war to an
end.  The Russian military intervention on behalf of the Assad
government, is beginning to show significant success.  Remember,
the Russian involvement only began directly on September 30; so
we’re talking about a period of six weeks.  And in that six week
period, there have been a number of significant setbacks
delivered to the Islamic State and some of the other jihadist
elements of the Syrian rebel opposition.  The area around the
city of Aleppo, which is the industrial capital of Syria, is now
in the process of being retaken by the government forces.  60% to
80% of the population of Syria has now moved, or has already been
located in areas under government protection.  So, the idea that
the Syrian people are fleeing to Europe through Turkey and other
routes to get away from Assad is not the reality of the
situation.  They’re fleeing to get away from the Islamic State,
the Nusra front, and the jihadists who’ve been the instruments
for the war to overthrow the Assad government.
Remember, in August of 2009, President Obama simply
declared, “Assad must go”; and with that declaration, the US
began facilitating the efforts of the Saudis, the Turks and
others to provide weapons to an army of jihadists who have come
in from around the world.  So, defeat the Islamic State; push
back against the tyranny of the Anglo-Saudi apparatus; dump the
likes of Wolfgang Schaüble and others of his ilk, who are trying
to stir up literally a Hitlerian backlash in Europe against these
refugees, who are caught in a trap between the brutality of ISIS
back in the Middle East and Iraq and Syria, and the emergence of
a nativist right wing, literally a Hitlerian backlash inside
western Europe.  If Europe is to survive, if Syria is to be
rebuilt, then you’ve got to take certain decisive actions; and
the United States should be collaborating with Russia in a
coordinated effort to defeat ISIS.  Because every effort that the
US and this so-called coalition of 60 nations has taken against
ISIS has been a completely transparent fraud.
So, who’s responsible for the flood of refugees streaming
into Europe?  Start with President Obama, British Prime Minister
Cameron, former French President Sarkozy, current French
President Hollande.  These are the criminals who, along with the
Saudis, the Turks, the Qataris and the others, have been
providing all of the logistical and other support to the spread
of jihadism.  Because ultimately what they’re out to accomplish
is a population war.  We’ve said this previously.  The British
policy towards the entire Islamic world, is to foment a new
religious Hundred Years War between Sunni and Shi’a on a global
scale; because ultimately their objective is population
reduction.  If they can launch such a Hundred Years War, then how
many of the 1.8 or so billion Muslims on this planet will survive
at the end of the day?  And again, we have a President of the
United States who, by personality and by ownership by the
British, is a fully witting instrument in this process.
So, on the one hand, as Mr. LaRouche said, Schaüble and
people of his ilk have got to be dumped.  They’re the menace;
they’re the danger.  Schaüble wants to go ahead with murderous
austerity against the population of Europe; and has even less
interest in doing anything for these refugees.  And Obama, in his
own right, has carried out the same kinds of policies.  The
destruction of the United States on his watch and on the watch of
the previous President, is a crime beyond imagination.  And so,
it’s time for the American people and even a handful of leading
elected officials in Washington to wake up to exactly where the
clock stands and to act before midnight.

OGDEN:  Well, with that said, I think is the point where we
are going to bring a conclusion to our broadcast tonight.  Again,
I would recommend people go on the website and watch the full
coverage of the rally in front of the {New York Times}
headquarters today in New York City; as well as reading the full
text of the press release that was circulated en masse there
today.  Thank you for joining us, and please stay tuned.  And
please, if you are in the New York City area, participate in the
weekly discussion which Mr. LaRouche holds every Saturday
afternoon with the citizens of Manhattan.  If you’re not, you
have the opportunity to do the same on Thursday nights with the
weekly Fireside Chats.  Thank you very much for joining us
tonight; and please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

12. november 2015 – Ledelsen for den Europæiske Bank for Genopbygning og Udvikling (EBRD) accepterede onsdag Kinas bud på at blive medlem af banken og banede vejen for, hvad der forventes at blive en endelig vedtagelse af de regeringer, der har aktier i banken, for det meste finansministrene for de 64 medlemslande, i næste måned, rapporterer Reuters i dag.

Hvis de, som forventet, vedtager forslaget, vil det give Beijing en »beskeden, men symbolsk andel på 0,1 procent« i EBRD, siger Reuters og tilføjer, at »Kina vil indbetale til udviklingsbanken snarere end at modtage investering fra den. Men arbejder, som EBRD allerede er ved at planlægge i lande som Kasakhstan, overlapper med Kinas såkaldte ’Ét bælte, én vej’-initiativ.

EBRD’s præsident Suma Chakrabarti har sagt, at banken gerne vil udføre arbejder i partnerskab med den nye, kinesisk ledede Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank, AIIB.

Etableret i 1991 for at investere i de østeuropæiske lande, der tidligere var under Sovjetblokken, investerer EBRD nu i Mongoliet, Tyrkiet og Maghreb, så vel som i eurozone-kriselandene Grækenland og Cypern.

11. november 2015 – Velunderrettede kilder har fortalt Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), at den italienske premierminister Matteo Renzi’s nylige udtalelser om projektet for en bro over Messinastrædet[1] reflekterer en regeringsaftale om at bygge broen mellem det italienske hovedland og Sicilien, i sammenhæng med voksende pres fra vælger- og erhvervsgrupper om at adressere spørgsmålet om at opgradere infrastrukturen og udvikle økonomien i Italiens Mezzogiorno, som det sydlige Italien kaldes. I særdeleshed fik Renzi for nylig et par tidligere medlemmer af Berlusconis parti Forza Italia, der, iflg. kilden, som betingelse satte broen, bl.a., som en betingelse for at sikre deres støtte til regeringen. Renzi har brug for denne støtte for at kompensere for tabet af et par delegerede fra det venstreorienterede Demokratiske Partis lejr, som forlod partiet.

I et interview, der blev publiceret den 6. nov., sagde Renzi, at, før vi taler om Messina-broen, »lad os løse spørgsmålet om vand til Messina, om rensningsanlæggene. Vi vil også bygge broen og endelig forlænge højhastigheds-jernbanen også til Sicilien og investere i Reggio Calabria, som er Sydens hovedby. På den anden side må vi også færdiggøre [moderniseringen af] Salerno-Reggio Calabria-hovedlandevejen. Når vi først har afsluttet disse kapitler, vil historien, teknologien og ingeniørstandarden indlysende gå i retning af broen, der vil blive endnu et smukt symbol for Italien.«

En sådan udtalelse kan læses på flere måder, men reflekterer iflg. EIR’s kilder regeringens hensigt om at genintroducere spørgsmålet om broen så smidigt som muligt. Regeringen arbejder angiveligt på et lovudkast, der skal sætte broen på dagsordenen igen. Det er nødvendigt med en lov, da projektet blev annulleret ved en lov af Monti-regeringen i 2011. Regeringen ønsker at redde ansigt ved at finde en måde, hvor den ikke skal poste flere penge i projektet end de penge, regeringen skal betale i bøde til byggekonsortiet for at have brudt aftalen.

[1] Se Schiller Instituttets Specialrapport: »Et økonomisk mirakel for Sydeuropa, Middelhavsområdet og Det afrikanske Kontinent«, juni 2012

11. november 2015 – Cyperns præsident Nicos Anastasiades har meddelt, at Cypern tilslutter sig som fuldgyldig partner i Kinas projekter under »Ét bælte, én vej«.

Han talte ved et seminar i Nicosia den 9. november med titlen, »Ét bælte, én vej – den kinesiske forbindelse, og hvorfor Cypern bør være inkluderet«, som var præsidentens rapport efter sit besøg i Kina i sidste måned.

Anastasiades besøgte Kina i oktober måned efter invitation fra den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping, med hvem Anastasiades mødtes under besøget. Han mødtes også med den kinesiske vicepræsident Li Yuanchao og andre kinesiske regeringsfolk, og han talte ved den store konference med titlen »Ny vision for Silkevejen: Ny handling for fælles udvikling«, der var sponsoreret af Kinas Kommunistiske Partis Centralkomites Afdeling for Internationale Relationer. 60 delegationer fra 30 lande deltog i konferencen, men Anastasiades var den eneste leder fra et EU-land, der var inviteret til at tale ved konferencen.

Den cypriotiske præsident deltog også i et arrangement i Beijing, der var arrangeret af Cyperns Handels- og Industrikammer, og endnu et i Shanghai, arrangeret af Cyperns Sammenslutning af Land- og Bebyggelses-entreprenører.

I sine bemærkninger ved seminaret i Nicosia, der var arrangeret af Cyperns Handels- og Industrikammer og den Cypriotisk-kinesiske Virksomhedssammenslutning, sagde Anastasiades, at projektet med Ét bælte, én vej »udgør en stor vision, der giver den nødvendige impuls til at bryde den nuværende, økonomiske stagnation ved at tiltrække investeringer, bekæmpe arbejdsløshed og adressere underudvikling. Det er et initiativ, der etablerer en ny ramme for samarbejde og udvikling, og som lægger grunden til stabilitet, fred og fremgang«.

Præsidenten sagde, at hans »regerings mål er vedvarende at støtte udviklingen af virksomheder og økonomiske relationer mellem Cypern og Kina i mange økonomiske sektorer, inklusive handel, turisme, privatisering af havne, elforsyning og telekommunikation, skibsfragt, ejendomsmarked, storstilede udviklingsprojekter, uddannelse, sundhed, forskning og innovation … «

»Med dette formål for øje er Cyperns regering parat til at samarbejde tæt med vores kinesiske, asiatiske og europæiske partnere for effektivt at støtte dette initiativ, især mht. den heldige promovering af målene og værdierne i den Maritime Silkevej, som en hovedtransit-ø på den maritime Silkevejs handelsruter … «. Det 21. århundredes Maritime Silkevej er en af de to komponenter af Ét bælte, én vej-initiativet; den anden er det Økonomiske Silkevejsbælte.

Phidias Pilides, præsident for Cyperns Handels- og Industrikammer, udtalte, at »den kinesiske regerings nye initiativ med at genoplive den antikke idé med Silkevejen vil udvikle sig til at blive den mest ambitiøse infrastrukturplan i verden i dag«.

Panicos Kaouris, præsident for den Cypriotisk-kinesiske Virksomhedssammenslutning, sagde, »Omfanget og størrelsesordenen af dette initiativ er af en sådan art, at det potentielt i væsentlig grad kan ændre det økonomiske verdenskort ved at accelerere det skift, der allerede er ved at finde sted, af den økonomiske magt fra Vest til Øst«, rapporterede Famagusta Gazette.

Anastasiades’ Silkevejs-diplomati er i overensstemmelse med det igangværende og formelle samarbejde mellem Cypern, Grækenland og Egypten, der alle nyder fremragende relationer med Kina, inden for energi, logistik og sikkerhed, især i sammenhæng med Egyptens Suezkanal-udviklingskorridor.

Foto: Cyperns allerede gode relationer til Kina styrkedes yderligere under Anastasiades’ besøg i Kina i oktober 2015. Her, med præsident Xi Jinping.