20. oktober 2015 – Hvis kansler Merkel er »den mest magtfulde kvinde i verden«, så bør hun rejse til Washington og få USA til »at sætte sig ved bordet« sammen med Rusland for at stoppe myrderiet i Syrien. Dette var de facto konsensussen mellem general Harald Kujat (pens.) og medlem af Forbundsdagen (MdB) Wolfgang Gehrcke under deres optræden i går aftes på Phoenix-Tv’s »Unter den Linden«-talkshow. General Kujat var chef for NATO’s Militærkomite fra 2002-05 og før det chef for Bundeswehrs generalstab; MdB Gehrcke var mangeårigt medlem af Vesttysklands Kommunistiske Parti indtil 1990, hvor han blev leder af det, der nu er Die Linke.

Selv om debatten drejede sig om flygtningekrisen i Europa, så bragte de to gæster hele tiden spørgsmålet tilbage til den kendsgerning, at »flygtningekrisen kun er symptomet«, men at årsagen er den brutale krig i Syrien, der må afsluttes. Studieværten forsøgte at holde spørgsmålet på flygtningene og kansler Merkels besøg i Tyrkiet, men Gehrcke brød ind med, at »ingen vil tale om årsagerne«. Vi indgår en aftale midt i Erdogans valgkampagne for at få en aftale som den, vi havde med Gaddafi, »som vi senere slagtede som en hund«, og efterlod os med det problem, vi har nu. General Kujat sagde, at aftalen ikke vil fungere; »nøglen er at standse krigen«. Udenrigsminister Frank-Walter Steinmeiers diplomati er vigtigt, »men nøglen er at få USA til at sætte sig sammen med Rusland for en gennemføre et fælles mål«.

Kujat var enig med Gehrcke i, at Tyrkiet er »indirekte involveret« i opbakningen til ISIS. Siden USA-Erdogan-aftalen bomber Tyrkiet ikke ISIS i Syrien, men kurderne (som var en urokkelig partisan imod ISIS). Russerne blev beskyldt for kun at bombe de »moderate« oprørere og ikke ISIS, »hvad jeg ikke tror, er helt sandt«, men Tyrkiet?

General Kujat kritiserede uophørligt, at »vore politikere« ikke ser, at vi har en stor interesse i, at USA og Rusland og Europa samarbejder om at afslutte krigen. At nægte at samarbejde med Rusland med den falske påstand, at Putin kun støtter Assad, er forkert, sagde han. Vesten behøver ikke forhandle med Assad, »det vil Rusland gøre for os«. Gehrcke nævnte, at den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov har foreslået humanitære korridorer for at bringe humanitærhjælp ind. General Kujat tilføjede, at han håber, vi vil arbejde sammen med Rusland og FN om fælles forholdsregler. Det er totalt elfenbenstårnstankegang at gøre alting afhængigt af spørgsmålet om Assad.

Kujat beklagede manglen på ledere, der har de tidligere kanslere Willy Brandts og Helmut Schmidts »fremsynethed«. Obama begik en stor fejltagelse, da han hævdede, at USA ikke vil forhandle med en »regional magt« som Rusland. Gehrcke opfordrede indtrængende Merkel til at rejse til Washington; og han tilføjede, »Hvis ISIS vinder, frygter jeg en verdenskrig«.

22. oktober 2015 – Emnet for dette års konference i Valdai Debatklubben i Sotji, Rusland, hvis hovedtale blev holdt af Putin, er »Samfund mellem krig of fred: At overvinde konfliktens logik i morgendagens verden«.

På podiet sammen med Putin var Reagans ambassadør til Moskva, Jack Matlock, fhv. tjekkisk præsident Vaclav Klaus og formand for det iranske Majlis, Ali Larijani. De talte hver især til forsamlingen, men deres bemærkninger er endnu ikke tilgængelige.

Deres tilstedeværelse forbinder Valdai-begivenheden med mødet i Wien i dag mellem udenrigsministrene fra USA, Rusland, Tyrkiet og Saudi Arabien. EIR’s kilder siger, at Kerry og Lavrov havde været tilbøjelige til at invitere Iran til mødet, men besluttede ikke at gøre det, indtil visse interne uenigheder med Iran er løst. De drøftede også at invitere Jordan og Egypten, der er ledende sunni-magter – som også Tyrkiet er det – men som støtter den russiske mission imod terrorisme i Syrien. Egyptens støtte til missionen har været åben og udtrykkelig lige fra første færd. Jordans støtte er stiltiende, men velkendt.

Putins åbningstale er kun delvist blevet offentliggjort på engelsk. I de indledende afsnit advarede han imod »konceptet om det såkaldte afvæbnende førsteangreb« og sagde, at der sikkert var nogen, der led under

»den illusion, at den ene parts sejr i en global konflikt igen var mulig – uden uafvendelige, uacceptable, som eksperterne siger det, konsekvenser for vinderen, hvis der da er én … Tærsklen for anvendelse af magt er blevet mærkbart lavere.«

Senere spurgte han,

»Hvorfor er det, at indsatsen fra lad os sige vore amerikanske partnere og deres allierede i deres kamp mod Islamisk Stat ikke har produceret nogen mærkbare resultater? Dette er tydeligvis ikke et spørgsmål om mangel på militærudstyr eller potentiale. USA har tydeligvis et enormt potentiale, det største, militære potentiale i verden, men at snyde er aldrig let. Man erklærer krig mod terrorister og prøver samtidigt at bruge nogle af dem til at arrangere brikkerne på det mellemøstlige bræt i sin egen interesse, som man har lyst til.«   

25. oktober 2015 – I den nuværende, historiske fase, i hvilken så godt som alle antagelser om samfundet, der regnes for at være sikre, bliver forældede, og hvor alle fornemmer, at det handler om de helt store spørgsmål om krig og fred, om at være eller ikke være og om en nedstyrtning i kaos eller en ny, klassisk renæssance, hører Tyskland til de få aktører på verdenspolitikkens store scene, der kan være med til at afgøre, hvilken af de to alternativer, der bliver virkelighed. Således tænker foreløbig kun ganske få mennesker i Tyskland, hvad der imidlertid ikke forklejner sandhedsindholdet i denne erklæring. Naturligvis er Kinas verdenshistoriske rolle mere selvfølgelig; med Xi Jinpings »win-win«-perspektiv om den globale opbygning af Den nye Silkevej har det sat en fuldstændig ny model for udenrigspolitiske relationer på dagsordenen, der, for første gang i historien, viser en måde, hvorpå den katastrofale geopolitik, som allerede har ført til to verdenskrige i det 20. århundrede, kan overvindes gennem gensidigt samarbejde til gensidig fordel. Og ligeså selvfølgelig er Ruslands rolle, der, med sit strategiske partnerskab med Kina og ligeledes med sin militære flanke i Syrien, har skabt en ny magtkonstellation i verden, der tydeliggør, hvor hult Obamaregeringens unipolære krav i mellemtiden er blevet. Præsident Putin har netop, i sin tale ved årets møde i Valdai-klubben, med temaet »krig og fred« understreget den fare, der eksisterer, hvis USA forsøger at bruge det amerikanske antiballistiske missilforsvarssystem i Østeuropa til et førsteangreb, der angiveligt skulle sætte en modstanders våben ud af spillet med moderne, nukleare højpræcisionsvåben, for således at kunne ændre den strategiske balance til egen fordel og påtvinge hele verden sin vilje, alt imens en sådan handling kun kan føre til en garanteret, gensidig udslettelse. Efter den succesrige atomaftale med Iran kan påskuddet om en angivelig trussel, der skulle komme fra iranske raketter, ikke mere opretholdes, alt imens denne trussel i virkeligheden aldrig har eksisteret. Til hvilket formål opretholdes da missilforsvarssystemet fortsat?

Putin, hvis egne militæroperationer i Syrien imod ISIS og andre diverse oprørere skrider succesrigt fremad, påpegede samtidigt årsagen til den til sammenligning fejlslagne, amerikanske militæroperation i regionen. Det skyldes netop en uopløselig modsigelse mellem på den ene side at ville skride ind over for terrorister, og så samtidigt bevæbne dem for, ved hjælp af disse, at styrte legitime regeringer. Man bør under ingen omstændigheder gå glip af den kosteligt ironiske behandling af samme tema om den forvirrende amerikanske politik over for terrorismen i Mellemøsten, i den seneste udgave af satireprogrammet »Die Anstalt« med henvisning til den rørstrømske udsendelse »Herzblatt« (http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek#/beitrag/video/2583744/Herzblatt).

Og naturligvis påhviler det selve den amerikanske befolkning – den måske vigtigste aktør på den nævnte verdensscene – at sætte en stopper for og straffe de permanente overtrædelser af den internationale folkeret, der desværre er blevet reglen gennem fortsættelsen af den neokonservative politik fra Bush/Cheney-tiden og frem til den nuværende Obamaregering. Det handler om krigene i Sydvestasien, der byggede på løgne, og frem til droneangreb imod formentlige terrorister, uden nogen som helst korrekt retsproces, eller de berømte »kollaterale skader«, der, iflg. afsløringer fra den seneste whistleblower på websiden The Intercept, for op til 90 % ’s vedkommende har ramt uskyldige civilister.

Den undersøgelse i den amerikanske kongres, som flere organisationer kræver som en bydende nødvendighed, kunne meget hurtigt føre til, at præsident Obama stilles for en rigsret; Obama, der iflg. de offentliggjorte dokumenter hver tirsdag personligt sammensatte dødslisten. Det stormløb af flygtninge mod Europa, og frem for alt til Tyskland, er resultatet af disse krige og droneangrebene, der snarere har fremmet end inddæmmet ISIS’ fremmarch.

Historien har imidlertid på en særlig måde, netop på grund af flygtningekrisen, spillet den afgørende bold hen til Tyskland. Beredvilligheden til at hjælpe i betragtning af de mange fortvivlede menneskers nødsituation er fortsat stor hos et stort flertal af befolkningen. Men allersenest siden guillotinen, der demonstrativt blev medbragt til en demonstration, de, iflg. Forbundskriminalpolitiets oplysninger, omkring 500 overfald på flygtningehjem i år og mordforsøget på overborgmesterkandidaten fra Køln, Henriette Reker, er det også tydeligt, at grænselinjen mellem de »bekymrede borgere« og den rene ekstremisme, der ikke står tilbage for selv voldshandinger, er overskredet. Det truer med at gøre det til sandhed, som Putin for mange måneder siden advarede om, da han profeterede, at Vestens støtte til nazistiske organisationer i Ukraine ville føre til en udbredelse af sådanne organisationer i mange europæiske stater. Den ulykkelige situation for flygtninge i Slovenien, i hvilken mennesker i disse dage uden tøj, der passer til klimaet, gennes sammen som storforbrydere af fuldstændigt overdrevne sikkerhedsstyrker, uden at dette i mindste måde ville føre til, at trængslen stilnede af, er blot den øjeblikkelige registrering af en tragedie, der – hvis der ikke findes en løsning på et andet plan – inden for kort tid vil føre til en eskalering af situationen i hele Europa, for enden af hvilken kunne findes kaos og borgerkrig.

Der er en løsning på denne krise, men den kræver, at en hel række af fejlagtige aksiomatiske antagelser i de forgangne årtier i Vestens politik, og i Tysklands politik i særdeleshed, må korrigeres.

Den første, selvfølgelige konsekvens må være den omgående afslutning af krige under falske påskud. Tyskland har gjort sig til medskyldig i ikke alene den totale udspionering af egne borgere i samarbejde mellem BND og NSA, i den bevidste handling at stille militærbasen Ramstein til rådighed for droneangreb i Sydvestasien og en stiltiende og delvist eksplicitte støtte til Washingtons og Londons unipolære politik. Kun Tysklands ikke-deltagelse i krigene imod Irak under regeringen Schröder og imod Libyen under Merkel/Westerwelle har i det mindste reddet en lille del af landets ære.

Tyskland har på samme måde gjort sig til medskyldig, idet det i årtier har bidraget til IMF’s og Verdensbankens betingelsespolitik over for udviklingslandene, som har forhindret enhver form for virkelig udvikling til fordel for et gældsregime, der udelukkende kom det Britiske Imperiums finanssektors profitinteresser til gode, og for hvilket begrebet »globalisering« blot er et andet udtryk. Når millioner af flygtninge i dag ikke alene flygter fra krige på basis af løgne, men også fra fattigdom og sygdom – de såkaldte »økonomiske flygtninge« (»bekvemmelighedsflygtninge«) fra Balkan, fra Sydeuropa og fra Afrika – så er dette konsekvensen af denne politik.

Så længe Tyskland holder fast ved den samme monetarisme, der også er rettet mod Europa, med Schäubles »Sorte Nul«, dvs., at, for at tilgodese det hjernespind, der hedder et balancerende husholdningsbudget, må der skæres ned på daginstitutioner for børn, gymnastiksale, uddannelsesprogrammer, pensioner osv., for at forsørge flygtningene, og som går hånd i hånd med den brutale »nøjsomhedspolitik« over for Grækenland og hele Sydeuropa, så længe vil de sociale spændinger i Tyskland og i hele Europa vokse, til de eksploderer.

Og der findes en yderligere, dårlig, populær vane, som Tyskland må skille sig af med, hvis vi ønsker at finde en løsning på denne krise: Vi må smide den grønne ideologi over bord. Den forestilling, at vi kan spise de såkaldte udviklingslande af med »vedvarende, passende« udvikling – altså slutteligt slet ingen udvikling – og samtidigt kan bygge nye »Limes«-mure op omkring »Bastionen Europa«, må opgives. Vi må have reelle udviklings- og opbygningsprogrammer for Afrika, Sydvestasien og den sydlige hemisfære, som overvinder fattigdommen og underudviklingen. De gennem videnskab og kunst opdagede, universelt gyldige principper kaldes universelle, fordi de også gælder i udviklingslandene.

Om menneskeheden kan mestre de nuværende udfordringer vil afhænge af, om vi virkeliggør et nyt paradigme, som i kulturenes og civilisationernes mangfoldighed aktualiserer de højeste udformninger af det, som menneskehedens universalhistorie hidtil har frembragt. Og kun, hvis det lykkes os at bringe en dialog i stand mellem repræsentanterne for disse forskellige kulturers højeste perioder, vil vi i rette tid kunne imødegå den indskrænkede bogholdermentalitet og tåbernes enfoldighed med den storslåede idé om folkeforståelse og en forenet menneskehed.

Hvis Tyskland ville sige, at vi forlanger, at disse krige ophører, at en reel udviklingspolitik i fællesskab med BRIKS-staterne om opbygning af Verdenslandbroen kommer på dagsordenen, vi integrerer på kort sigt flygtningene, men vi udvikler deres hjemlande gennem opbygningen af den Nye Silkevej, vi husker vor egen klassiske højkultur og indleder en dialog mellem kulturer med de andre kulturers storhedstid – så kan vi tyskere skabe historie.

Jeg er optimistisk, hvad det angår.

Med næstformand Michelle Rasmussen

Leder, 19. oktober 2015: USA: Obama kan og skal afsættes i denne uge

LPAC Fredags-webcast, 16. oktober 2015: De lækkede ‘Dronepapirer’: Brug chancen til at katalysere et presserende nødvendigt oprør, hvis vi skal redde USA. v/Jeffrey Steinberg

LPAC Fredags-webcast 23. oktober 2015

Link til the Drone Papers(på engelsk)

Jeffrey Steinberg og Matthew Ogden gennemgår intrigerne bag torsdagens Benghazi-høring med Hillary Clinton og den fortsatte uenighed og implikationerne af offentliggørelsen af Intercepts »Dronepapirer«. … American Civil Liberty Union har krævet officielle Kongresundersøgelser, især af de utallige civile, der er blevet dræbt som en del af dette program – dette målrettede dræberprogram – der alle er klassificeret under fjendtlig kæmperstatus til trods for det faktum, at der ikke engang er nogen, der kender identiteten af det store flertal af disse mennesker, der blev dræbt.   

Jeffrey Steinberg and Matthew Ogden reviewed the machinations behind Thursday’s Benghazi hearing with Hillary Clinton and the continued fall out and implications of the publication of the Intercept’s “The Drone Papers.”

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s October 23, 2015. My name is Matthew Ogden, and I would like to welcome you to our weekly broadcast here of the LaRouche PAC Friday night webcast. I’m joined in the studio tonight by Jeffrey Steinberg from Executive Intelligence Review, and we’re here to deliver the message that Mr. LaRouche had to deliver when we met with him earlier this morning; only a matter of hours ago. Now, last week, for those of you who watched this broadcast, we discussed in depth the content of the so-called “Drone Papers,” which were published by Glenn Greenwald’s publication, The Intercept, along with Jeremy Scahill last week. And based on documents that were leaked or were provided to The Intercept by a whistleblower, a second Edward Snowden, from within the drone program itself. The content of those papers is horrifying, to say the least; but the implications of the release of the Drone Papers are continuing to resonate. And the effect is continuing to grow; especially as pertains to Barack Obama, who has presided over this policy during the extent of his entire Presidency. The ACLU has called for official Congressional investigations, especially into the innumerable number of civilians that have been killed as a part of this program — this targeted killing program — who are all classified under enemy combatant status, despite the fact nobody even knows the identities of the vast majority of these people who were killed. And there’s also a press release that has been published and released by former Senator Mike Gravel and also former Democratic Presidential candidate from the 2008 Presidential primaries. This press release was published on the LaRouche PAC website, as well as Executive Intelligence Review, and is available. And again, Senator Gravel takes this directly to the point; that this is the murderous policy of the current President, President Barack Obama.

Now, this is what the subject of our institutional question is for this week; and we’re going to begin by reading the text of that question, and then I’m going to ask Jeff to deliver Mr. LaRouche’s response, plus a little bit more additional background. So, the question reads as follows: “Mr. LaRouche, some officials within the Obama administration believe that the drone program is key to fighting the war against global terrorism. Others believe that the program is a clear violation of the US Constitution, and of international law. Please give us your assessment of the legal issues involved in the drone issue.”

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. As Matt said, we had a very extensive discussion with both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche earlier today; and I’ll get into some of the more legal issues that are on the table here, but I first want to just read you some things that are not quite verbatim quotes, but very clearly reflect the major thrust of Mr. LaRouche’s response to this question.

First, he said, were it not for the recent actions of Russian President Vladimir Putin, humanity as a whole may already have been lost. And this is clearly reflected in the British and Obama policies that came very close to triggering global conflagration, whether over the Ukraine situation or Syria. On the specific issues of the drone policy, what Mr. LaRouche said is if Obama is allowed to run loose, even on a reduced basis, it poses a grave danger to mankind. He gets by with murder; he’s a satanic figure, and he’s already been allowed to complete two terms in office. And furthermore, he is still killing people. The United States, under first Bush and now Obama, has become an unsafe nation with no competent leadership. Obama must be kicked out of office quickly, and Wall Street has to be shut down. If Wall Street is shut down, we can save the USA; but so long as Wall Street maintains its grip over the US economy, we’re doomed.

And Mr. LaRouche made direct reference to the personal aspects of President Obama, which he’s been identifying and actively discussing since the very early months of the Obama Presidency; precisely since April 11, 2009, when he delivered an international webcast and warned that the President had the personality of Emperor Nero. Someone, who had a severe narcissist disorder, and that this would pose a grave danger to the country and the world, if it went unchecked. Now, I think we briefly discussed last week, the fact that we know that one of the defining influences on President Obama during his early formative years when he was a preteen, was his stepfather in Indonesia; who himself was a real killer. He was brought back from graduate studies in Hawaii to participate in the Suharto coup and the mass bloodletting that followed. And there was household brutality, both directed against Obama’s mother and against young Barack Obama personally. These things have deep and enduring, scarring impact; and so much of the personality of the stepfather rubbed off on Obama. And we’re seeing the consequences of that in this drone policy.

I call all of your attention to the fact that in 2012, two reporters — I believe from Time magazine — published a book-length account of the 2012 Presidential elections. The book was published in 2013. And what they recounted was a conversation that President Obama had with some senior White House aides; it was after one particular incident in his long line of drone killings, where Anwar al-Awlaki — a US citizen — was killed in Yemen in a drone strike. Now, one could debate al-Awlaki’s role as a figure within al-Qaeda, and there are many things that could be said, but are not relevant to the topic here. The point is that an American citizen, by order of President Obama, was murdered in cold blood by a drone attack signed off on by the President; but as an American citizen, al-Awlaki was deprived of any due process. Now, mass murderers are subject to due process, to fair trials; but in this case, because he was on Obama’s kill list, despite the fact that he was an American citizen, he was murdered. Several weeks later, his 16-year old son was murdered, along with yet another American citizen, in drone attacks in Yemen. And, while the administration claimed that the murder of the son was not intended, but was a consequence of targeting others, it remains the fact that at least three now — I’m sure many more — American citizens have been murdered overseas by President Obama.

So, in this incident that’s recounted in the book by these two Time magazine reporters, Obama is quoted telling one of his close aides — boasting in fact — that it “Turns out I’m really a quite good, effective, killer. I never thought that I was going to emerge as a great killer, but here I am.” In the ensuing two years since the book was published, to my knowledge there have been no attempts by the White House to deny the accuracy of those quotes. They’ve attempted to explain it away, and complain instead about the fact that there are too many leaks coming out of the inner circle, but nobody has outright said that that was not Obama’s statement, those were not his words. So, you’re dealing with somebody, who clearly has the pathology of a killer.

Now, a week and a half ago, the German Bundestag, soon after the release of the “Drone Papers,” held hearings in which they brought two American former drone pilots to testify, and those hearings were serious and substantial. And, yet, here we are, two weeks after the release of the “Drone Papers,” and there’s not been a public hearing; there has not been a word to speak of, from any members of Congress. We know that there’s pressure from ourselves, from groups like the ACLU, for some kind of congressional hearings, but the fact of the matter is, that the dis-functionality of the two political parties, and the dis-functionality of Congress as the result of that, has meant that President Obama has literally been able to get away with murder, and continues to do so, right up to this moment.

So, the fact of the matter is, that the drone program, as we’ve now been given a very in-depth window into it, through the House Intelligence Committee’s review of the Executive Branch procedures — of the various Obama guidelines on how to manage the drone program — we know that none of these things have actually worked; that this is a reckless, “Murder, Inc.” operation, that violates a 1975 ban, signed by President Gerald Ford, against assassination. And the fact that these assassinations are simply referred to as “targeted killings,” does nothing to mitigate the fact that President Obama has been guilty of mass-murder. And there’s an entire structure of government that is complicit in that process. And the guilt spreads beyond the U.S. borders, and becomes clearly another clear bit of evidence that President Obama has been, from the very outset and remains to this moment, a British agent. Mr. LaRouche pointed to the specific role of Valerie Jarrett as one of the key British agents within the Obama inner circle. But let’s look a bit further at the testimony that was delivered before the German Bundestag. What one of the two drone pilots testified, was that there’s an entire international network that has all been involved in working up the targeting information, and feeding in key data to facilitate the mass-murder operations that are carried out under this drone program. In particular, there is a working intelligence-sharing alliance, known as “Five Eyes.” These are the national intelligence services, the technical intelligence services, of the United States — in this case, the National Security Agency — the services of Canada, Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. In other words, four countries: Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, which are not just simply members of the British Commonwealth, but are countries where Queen Elizabeth II is the Sovereign; where in each case, those countries are run by a privy council that is appointed by, and reports directly back to the British Monarchy, in this case Queen Elizabeth.

So, you have the United States and the British Monarchy participating as a single, seamless entity, in gathering the targeting data that has been used in this mass drone killing program which began right at the very outset of the Obama Presidency.

And, again, what we heard in the Bundestag testimony, and we’re yet to see a moment of congressional hearings on this, up to this moment, is that those five agencies, with other assistance — the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) was involved in this program as well. They’ve developed the technique to use the GPS functions on cell phones to track down the exact locations of where a particular cell phone is, at any given moment, and in fact, the drone kill program targets cell phones, which have been “associated” with people on the kill list. But the ability to verify that the person holding that cell phone, at the moment, that the drone strike takes place, is the actual target, is something that doesn’t function. There’s very little evidence that there has been much consideration about whether or not they’re even going after the right targets.

So, in effect, we’re dealing with an even more out-of-control drone program, where all of the guidelines that were established by President Obama and the administration, at the very beginning, for how to conduct the drone warfare, fully implemented, it would not make any difference, from the standpoint that these are war crimes, and crimes against humanity, and represent instances of mass murder. The fact of the matter is, that even those limited guidelines — for example, if an individual can be captured and interrogated, rather than killed, that’s preferable — well, throw that out the window right away. There’s never been any effort, once you’re on the kill list, you are a target, and, within a 60-day period, if feasible, you will be gone after, and you will be dead, or perhaps someone else at that moment carrying your cell phone, will be dead.

So, the program is absolutely unconstitutional, is a clear violation of the UN Charter, and is not only illegal and should be the basis for President Obama’s immediate removal from office, but let’s go one step further. There should be no presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, whether in U.S. Federal Court, or in The Hague, for these heinous crimes. Now, the bankruptcy of the U.S. governing institutions, the failure of Congress to instantly take up this issue, the failure of the federal courts to act against this drone program in a decisive way, has meant that the prospect of justice under this situation right now in the United States, is gravely impeded.

So, what do we find out? In Germany, Somali family members and Yemeni family members of individuals killed in the drone warfare have filed lawsuits against both the German and American governments. There’s no attempt to get at justice in the U.S. court system, because of how badly the whole structure’s been corrupted since George W. Bush, and even more so under Obama. So, the situation is that families seeking justice are going to the federal courts in Germany, in Cologne, and are filing against the German and U.S. governments. The German government is clearly complicit in this. The Ramstein Air Force base is one of the major hubs of the U.S. drone operations, and it’s being done with the complicity and cooperation of the German government.

How far does it go? When we looked at the Bush administration’s illegal renditions and torture program, it took a long time to get to the bottom of it, and find out how many countries were complicit and were cooperating in this crime against humanity and war crime. So we’re dealing here with a matter of a bankruptcy and a failure of institutions to live up to their Constitutional responsibilities. And that’s where you, the American people, have an enormous amount of responsibility. The evidence against President Obama and the chain of command that he sits on top of in this drone mass-murder program is cut and dry. It’s been known for a long time, but now with the release of this hundred-plus page House Intelligence Committee review of the program, which contains previously-unpublicized details, the book of evidence is there. This President should be immediately removed from office. The crimes that are evidenced in this documentation alone go vastly beyond the crimes of Richard Nixon, that resulted in his forced resignation. Nixon was facing impeachment, was facing the activation of the 25th Amendment at the time that he wisely decided to resign. We’re in a situation, that is far more advanced and far more grave now, than we faced under Nixon back in the early 1970s. So it’s up to you to make sure that our institutions of government begin to function, and if we can achieve that, then this President will be removed from office, and the dangers associated with his continuing on the job, including the danger of thermonuclear war, will at last be removed.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jeff. Let me just follow up what we’ve begun to discuss here. As I’m sure most of you are aware of, the hearing of the Benghazi Select Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives took place yesterday, at which Hillary Clinton was called as a witness. This has certainly been a central focus of attention for a number of months now, leading up into this hearing. However, after literally hours upon hours of questioning of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, hardly any of the Congressmen, in either party, managed to get at the true issues. There were significant questions that were raised, certainly. However, even those who did raise those questions, for the most part failed to pursue their lines of questioning to the necessary and actually relevant conclusions.

First of all, why does Hillary Clinton continue to insist on covering up for Obama’s role in directly ordering her, on the night of the Benghazi attacks, to lie about the events that occurred that night — even though it’s been proven multiple times that she knew exactly what was really going on, that there was clearly, this was clearly a pre-meditated attack against a U.S. Government compound on the anniversary of September 11th, carried out by jihadist militants, as opposed to the made-up story that was then echoed several days later by Susan Rice, of a spontaneous demonstration in response to a video denigrating the Prophet Mohammed. Why does Hillary continue to cover up for the fact that Obama directly ordered her to lie?

And secondly and maybe even more significantly in a broad sense, where did the policy that led to the events that night in Benghazi even come from? As former Chairman of the House Permanent — or the House Select Committee on Intelligence, Congressman Peter Hoekstra, identifies correctly, in a book which he just released earlier this month, titled Architects of Disaster — The Destruction of Libya, the entire thing ultimately is Obama’s fault, in the continuing takeover of Libya, Iraq, and now parts of Syria, by these terrorist groups — ISIS and related — including those who attacked the compound that night in Benghazi, September 11, 2012, this is all a direct consequence of the decision that was made by Obama to invade Libya, to overthrow a sitting sovereign government, and to kill former President Muammar Qaddafi in cold blood. And, as Congressman Hoekstra makes the point, Qaddafi was our ally in the war on radical jihadist terrorism — very reminiscent of the policy now being carried out by Obama against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, today, exactly the same scenario. Makes you wonder where Obama’s true allegiances lie.

Now, as I said, the majority of the members of Congress who had the opportunity to question Hillary Clinton during the Benghazi hearing yesterday completely failed to address these two crucial points. But, virtually simultaneously with the hearing taking place on Capitol Hill yesterday, in Russia, in Sochi, Russian President Vladimir Putin was addressing a gathering of the Valdai international discussion club in Sochi, and he did address precisely these issues, in very direct terms, denouncing Obama’s policy in Libya and in Syria, of supporting and arming the very terrorists that we’re supposed to be fighting against in the interest of using them to overthrow yet another sitting president, the government of Assad. And in addition, President Putin addressed the even broader question of the generally imperialistic outlook now being typified by Barack Obama, which is leading mankind right now to the very real danger of total self-destruction through global nuclear war.

What Putin started his speech by focusing on, was the question of the history of the fundamental notions of war and peace themselves. He said it’s a proper subject for a Russian president to address, since Leo Tolstoy wrote a book called War and Peace. But he said that for centuries, the concept of peace had been based on the notion of the balance of power, for better or for worse. But now, in a world of nuclear arms, and thermonuclear arms, he said, the traditional ideas of peace from this standpoint can no longer function. We need a new concept, a new paradigm, a post-war, at least, vision. He said any major war today would not bring victory to either party, but would only end in the guarantee of mutual total destruction. The only thing that’s protected humanity from this terrible fate, he said, over the last 70 years, are the principles of international law that were established under the framework of the United Nations following the Second World War, as well as the general sobriety and self-control of those leaders who have found themselves operating on a global stage, such as during the Cuban Missile Crisis with President John F. Kennedy. However, he said, now we’ve reached a point where some powers are pursuing a model of unilateral domination of the planet, and the danger that a military situation may get out of control, and just such a mutually-destructive nuclear war be unleashed, has now become all too real. And the emergence of the doctrine of what he called the disarming first strike — be it nuclear or even non-nuclear — has further skewed this postwar balance of power and the system of international law, which has protected mankind since the end of World War II, and has further increased the possibility of the outbreak of a devastating global conflict. And he said, there are those who possess the illusion that there exists the possibility of victory in such a world conflict, without the irreversible, unacceptable consequences that would follow such a nuclear war. So for this reason, he said, you’ve seen a general weakening of the underlying psychological aversion to the idea of war itself, which has gripped previous generations; and the very perception of war has been changed, turned into an almost media entertainment. As if, he said, nobody actually dies in a conflict; as if people do not suffer and cities and entire states are not destroyed. But this is the reality of war.

It’s very significant, as I think Mr. LaRouche has pointed out previously, for President Putin, whose family died and suffered in the siege of Leningrad, the realities of what war means are much more real than what are generally held by those such as the American generation of an Obama or some sort. But I just want to read one quote from what President Putin had to say, just to bring this to the point of what necessarily needs to be addressed when we look at the background of what has brought us to this point. This is a quote; he said, “Why is it that the efforts of say our American partners and their allies in their struggle against the so-called ‘Islamic State’, has not produced any tangible results? Obviously, it’s not for lack of military equipment or capability. It goes without saying that the United States has a huge potential; the biggest military potential in the world. However, it is impossible to play a double game; to declare war on terrorists, and simultaneously try to use some of those same terrorists to arrange the pieces on the chessboard in the Middle East according to what you perceive as your own interests. It is impossible,” he said, “to combat terrorism in general, if some terrorists are used as a battering ram to overthrow the regimes, that are not to one’s liking. You cannot get rid of those terrorists. It is only an illusion that you can come in and get rid of them later; clean up the mess. To take the power away from them, or reach some sort of negotiated agreement with them. And the situation in Libya,” he said, “is the best example of this.”

So, as I said, this really goes directly to the point here. If you’re serious about fighting to eliminate the danger of global terrorism, then perhaps you should stop arming and supporting the very same terrorists who you claim to be fighting against in the interest of using them to overthrow sovereign governments that are not to your liking. And to me this seems to be a somewhat more reasonable approach than running a drone program that ends up just killing a majority of innocent civilians; or perhaps releasing the 28 pages, documenting the role of the Saudis in supporting the 9/11 hijackers would be a good place to start as well.

But while Putin has made it clear that Obama’s policies in Libya were not exactly what they expected when they supported the UN resolution, this disastrous consequence that has taken place as a result of that invasion and that regime-change operation, is definitely not a mistake that Putin is going to let happen again in the case of Syria. And thus, we see the crucial and decisive actions that have been taken in the recent weeks in what’s being characterized by some as President Putin’s third Chechen war; because of the extent of the overlap and the interconnection between those whom Putin successfully fought against in Chechnya in 1999, and those who he is now fighting in Syria today, among the Islamic State and otherwise.

So, Jeff, I know that Mr. LaRouche has put significant emphasis on the importance of this historical view of the current situation during our discussion with him earlier today. And this is the type of background which he — Mr. LaRouche — has a very unique view of, due to his experience and his personal role that he played as a central figure that he played throughout much of this history. So, while many people have a tendency, including in the US Congress itself, to exhibit a very short-sighted and shallow insight into these types of questions — including even the questions concerning the current Benghazi investigation — maybe you could give a little bit of a deeper background and insight into what the true questions are that are at hand; along the lines of what President Putin was indicating in his speech.

STEINBERG: You’ve got to start from the standpoint of understanding the British factor, the British problem, and how that has impacted on the sweep of recent history. And it requires getting away from the idea that history is a string of successive events; these are processes, these are dynamics, and there are certain cardinal events that fundamentally alter the direction of history. And these are the things that people really have to grapple with to be able to really sort out and made sense of the deep, profound crisis that we’re going through right now. I think you’ve got to start from the fact — and this was a major subject of our discussion with Lyn and Helga LaRouche earlier today. You’ve got to start with at least a modicum of a sweep of recent history.

The fact is, that the last time that we had a viable and effective Presidency was with Ronald Reagan. And there were many caveats that have to be identified in terms of the Reagan Presidency. There was intention on the part of Reagan and on the part of an inner circle of close advisors and collaborators going into the 1980 Presidency — the elections and then Reagan’s inauguration in January 1981 — to fundamentally change the direction of US policy. We had been through a turbulent period of the 1970s; the watergating of Nixon, the end of Vietnam, the emergence of a Trilateral Commission government that brought us to the brink of nuclear war in the 1970s. The policy of that government and of the Council on Foreign Relations to being a process of controlled disintegration of the U.S. and world economy.

All of these had already taken place; and this was the backdrop to the beginning of a critical collaboration between Mr. LaRouche and President Reagan. There was a convergence of thinking and commitment to restore the American tradition; and to do it by presenting Presidential leadership. And it was in that context that on a number of leading issues, the leading one in particular being the LaRouche-Reagan collaboration on what came to be known as the Strategic Defense Initiative [sdi]. That was a shaping directionality for a sweeping change in the US Presidency and particularly in the major US global relations. There was a very real prospect with the LaRouche-Reagan-Edward Teller and other collaboration around the idea of a joint Strategic Defense Initiative between the United States and the Soviet Union, with allied countries from both blocs involved, to bring an end to the threat of thermonuclear war. Reagan doggedly pursued that, even in spite of the fact that within his first 100 days in office, there was a serious assassination attempt against him. And of course, many of you may recall that that assassin, John Hinckley, came from a family that was intimately associated with the Bush family. So, right from the outset, within that first 100 days, Ronald Reagan was gravely wounded; he survived and, in fact, did continue in the Presidency. And the high water mark of that was the SDI policy. Reagan had also intended to make a dramatic break with Wall Street that was symbolized by the fact that he and some of his Kitchen Cabinet advisors were in depth involved in discussion with Mr. LaRouche over firing Paul Volcker and fundamentally changing the whole nature of the Federal Reserve System. And this became an issue that was a matter of outright warfare between Wall Street and London on the one side, and the Reagan inner circle on the other. The Reagan assassination attempt greatly weakened the Reagan Presidency and paved the way for George HW Bush to emerge as more and more of a dominant figure in the Reagan Presidency. They were never able to dissuade Reagan from pursuing the Strategic Defense Initiative that he had worked out with LaRouche; but nevertheless, Reagan was weakened, and many things that were promised at the outset of the Reagan Presidency were never able to materialize because of British interference. And that included the fact that British agent Yuri Andropov came into power in the Soviet Union and put the kibosh on the SDI collaboration. The entire effort against Wall Street and against the policies of the Fed, were basically shut down at the point that Reagan was shot, and had to go through a prolonged period of recuperation. So, you had a real Presidency with Reagan, despite the Bush factor, and despite the consequences of the assassination attempt. And there was a period of four years or so where on a number of policy issues, there was a Reagan-LaRouche cooperation; many of the details of which are frankly yet to come out in public.

We had the Bush 41 Presidency that was a disaster. LaRouche was railroaded into Federal prison; and for all practical purposes was expected to die in Federal prison. And that would have very likely happened had Bush been elected to a second term in office. What happened, however, was that Bush was defeated for re-election; and Bill Clinton came in. And there was a level of collaboration once again with the Presidency; there was potential with the Clinton Presidency to revive some of the core ideas that had been running through the Reagan Presidency, and reflected back earlier on the successful Presidencies of John Kennedy and before that, obviously, Franklin Roosevelt. But, Clinton ran up against a buzz saw. The British launched literally warfare against the Clinton Presidency; they manipulated the First Lady to be a factor that further disrupted. You had the factor of Al Gore as Vice President; which was as bad a choice as George Herbert Walker Bush was for Ronald Reagan. So, in effect, the Clinton Presidency never lived fully up to its potential; and towards its concluding year, at the point that Clinton was about to make a significant move against the preponderant system of London offshore global finance, he was gone after. He was set up; his Presidency was destroyed. He went through House impeachment, and at the end of the day, Clinton made the gravest mistake of his political career, by signing the bill that repealed Glass-Steagall.

Now, what’s happened since that point, with the George W Bush Presidency for eight years, and then now with the Obama Presidency already for seven years, is that the British have been in the driver’s seat in the White House throughout that 15-year period. And so, what President Putin identified correctly in his Valdai speech, needs to be fleshed out much further. It’s got to be understood that there has been effectively a British-Wall Street takeover of the Executive branch of the US government. It’s come to be completely dominant over the Republican Party and over the Obama wing of the Democratic Party.

So, if you step back and realize that the entire history of the United States has been a struggle against the British Empire, then you get an idea from a much deeper historical appreciation of how this process, how this dynamic has played out and brought us to the point that we’ve reached right now. Now, there are other examples that come up throughout history; even the history of the shaping events that established the American republic, its character, and the war against the British. At the very beginning of the 18th Century, you had a giant of a figure; one of the key figures who revived the entire Renaissance tradition in Europe, namely Gottfried von Leibniz. Leibniz was a key player in European political affairs. His interests extended to an extensive understanding and appreciation of China and of the commonalities between Confucianism and Western Christianity. He was moving to establish control over Britain to dismantle the empire system that was beginning to come into existence at that time. And it was with the death of Leibniz — and there were people waiting breathlessly to confirm that indeed he was dead. But with his confirmed death about 20 years into the 18th Century, that’s when the British Empire took off. Leibniz had been instrumental as an adviser in the British court, to establishing some of the key players who shaped and framed the United States; some of the leading governors who were sent over as Royal Governors from England during the period of Leibniz’s influence in London. You had Spotswood in Virginia; you had Hunter in New York. These were leading international republican figures, who were part of the Leibniz networks. Franklin was a student of Leibniz’s writings, and traveled to Europe in the 1750s to obtain access to some otherwise difficult to obtain writings of Leibniz. But Leibniz’s death was one of those cardinal moments in history that framed events that moved forward from there; just as there was a concerted move coming from the worst elements of the European oligarchy to crush the influence of the Golden Renaissance.

So, these kinds of critical historical events, which are really reflective of long-term processes, are the big challenge to be understood. If you’re going to shape history and define a viable future for mankind, then it’s very helpful to know from an historical standpoint, who are your friends and who are your enemies. In January of 1981, in fact on the day of Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Executive Intelligence Review, Mr. LaRouche’s flagship publication, issued a warning forecasting that there would be an attempt to assassinate President Reagan within his first 100 days in office. This was not based on some kind of footprints of would-be assassins; but it was based on an understanding that the Reagan election represented a potential break from British control over the US Presidency that had been a dominant factor since the assassination of John F Kennedy.

We knew that at critical moments, the British have assassinated American Presidents in order to prevent break-out of the United States as a proper republican leader of the world. You had it take place early on, not with a President, but with a giant of the American Constitutional republic, Alexander Hamilton; who was assassinated by an undisputed British agent, Aaron Burr. You had the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, which doesn’t even need any further elaboration; it was a British assassination carried out by Confederate networks, but operating out of British intelligence centers, including Montreal, Canada. You had the assassination of President McKinley, who was reviving the Lincoln-Hamilton tradition at a critical moment; and was pushing back against British imperial operations. His assassination brought Teddy Roosevelt, the favorite nephew of one of the heads of the Confederate Secret Service — headquartered in London — into the Presidency. You had the assassination of Kennedy; a British assassination, for again, reasons that are too obvious to have to deal with in any detailed explanation here.

So, it was on the basis of that knowledge and understanding of the sweep of the US fight against the British Empire forces in the world, that drove us to issue a warning that there would be an attempt to assassinate President Reagan because of what he represented as a best hope for a return of the United States to its historic mission and its historic tradition and policy. We were, unfortunately, correct. It was about the 90th day of the Reagan Presidency that John Hinckley carried out the assassination attempt; and while Reagan survived it, it weakened the potentiality of the Reagan Presidency.

So, you’ve got to look at those kinds of historical processes and dynamics, and think through how these events play out. If you want to understand Benghazi, you can’t start on September 11th of 2012; you’ve got to go back to the fact that a British policy that was coordinated with rotten elements in France — the same elements that were directly involved in the attempts to assassinate President Charles de Gaulle a decade or two earlier — those elements, along with Obama. British directly, Anglo-French forces and Obama, decided to bring down Qaddafi and to unleash absolute Hell throughout North Africa and into the Middle East. Where were the weapons that fueled the Islamic State and the Nusra and other insurgencies in Syria coming from? They were coming from Benghazi; they were coming from the Libya that became an absolute Hell on Earth. An absolutely ungovernable area, because the British — with their French and Obama underlings — got rid of Qaddafi to unleash this process. To unleash a state of permanent warfare across the entire North African and Middle East and really the entire Islamic world.

So, if you don’t understand that British factor, it’s very difficult to understand why we are in the crisis that we’re in. If you understand that dynamic, and you understand that Obama — like Bush before him — was effectively a British agent; then you understand why it is an imperative that Obama is removed from office, and that the other major center of British influence in the United States — namely Wall Street, which is completely, irreversibly, unrepentantly bankrupt, has to be shut down. And that this is an urgent matter of life and death for the survival of our nation and for the world as a whole.

Putin understands the broad dynamics; he’s got to even further understand the real nature of the enemy. The enemy resides principally in London; and it’s the London controls and strings that are pulled in Washington, that are the major problem here in the United States. As LaRouche said in our discussion earlier, get rid of Wall Street; remove Obama from office. And that eliminates much of the British influence, the destructive influence, over the United States. Then we’ve got a shot at rebuilding the world and forging the kinds of alliances that are waiting for us: the BRICS alliance; the collaboration with Russia on bringing an end to this bloodshed and horror show throughout the Middle East and North Africa. The opportunities are all there, but step one is Obama must be removed. And now the book of evidence is there; it’s irrefutable, and Congress has to act. And secondly, Wall Street has to be shut down, cold; no compensation. Wall Street goes down; we put back Glass-Steagall, and learn the playbook of Franklin Roosevelt on how to rebuild an economy. If we can do those things, we’re in fine shape; the world is in fine shape. But if those actions aren’t taken right now, then we’re all in grave danger.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jeff. And what I want to do to conclude tonight’s broadcast with, is to read something which I think sums up in very cogent terms what Jeff just concluded with. And this is the Presidential policy statement from Lyndon LaRouche that was issued on this website earlier this week. And what Mr. LaRouche says in this, which he issued following the Democratic debate, what he calls “A Brief Statement on the Nature of Our Current National Crisis; and the Proper Framework for Approaching This Vital Presidential Election” is the following; and I’m just going to read it verbatim, from the beginning of where he makes the points about what actions must be taken. He says:

“First, the defining issue for today is the fact that Wall Street is hopelessly, irreversibly bankrupt, and there can be no serious improvement in the conditions of life for the vast majority of Americans until Wall Street is shut down altogether. The first and most immediate remedy for the bankruptcy of Wall Street is the reinstating of Glass-Steagall.

“The simple truth is that an honest appraisal of the disastrous collapse of real productivity in the US economy is that a large and growing majority of our fellow citizens are facing job loss, starvation, collapse of genuine health care services, the destruction of the educational system and an overall disintegration of basic infrastructure. This has accelerated under the Barack Obama Presidency, but it began before that, particularly during the George W. Bush terms in office.

“Any attempt to dodge this fundamental truth during the now ongoing presidential campaigns, by appealing to ‘issues’ or populist slogans, dooms the United States to total destruction in the very short term period ahead.

“Wall Street must be shut down totally. The entire Wall Street system is bankrupt. It must be ended. Then, we must do what Franklin Roosevelt did to overcome the Great Depression. Today, we face an even greater challenge, due, in part, to the decades of collapse of the productive powers of labor in this nation. Shut down Wall Street now, reinstate Glass-Steagall as a means of reconstituting viable commercial banking, and then begin a program of Federal credit to revive the productive economy, through capital investment in infrastructure and other vital programs. We must begin to reverse the collapse of our industrial economy, and we must train a new generation of young people to develop the skills to function in a modern, technology-intensive growing economy.

“This is what the 2016 presidential candidates must address. Any attempt to divert from this essential agenda is tantamount to surrendering to Wall Street and those who would see the United States disintegrate altogether.

“A segment of the American people, horrified by the clown show of last week, is demanding nothing less. Any candidate who fails to meet this standard does not belong in the race. This is not a popularity contest or a test of who can best pander to the worst pragmatic impulses of a beaten-down and terrified public. This is an election that will determine whether or not the United States still has the moral fitness to survive.

“I hear the American people crying out for a future minus the scourge of Wall Street. They deserve nothing less.”

And with that, I would like to thank everybody for watching our broadcast here tonight, and bring a conclusion to this webcast. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jeff, for joining me in the studio. And please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

12. oktober 2015 – Amerikanske BGM-71 TOW missiler, hemmeligt leveret til terrorister i Syrien af CIA via Saudi Arabien, bruges mod den syriske hærs og det russiske luftvåbens offensiv i det nordvestlige Syrien, skriver Washington Post. Offensiven har gjort hurtige fremskridt de seneste dage, med russiske luftangreb, der betegnes som “vedholdende og meget præcise” af selv den syriske, anti-Assad menneskerettighedsgruppe ’Syrian Human Rights Observatory’, og med den syriske hærs intense kamp på landjorden med overvindelse af kraftig modstand for at generobre betydelige områder.

Liz Sly (Washington Post) afslørede i morges, at et stort antal TOW missiler var blevet brugt, hvilket forsinker, men ikke stopper offensiven. ”Amerikanske anti-tank-missiler, der er leveret til oprørerne i Syrien, spiller en uventet stor rolle på slagmarken i Syrien og får konflikten til at ligne en stedfortræder-krig mellem USA og Rusland, på trods af præsident Obamas udtrykte ønske om at undgå en sådan”, skrev Sly. Dusinvis af videoer er lagt ud på You Tube, der viser oprørere, der affyrer amerikanske missiler mod russisk producerede tanks og pansrede køretøjer tilhørende den syriske hær, siger hun.

Kaptajn Mustafa Moarati fra Tajamu al-Issa militsen rapporteres at have sagt, at der kom nye våbenforsyninger, efter at de russiske deployeringer begyndte, og at de er blevet lovet yderligere våben. Sly sammenligner forsyningerne med de amerikansk-leverede Stinger anti-luftskyts missiler i Afghanistan, som blev brugt mod russerne, men (undlader hun at sige) som også skabte al-Qaeda rædsels-showet, som siden har plaget verden.

I mellemtiden har en embedsmand fra Forsvarsministeriet fortalt Fox News, at USA har kastet 50 tons ammunition til mindre våben og granater ned i det kurdiske område i det nordlige Syrien i søndags, men ikke til kurderne (da vores “allierede” Tyrkiet ikke ville synes om det). Dette er det nye “udstyr”-program, der erstatter programmet for “uddan-og-udstyr”, der totalt mislykkedes.

Foto: TOW-antitankmissil, arkivbillede, amerikansk soldat i Afghanistan.

Som hr. LaRouche understregede, har vi nu en chance for at katalysere et presserende nødvendigt oprør, der kommer internt fra det Demokratiske Parti og de amerikanske borgere generelt imod alt, hvad Obama og hans team står for. Det er den presserende nødvendige handling, der må udføres, hvis vi skal redde USA; og hvis vi skal opbygge et virkeligt kvalificeret præsidentskab til at erstatte Barack Obama i det Hvide Hus, som De forenede Staters præsidentskab. Engelsk udskrift.

LaRouche PAC Webcast, October 16, 2015:

Take the Opportunity of Catalyzing an Urgently Needed Revolt

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening; it’s October 16, 2015. You’re watching our weekly Friday night live webcast from larouchepac.com. And we are broadcasting live tonight, at our usual time; 8pm Eastern, 5pm Pacific. And we thank you for tuning in. My name is Matthew Ogden, and I’m joined in the studio tonight by Jeffrey Steinberg of Executive Intelligence Review magazine. And the two of us had the opportunity to meet with Mr. LaRouche earlier today; and had a very important and necessary conversation that we intend to convey the essence of to you. He had a very concise message; and our aim tonight is to get that across to our viewership.

So, we’re looking at the opportunity right now, as Mr.LaRouche emphasized, of catalyzing an urgently needed revolt from within the Democratic Party and the American citizenry generally, against everything that Obama and his team stand for. And this is the urgent, necessary action that must be taken, if we are going to save the United States; and if we’re going to build a truly qualified Presidency to take the place of Barack Obama in the White House as the Presidency of this United States. Over the course of this week, the evidence against Obama has only continued to pile up. This is very clear evidence; and we intend to present this evidence in summary form to you tonight. This will include, but will be exclusively, significantly number one: The release by Glen Greenwald and by Jeremy Scahill in their publication, {The Intercept}, of what they’re calling “The Drone Papers”; a reference obviously to the famous “Pentagon Papers” of the 1970s, which incidentally were read into the Congressional Record by former Senator Mike Gravel, who has appeared on several forums with representatives of the LaRouche Movement nationally, recently. Number two, you have the continued fall-out from the savage, deadly, murderous bombing of the Doctors Without Borders (MSF) hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, under the orders and the command of Barack Obama; which the MSF organization is referring to explicitly as a war crime. And number three, in this context, we have the announcement by Obama just yesterday that he is extending the US perpetual-war military deployment in Afghanistan even further. And I know that Jeff will get into all three of these points more in depth tonight.

But first, what Mr. LaRouche wanted to begin tonight’s broadcast with, is the significance of what’s being referred to as the “insurrection” that has erupted from within a certain layer of the Democratic Party leadership — the Democratic National Committee — which came to a head around this CNN debate that was held in Sin City; Las Vegas, earlier this week on Tuesday. This insurrection is being led by none other than Tulsi Gabbard, a Congresswoman from Hawaii, who is one of the five vice chairs of the Democratic National Committee [DNC]. Our viewers might recall that Tulsi Gabbard made herself an outright, outspoken enemy of the Obama White House about two weeks ago, by very prominently denouncing Obama’s World War III policy in Syria on national television; stating that 1) the overthrow of President Assad would be a grave mistake, akin to the overthrow of both Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi. This is significant from Tulsi Gabbard, who is herself an Iraq War combat veteran. She called for the direct cooperation with President Putin of Russia in military operations in defeating ISIS and al-Qaeda. This was in the image of Franklin Roosevelt’s cooperation with Russia during World War II to defeat Hitler and the Nazis; which is by the way an echo of exactly what President Putin himself called for in his speech at the United Nations General Assembly.
And this isn’t the only policy which Tulsi Gabbard has openly disagreed with Obama on; she’s also a major and outspoken supporter of the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. And this is a point that Mr. LaRouche stressed was very significant and must be emphasized.
So, it just so happens that Congresswoman Gabbard is at the center of the rebellion within the leadership of the DNC against the chairwoman of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who is an ally of Obama. So, according to an article in Bloomberg today, which is titled “Insurrection Erupts at the Democratic National Committee”, this has, in fact, been brewing for quite some time; but it boiled over this week when Gabbard was dis-invited by Debbie Wasserman Schultz from attending the Democratic Party debate in Las Vegas, because she had openly criticized the policy of limiting the number of these Democratic debates to only six.

Only four of them are before the significant primaries at the beginning of next year. And Gabbard also criticized the policy of punishing any of the candidates if they participated in any forums that were not sanctioned by the DNC. Now, what this is being called, and the adjectives that are being used in this Bloomberg article are “autocratic”, “dictatorial”, this policy by Debbie Wasserman Schultz. And there’s an open coup that’s brewing against her leadership of the Democratic National Committee. And I’m going to ask Jeff to get into is the implications of this.

I’d advise that people read some of the coverage that’s in this Bloomberg article. One very significant quote is by another one of the vice chairs, a man named RT Ryback; a former mayor of Minneapolis, who is allied with Tulsi Gabbard on this issue. He is outspoken, saying Wasserman Schultz is operating with dictatorial, autocratic power over the Democratic National Committee; her leadership must be questioned. And he’s almost at the point of saying she should be kicked out as the leader of the Party. Ironically, this is coming on the heels of the exact same treatment that was dished out to John Boehner on the Republican side.
So, what I’m going to introduce Jeff with, is just a quote from this article. And I think this sort of summarizes exactly what we have the responsibility to address here tonight. “Says one Democrat with close ties to the Democratic National Committee, ‘The next Chair is going to have to burn the place down and rebuild it.” So Jeff, how do we do that?

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. I think the critical thing to bear in mind here is that Debbie Wasserman-Shultz is nothing other than a total clone and voice at the DNC for President Obama. Go back to the beginning of the Obama presidency. Initially, former Congressman and former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland had been called by the White House, and had been asked to be the Chairman of the DNC, and had been told, “Wait by your phone, because you’re going to get a call from the President very soon.” He waited, and waited, and waited, and then several days
later, read in the newspaper that Debbie Wasserman-Shultz had been named instead as the party chairman.

As we understand this, this was the direct result of an intervention by Valerie Jarrett, by Michelle Obama, and it was a foretaste of many things that would follow from them. So, what she is doing to the Democratic Party is all being done on the basis of orders coming directly from the White House. Tuesday’s debate in Las Vegas was a demeaning insult to the institution of the Presidency. That’s not to say that everything that the participants in the debate said was demeaning, but the whole way that the debate was organized by CNN, which has no qualifications whatsoever to actually be hosting a debate like this, was turned into some version of the Barnum and Bailey circus mixed with the
Gong show. Every candidate brought swarms of people, probably right off the floors of the casinos half drunk, and they were being encouraged to scream and razz and make all kinds of noise whenever their candidate had something to say. It was shameful, it was demeaning, and what Mr. LaRouche said is that this was organized by the British. This wasn’t even done directly by President Obama. This was the kind of stunt that’s meant to demean the office of the Presidency, and people who participated in this process were by and large victims of a set-up that should have never ever been allowed to happen.

Of course, this is the same CNN that bailed out Obama four years ago, when Mitt Romney was about to nail him on what had actually happened in the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi, but instead, you may recall Candy Crowley jumping in on behalf of Obama, and shutting down Mitt Romney mid-sentence. So what you have here is an assault against the appropriate decorum and respect for the Office of the Presidency, and even though there were a few comments by Martin O’Malley, on two occasions, openly calling for Glass-Steagall, the reality is that the entire event
was a shameless circus, and the best thing to do is to make sure that this is forgotten as soon as possible, and that there is never again this kind of insult to the Office of the Presidency by allowing this kind of clown show to occur.

And Mr. LaRouche, during his Thursday night Fireside Chat with supporters from around the country, emphasized that we’ve got to return the Presidency to a constitutional framework. We’ve got to have qualified candidates, and we’ve got to assemble not an individual, not some personality or popularity contest, but we’ve got to assemble a qualified team of people, a President, a Vice President, qualified people to fill out the cabinet, so that we can get away from the horror show of the last 15 years, where 8 years of Bush and Cheney, and now 7 years of Obama, have all but effectively destroyed the institution of the Presidency.

Now the reality is that we can’t wait. The reality is that Obama must be removed from office in the immediate days ahead, and this is not a matter of trying to scramble around to find some pretext in which to do that, because Matt just mentioned at the outset, that the Glen Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill new publication, the Intercept, has published an extraordinary 8-part series, based on newly-leaked government documents. These documents were prepared after Edward Snowden had already dumped his material, and had already left government, and probably already taking refuge in Russia. But what these documents show is that President Obama is guilty of mass murder. The entire drone program that has been the hallmark, the entirety, of the Obama administration’s counter-terrorism program, has been conducted outside the framework of the U.S. Constitution, outside of international law, and represents perhaps the single greatest incident of mass murder in the modern history of this planet.

Now, that may sound extreme, but I would urge all of you to not just read the 8-part series of articles, but to go to the links to the actual documents that reveal the true nature of this Obama administration, completely lawless mass murder campaign. One of the points that’s made right at the outset, in the opening article of this series, is that since 1975 — and you can go back to the history of the revelations about CIA crimes, the Church and Pike Committee investigations — during that period President Gerald Ford issued an Executive Order and laws were passed, making it explicitly illegal for the U.S. President to order assassinations. And of course, President Obama, since the very beginning of his term in office, has been regularly convening Tuesday meetings at the White House, where they’ve been specifically developing kill lists of targets to be gone after. And so, rather than use the appropriate and accurate term of assassinations, President Obama and his team choose the word “targetted killings,” but the concept is identical.
Now, we’ve talked on a number of occasions in recent weeks, on these webcasts on Friday night, about the fact that General Michael Flynn, who was the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency and was fired by President Obama in the summer of 2014 for being a major obstacle to the kinds of illegal programs the Administration has been running since the beginning – General Flynn was interviewed by The Intercept to comment on the documents and to comment on his own first-hand knowledge of this assassination program. General Flynn had been the Director of Intelligence for the Joint Special Operations Command, for Central Command, and then became the head of the entire Defense Intelligence Agency. Here’s what he had to say about the Obama Administration’s program:

“The drone campaign right now really is only about killing. When you hear the phrase ‘capture or kill’, capture is actually a misnomer. In the drone strategy that we have, `capture’ is a lower case c. We don’t capture people any more. Our entire Middle East policy seems to be based on firing drones. That’s what this Administration decided to do in its counter-terrorism campaign. They are enamored by the ability of Special Operations and the CIA to find a guy in the middle of the desert, in some shitty little village (pardon my French), and drop a bomb on his head and kill him.”

Now to hear President Obama, you would think that the White House program has been surrounded by Constitutional lawyers who’ve been studying every step along the way, to make sure that everything involved in this program is legal. In a speech at the National Defense University several years ago, President Obama discussed the program, and again, quote: “The United States has taken lethal, targetted action against al-Qaeda and its associated forces, including with remotely piloted aircraft, commonly referred-to as drones. As was true in previous armed conflicts, this new technology raises profound questions about who is targetted, and why. About civilian casualties and the risk of creating new enemies. About the legality of such strikes under U.S. and international law. About accountability and morality. Drone strikes, he concluded, are effective and legal. Now, it happens that under pressure, particularly after news reports about his Tuesday kill-meetings at the White House, caused quite a stir, the White House issued a policy document. It’s in the public record, it didn’t have to be leaked out. It’s called “U.S. Policy Standards and Procedures for the Use of Force in Counter-Terrorism Operations Outside the United States and Areas of Active Hostilities.” I won’t bore you with the precise language of this document, but among the highlights, they say, “In every instance we prefer to capture rather than kill. We have precise standards for the use of lethal force, and these criteria include, but are not restricted to, near-certainty that the terrorist target is present, near-certainty that non-combatants will not be injured or killed, an assessment that capture is not feasible at any time of the operation, an assessment that the relevant government authorities in the country where action is contemplated cannot or will not address the threat to U.S. persons, and an assessment that no other reasonable alternatives exist to effectively address the threat to U.S. persons.” And they say, “There must be a legal basis for using lethal force, and secondly, that lethal force will only be used against a target that poses a continuing imminent threat to U.S. persons.”
Now, the fact of the matter is that these were strict rules for targetted killing that were promulgated by the Obama Administration, signed by the President himself, and as documented in The Intercept series, by commentaries by people like General Flynn, this policy has been violated in virtually every instance. So even by the criteria that his own Administration set forth, President Obama has been guilty of carrying out what can only be described as mass murder. Now, there are procedures for dealing with crimes of mass murder.
Number one, to the extent that the President is directly implicated in these actions, this is cause for immediate and obvious impeachment, and perhaps, because of the urgency and timeliness of this, it would be more appropriate to simply invoke the 25th Amendment. If you have somebody who has been living under the cloak of apparent civility and respectable position, but who turns out to be a mass murderer, then you’d have to conclude that that person was suffering from a form of socio-pathological insanity. That invokes the 25th Amendment immediately. And so, that’s the situation that we’re dealing with. What Mr. LaRouche said, is in this case, you would want to remove that person, President Obama, from office immediately, and then immediately commence with criminal proceedings for the mass-murders that he’s committed.

Now, among the documents that were leaked to the authors of this series of articles, is a document that was prepared by the House Select Committee on Intelligence, in April of 2012. It was called the Performance Audit of the Department of Defense Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR). And what this audit by the House Intelligence Committee concluded, is that the entire targetted-kill program was rife with violations, with failures to live up to any of the standards that would be appropriate under the Constitution, or even under the Obama Administration’s own guidelines, and that basically there was a mad rush to try to line up as much money as possible for these drone-kill programs, and therefore there were shortcuts, there was misrepresentation of the program, and in fact since the September 11 attacks, the Defense Department has spent $67 billion on putting together the ISR infrastructure that the Obama Administration has exclusively used for the drone killing-program.

Now, other comments on this. Again, from General Flynn. He said that the White House, for expedient reasons, abandoned its own guidelines. There were no attempts to capture. There were no attempts to work with local governments on setting up the circumstances to capture. There was no attempt to live up to the standard that to be a legitimate target for these assassinations, the individual had to oppose an immediate and imminent threat of terrorist attack against the United States. And what General Flynn said, quote, “We’ve tended to say, drop another bomb via a drone, and put out a headline that ‘We killed Abu Bag of Donuts’ and it makes us all feel good for 24 hours. And you know what? It doesn’t matter. It just made them a martyr. It just created a new reason to fight us ever harder.” Flynn went on to say that there was “way too much reliance on technical aspects of intelligence, like signals intelligence, or even just looking at somebody with unmanned aerial vehicles. He gave an example. “I could get on the telephone from somewhere in Somalia, and I know I know I’m a high-value target. And I say in some coded language, ‘The wedding is about to occur in the next 24 hours.'” Flynn said, “That could put all of Europe and the United States on a high-level alert, and it may just be total bullshit. SIGINT is an easy system to fool, and that is why it has to be validated by other INTs, namely like human intelligence. You have to ensure that the person is actually there, at that location, because what you really intercepted was the phone.”

And in fact, one of the things that was concluded in this in-depth House Intelligence Committee review of this drone-kill program was that in most instances, there was almost exclusively reliance on the tracking of cell phones, and so, very often, it was the cell phone that was the determinant of the location where the drone attack occurred. And in many instances, almost a majority of the instances, many innocent people who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time were killed, and immediately afterwards, even though these people were not known, they didn’t even know what their identities were when the drone-firing took place, they would immediately be classified as unknown enemy combatants. In other words, if you were there, you were de facto a terrorist, and it was de facto justified that you were a legitimate target for Obama’s assassinations.

Now, the documents also included a number of structural flow-charts. The point that the Pentagon and the CIA wanted to make, was that these programs did not involve a few people sitting around in a room, going through piles of what they themselves called “baseball cards” — photographs and biographical information on the people who were on the potential-target list. It was based on the data in these “baseball cards” that the President of the United States would sign the kill-order. And once the kill-order was signed — and by the way, it usually took on average 58 days from when an individual was identified by name to when he went through the process of investigation, surveillance, and his name landed on the President’s desk for a finding that this person should be killed. And then from that moment on, there was a 60-day time deadline for accomplishing the killing. I’m sure part of the reason for that is that every week there were more and more names being added, and the priorities were continuously shifting. But the fact of the matter is, that there was an elaborate chain of command through which this vetting process took place; chains of command within the military and the CIA. Then there was a chain of command which led up to what was called the Principals Committee, which are the leading members of the President’s Cabinet and heads of other agencies that have critical roles to play in this process. And then in every single instance, the ultimate decision was made and was signed off on by the President of the United States. So, in other words, every single person killed in this drone warfare program was authorized for assassination by President Obama.

Now, we know that there were a number of leading advisors, particularly John Brennan; who for the first four years of the Obama Presidency was the President’s Counter-terrorism Advisor right there at the White House — then he was made Director of the CIA. We know that David Petraeus, who was formerly a high-ranking military commander, brought over to the CIA, and who was found not only to have been engaging in an extramarital affair, but was caught passing massive amounts of classified documents to his mistress and biographer; and yet he only received a slap-on-the-wrist misdemeanor, and to this day is still a key advisor to President Obama. Petraeus propagated a series of orders, establishing the chain of command and the operational profile of at least the Joint Special Operations Command [JSOC] part of this kill program. But ultimately, everything landed on the desk of President Obama; and when he signed the kill order, the 60-day clock began to tick down, and that was when the operations in the field went into action.

We know, of course, that Anwar al-Awlaki — an American citizen — clearly someone who had an association with al-Qaeda, was put on the assassination list; and yet, as an American citizen, he was denied any of the Constitutional due process that all American citizens are entitled to. And so, al-Awlaki was killed in an American drone attack in Yemen; several weeks later, his 16-year old son and another American citizen were killed in another drone attack. The administration had to scramble to cover that up. And now there are at least some indications that Anwar al-Awlaki may have been targeted for cold-blooded murder; because he was an FBI informant, and in that capacity, knew certain secrets about how this whole process and program of targeting was working, and perhaps knew of certain government ties to al-Qaeda. We don’t know that, but there are court actions underway right now that may provide an even further light on the specific case of al-Awlaki. In Afghanistan, in Yemen, in Somalia, in Pakistan — those were the four major areas where this mass assassination was taking place; there were extensive drone bases, massive amounts of military equipment. But yet, in all of the instances, it would appear that more often than not, the criteria that the administration itself put forward were never in a single instance adhered to; and the collateral damage, the number of innocent people later, after the fact, posthumously declared enemy combatants was massive. We don’t even begin to have a total death toll, but for every individual on the Presidential-approved kill list, there were multiple numbers of people who were killed simply because they were in the immediate vicinity. And one aspect of the program evolved to the point that targeted assassination operations were conducted on the basis of activity profile, not even identification of specific individuals. In the case of Afghanistan, there were instances where drone-targetted operations were directed against weddings, simply because the drones detected a large number of young males holding up guns in the air and firing them into the air. Now that happens to be part of a fairly typical tribal wedding ceremony in Afghanistan; so we don’t know how many of these targeted assassinations were conducted on the basis of those kinds of activities.

Now, there was a report that was issued in 2014, that was done by General John Abizaid, who was the former head of the Central Command, and a lawyer from Georgetown named Rosa Brooks, who was a former attorney at the Department of Defense. And that report noted that there are “enormous uncertainties” in drone warfare, and that these uncertainties “are multiplied further when the United States relies on intelligence and other targeting information provided by a host nation government. How can we be sure we are not being drawn into a civil war; or being used to target the domestic political enemies of the host state leadership?” So, in other words, this program was completely out of control, off the charts; but was thoroughly embraced by President Obama from his first days in office – probably initially courtesy of people like John Brennan. But the fact of the matter is that a massive number of crimes have been committed. The official documents, including those classified documents leaked out to {The Intercept}, make it clear that there was an absolute, unambiguous chain of command. In other words, the way that law enforcement would map out the structures of a mafia organization that they were going to break up; and unambiguously, the godfather of this entire mass kill program was President Obama. And if that doesn’t constitute sufficient criteria for immediately launching impeachment proceedings or invoking of the 25th Amendment, then we’ve pretty much lost any sense of what our Constitutional republic is all about.

OGDEN: OK, I would like to just present the institutional question which we got in this week, which is very brief. It reads as follows: “Mr. LaRouche, the United States is to extend its military presence in Afghanistan beyond 2016. What is your opinion about the extension of our military presence in Afghanistan?”

STEINBERG: Well, I think first of all, you’ve got to consider the timing of this announcement. Regardless of whatever process there was, however long the deliberations were about making this decision, I find it extremely distasteful that the President chose to make this announcement just days after the United States had bombed the hospital of Doctors Without Borders in Kunduz. There are new developments just in the last 24 hours, indicating that some American or NATO either tanks or APCs — armed personnel carriers — had arrived on the site soon after the bombing had ended, and had basically plowed through the rubble. And at least in the eyes of Doctors Without Borders, this was an attempt to bury and conceal evidence of a major crime that was committed. We spoke last week about the fact that Doctors without Borders had issued a call under the Geneva Convention for a top-down investigation, and they basically say that the actions that were undertaken under the auspices of President Obama, constituted war crimes.

So I think if you step back, and think about the thrust of what we’ve presented here in the last half hour or so, about the nature of the drone program, and then situate the bombing of this Doctors Without Borders hospital within that overall framework, I think you’ll see that this situation is completely out of control, and lawless. In fact, one of the commentators who have been noting the horrors of this incident has pointed out that it may come down to the fact that President Obama’s only legacy is that he will have been the only Nobel Peace Prize award recipient to bomb another Nobel Peace Prize recipient — because Doctors Without Borders has also been far more legitimately granted that award.

Now, the fact of the matter is that the United States has been engaged in Afghanistan since 2001, since soon after the 9/11 attacks, and here we are, 14 years later, still debating the question of whether or not we’re on the verge of the Taliban taking the place over again. I think that that 14 year process, at an estimated cost to U.S. taxpayers of well over $2 trillion, ought to raise some serious questions about whether this policy is advisable to continue indefinitely into the future, even past the Obama Presidency. And one of the ways that the argument is being framed, for why the U.S. should remain and why NATO should remain, in Afghanistan, is the argument that there’s more training, there’s more assistance needed, but the implication is that there’s only a binary choice: either we stay, or we go, as if there were no other options on the table, which is emphatically not true.

There are some senior retired U.S. military officials, and others, who have recently proposed that there is a viable alternative, and that you have the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which is a regional security arrangement which involves Russia, China, all of the countries of Central Asia, and as of their last meeting earlier this year, it also includes India and Pakistan. And it’s virtually a certainty, now that the P5+1 agreement has been ratified both here in the U.S. and by the Majlis in Iran, so that the sanctions will be lifted in the months ahead, that Iran will be the next member country given full membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

Just look at that on a map. Every country surrounding Afghanistan is a member of the SCO, and again, within a very short period of time Iran, which borders on Afghanistan, will be included in that membership. Right now, they’re associate members, so in effect they’re already part of the deliberations.

What about having the SCO, which has a strong vested interest in the security and stability of the area, working out a coordination with the US and NATO for a hand-off of security responsibility, as well as economic development responsibility, to the SCO? China, which was one of the initial sponsors of the SCO, has a critical vested interest, because the entire One Belt, One Road policy that is the cornerstone of Xi Jinping’s international outreach, requires stability in exactly that area around Afghanistan. You have countries that are of the same ethnic background. You’ve got Tajiks and Uzbeks, and Iranians, Persians, who form a major part of the population of Afghanistan. You’ve got Pushtuns, who are also across the border in Pakistan. India has historically played an extraordinarily important and close role with the government in Kabul, and of course, Russia is gravely concerned about the security of Central Asia, as well as the Caucasus region of Russia.

So, it would be a sane and natural policy for the U.S., for NATO, to enter into discussions with the SCO, and propose an orderly transition, and develop a coherent strategy for bringing this whole 15 year crisis to an end. If you in fact go back to the original Brzezinski plans for conducting covert operations against the Soviets in Afghanistan, which preceded by six months the Soviets coming into Afghanistan, you see that this area has been affected by an even more than 30 years of war uninterrupted process. So there is an alternative. There’s a thoughtful, diplomatic, economic, security alternative, and one must wonder, if this option is not being considered, whether the real concern here is to keep Afghanistan safe for the opium trade, because 95 % of the world’s opium supply, at enormous profits, is coming out of Afghanistan.

OGDEN: Well, thank you very much, Jeff.

What we’ve now presented in the summary course of this webcast tonight, was what Mr. LaRouche asked for. It is high time for the Obama policy to go. The evidence has just been presented by Jeff and myself here on this broadcast tonight, and that evidence speaks for itself. However, the task still remains, as Mr. LaRouche has emphasized, that LaRouche PAC and responsible citizens across the United States, must also build a New Presidency, to lead the United States out of what is arguably the worst disaster that we’ve ever faced as a nation, after eight years of Bush and Cheney, and then eight more years of Obama.

It’s very clear, what Mr. LaRouche’s thoughts were about the Tuesday Democratic debate, and what Jeff said earlier about the CNN kind of clown show atmosphere that was created around that. But as people who listened to Mr. LaRouche’s fireside chat last night might have heard, he was also emphatic on keeping our vision clear as to what our responsibility as citizens is, not to just pick and choose among candidates, but to create what he calls a Presidency, and to conclude tonight’s webcast, I actually want to read what I found to be a very compelling section of Mr. LaRouche’s discussion on this question of the Presidency last night.

He said: “The point is that people usually think that we want a President. Now, according to our national law, we do get a President, one President. We also get a Vice President. But on the other hand, what we need is a team of citizens who are qualified to lead the formation and institution of a system of government under a Presidential system. In other words, you can’t just say, this is the President; now everyone’s going to listen to him. That’s not right. You have to have a President who is acceptable, who’s qualified to lead the nation, but no one person can control the United States as a nation efficiently. There has to be a team based on the kind of team that we had when we composed a Presidential system. It also means we depend in the way that we can deal with certain members of Congress, in the House of Representatives in general, and so forth.

“You have people who don’t always agree with each other, but we need that kind of office as a deliberation process, in order to have the kind of people of the United States find they have a core of agreement on goals and purposes which suit the requirements of the Presidency.

“Now the other part of that has a feature to it. When we create a Presidential system, we don’t create a President per se. We try, in the best features of our existence, in our history, our intention is always to introduce new concepts, more appropriate concepts, more brilliant, more fruitful than ever before. Maybe some people can come together as a team around that idea. They might be rivals, but our goal is to go to the higher level, the highest level of achievement, of the improvement of our system of government: to create a team of people who are qualified, and actively qualified, to conduct the business of our government as a whole. And that’s the way we have to look at it.”

So, lest we get too distracted by the personality contests, and all of the media hype that’s created by CNN and related organizations, I think it’s important to keep that idea is mind.

And that’s what Mr. LaRouche has devoted his entire career to, over the last 40 to 50 years of his public life. So we have the responsibility as leaders of the LaRouche PAC, and you have the responsibility as viewers of this broadcast here tonight, to cooperate with us in trying to bring that lofty and noble goal about.

I appreciate your attention to our broadcast tonight. I advise that you take the evidence that we’ve presented here, and let it speak for itself. Please share this as widely as you can. Get it around to your friends and neighbors, and continue to participate in all of the events that LaRouche PAC is hosting — from these Friday night broadcasts, to the Fireside chats with Mr. LaRouche, and the continuing activities in Manhattan, including the discussion that I know we will be engaged in again tomorrow, with Mr. LaRouche himself.

So, thank you very much for tuning in tonight, and please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

16. oktober 2015 – Russiske kampfly har ødelagt i alt 456 ISIS-mål i Syrien, siden de påbegyndte deres bombninger den 30. september, sagde oberst-general Andrei Kartapolov, chef for den Russiske Generalstabs Direktorat for Hovedoperationer til reportere ved det Russiske Forsvarsministerium her til morgen under en konfronterende briefing, der understregede, hvordan Rusland har ændret situationen i Syrien. Ifølge Sputnik News rapporterede Kartalov, at russiske kampfly, med base i lufthavnen uden for Latakia, i løbet af den seneste weekend har fløjet 394 sortier og ødelagt 46 kommando- og kommunikationsposter, 6 fabrikker for sprængstoffer, 22 varehuse og brændstofdepoter, samt 272 militante stillinger, bastioner og feltlejre.

»De fleste bevæbnede formationer er demoraliseret. Der er voksende utilfredshed med feltkommandørerne, og der er bevis for ulydighed. Desertering er blevet udbredt«, sagde Kartalov. Han rapporterede ligeledes, at, iflg. efterretningskilder, krydser omkring 100 ISIS-kæmpere grænsen til Tyrkiet hver dag, idet de flygter fra kampzonen.

»Jeg vil gerne endnu engang påpege, at vore fly udfører luftangreb imod de militantes infrastruktur baseret på data, der kommer fra flere efterretningskilder, såvel som efterretninger, vi får fra informationscentret i Bagdad«, sagde Kartapolov som svar på påstande om, at Rusland skulle bombe andre mål end ISIS. »Vi bomber kun mål, der er besat af internationalt anerkendte terrorgrupper. Vore krigsfly opererer ikke i de sydlige dele af Syrien, hvor, iflg. vore efterretninger, enheder fra den Frie Syriske Hær opererer«, sagde Kartalov.

Kartalov understregede også, at Rusland gentagne gange har bedt om efterretninger om ISIS-stillinger fra den amerikansk ledede koalition, men ikke har modtaget noget svar.

»Da vi ikke modtog koordinater for ISIL-styrkerne, bad vi vore partnere om at give os data om regioner, der er besat af den moderate opposition. Desværre gav vore partnere os ikke et svar på nogle af vore forespørgsler«, sagde Kartalov. »Så vi skabte et omfattende kort over områder, der er kontrolleret af ISIL, baseret på vore efterretninger og på information fra centret i Bagdad«, fortsatte han.

Ifølge det Russiske Forsvarsministerium har russiske fly fløjet 669 sortier siden 30. sept. I den samme tidsramme har den amerikansk ledede koalition fløjet i alt 77 luftangreb, hvilket ekstrapoleres til 285 sortier, en beregning, der er baseret på den amerikanske centralkommandos egen rapport om, at kun 27 procent af angrebssortier i krigen mod ISIS resulterer i faktisk frigivelse af våben.

På jorden lyder rapporterne, at den syriske hær, med russisk luftstøtte, bevæger sig fremad. Russiske sortier er stilnet af i løbet af de seneste dage, fordi »frontlinjen med ISIL’s terrorgrupper (grupper fra Islamisk Stat) er under forandring som følge af aktive offensiver fra de syriske bevæbnede styrker«, sagde Forsvarsministeriet i en erklæring her til morgen. »Militanterne er på tilbagetog og forsøger at etablere nye stillinger og ændre det logistiske system, der leverer ammunition, våben og materialer til dem«, sagde ministeriet. Syrisk fjernsyn, der citerede en militær kilde, sagde, at hæren havde indledt en operation i den nordlige og nordvestlige del af provinsen Homs »med det formål at genoprette tryghed og stabilitet i landsbyerne og byerne i området«. Kampene, rapporterer AFP, synes at have til hensigt at sikre hovedvejen, der fører fra Homs til den tilstødende provins Hamas hovedby, Hama city.

»Regimet er i realiteten i færd med at gøre sine styrker parat i hele Homs’ nordlige landdistrikt … Det, vi frygter, er, at de vil følge samme strategi, som de havde i Hama-landdistriktet. De angreb faktisk kæmperne på alle fronter samtidig«, sagde lokal medieaktivist Hassan Abou Nouh til Reuters.

Stakkels Tyskland! Du er sunket dybt, hvis alt det, som de meningsdannende massemedier publicerer i disse dage, er sandt! Man må da spørge, hvordan tyskerne i både Øst og Vest klarede at genhuse og integrere henved 14 millioner flygtninge (!) for 70 år siden, umiddelbart før afslutningen af Anden Verdenskrig og i tiden umiddelbart derefter, flygtninge fra det tabte Øst og Sudeterlandet? Hvordan kunne tyskerne blive i stand til at genopbygge deres udbombede byer så hurtigt?

Se også: “Løs flygtningekrisen ved at realisere en ny, epokeskabende vision for fremtiden”, af Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Washington har nægtet at modtage en russisk militærdelegation i USA om militær koordinering, eller at sende en delegation til Rusland, siger russiske udenrigsminister Lavrov til Duma

13. oktober 2015 – Washington har nægtet at modtage en foreslået, russisk militærdelegation, ledet af premierminister Dmitri Medvedev, for at drøfte koordineret handling i kampen mod terrorisme i Syrien, rapporterede RT i går.

Udenrigsminister Lavrov sagde til den russiske Duma i går: »Vi har foreslået amerikanerne det, som præsident Vladimir Putin informerede offentligheden om i går, nemlig, at sende en delegation af militære eksperter til Moskva for at aftale en serie af fælles skridt, [og] bagefter vil vi være rede til at sende en delegation på højt niveau, ledet af premierminister Medvedev, til Washington.«

RT rapporterede: »I dag har vi fået at vide, at de [amerikanerne] ikke vil være i stand til at sende en delegation til Moskva. Samtidig kan de ikke modtage vores delegation i Washington«, tilføjede han.

Lavrov rapporterede, at Moskva »inviterede vore andre partnere til at deltage i Bagdad-informationscentrets aktiviteter, så alle kan se det fulde billede; så alle kigger på det samme blad, og for at undgå misforståelser; besvarelsen var ikke konstruktiv. De sagde, ’Hvorfor i Irak? Det er ikke sikkert der.’ Vi forklarede, at, iflg. vores vurdering kan Bagdad Center operere under meget favorable betingelser. Men hvis der foreligger et ønske om at koordinere handlinger et andet sted, så er vi parat til dette«, sagde Lavrov.

»Aftalen om de militær-tekniske forholdsregler for at undgå hændelser i luften, som i praksis er udført, vil være operative fra i dag, håber jeg. I dag vil de sidste detaljer blive udført for at koordinere alle aftalens punkter«, sagde Lavrov til statsdumaen.

»Og så er vi parat til at sætte os og drøfte tingene, med alle kortene på hånden: hvor DE mener, terroristerne er, hvor VI mener, de kunne være … Jeg er sikker på, at hvis vi arbejder ærligt, så vil disse evalueringer være sammenfaldende. [fremhævelse original] Vi bør alle begynde med at lægge vore kort frem, både i direkte og indirekte betydning«, understregede ministeren … »Jeg kan ikke se nogen grund til, at vi ikke skulle sætte os og drøfte [disse] ting. Måske mener Vesten, at Islamisk Stat og Assad simpelt hen skal reducere hinanden«, sagde han. »Men jeg vil helst ikke tro, at vore vestlige kolleger ledes af en sådan ’forenklet’ logik.«

15. oktober 2015 – I en erklæring her til morgen i Bundestag (det tyske parlaments underhus) sagde kansler Merkel mht. Syrien: »Der er intet, der opmuntrer os til at forvente, at noget vil ændre den ulykkelige situation i den nærmeste fremtid. Men skal vi opgive af denne grund? Nej! … Det vil kræve en dyb indånding at stabilisere denne iturevne stat igen. Hertil haster det med en dialog med Rusland … Vi må selvfølgelig lancere en politisk dialog, der bør involvere Rusland og andre internationale parter, inklusive regionale stater.«

(En antydning fra Merkels side om, at hun ville støtte i det mindste en lempelse af sanktionerne mod Rusland, ville naturligvis være nyttig.) De flygtninge, der er ankommet, med stadig flere, der forventes at ankomme til Tyskland, vil blive der i nogen tid fremover med denne udsigt til ’en dyb indånding’ for Syrien. I alt forventes omkring 600.000 syriske flygtninge at være ankommet til Tyskland ved årets slutning.

Den tyske kansler gentog, at hendes politik for flygtningekrisen vil være et pragmatisk mix af at acceptere og integrere især de syriske flygtninge på den ene side, og forholdsregler til at reducere flygtningestrømmen på den anden side. Sidstnævnte involverer mere finansiel og anden støtte til Tyrkiet, som Merkel skal besøge den 18. oktober, og til Libanon og Jordan, tre lande, der har de fleste flygtningelejre; men en stærkere grænsekontrol, oprettelsen af særlige transitzoner for flygtninge for at forsegle de øvrige grænser, samt øget grænsepatruljering langs EU’s sydlige grænser (FRONTEX-programmet), er også involveret.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

I dag udtalte Lyndon LaRouche, at både Bernie Sanders og hans demokratiske medkandidat til præsidentskabet, Hillary Clinton, er politisk døde pga. deres åbenlyse støtte til Barack Obama, inklusive Clintons højrøstede opposition mod en tilbagevenden til Glass/Steagall-loven. Dette, erklærede LaRouche, efterlader det Demokratiske Parti og dets præsidentkampagne til at blive genoplivet gennem en radikal tilbagevenden til USA’s grundlæggende, økonomiske og filosofiske principper, som Lyndon LaRouches Manhattan Projekt har udgjort spydspidsen for.

Udviklingen af den amerikanske valgkamps front er en del af Det britiske Imperiums voksende, internationale mønster, hvor de langer ud for at forsøge at komme sig oven på den russiske præsident Vladimir Putins strategiske flankeoperationer, og oven på deres generelle, defensive situation i de seneste måneder. I løbet af weekenden aktiverede de Bernie Sanders, der præsterede en skarp vending på en tallerken mht. sine synspunkter om Obama umiddelbart før debatten mellem de præsidentielle præ-kandidater den 13. okt., ved sin lovprisning til skyerne af den britiske lakaj Obama i et interview til Tv den 11. oktober.

Et andet tilfælde af en britisk støttet respons til den eksistentielle trussel mod Det britiske Imperiums overlevelse, var den amerikanske bombning af Læger uden Grænsers hospital i Kunduz, Afghanistan, som Lyndon LaRouche fordømte som et overlagt mord, udført af den britiskkontrollerede Obama.

I løbet af de seneste 24-48 timer er andre elementer, der bør tages i betragtning som en del af dette mønster, de følgende:

• Et morterangreb på den Russiske Ambassade i Damaskus mandag. To runder ramte ambassaden, mens en pro-russisk demonstration fandt sted udenfor. Ingen kom til skade, men den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov fordømte angrebene som »et åbenlyst terrorangreb, der sandsynligvis var rettet mod at skræmme dem, der støtter kampen mod terror og ikke give dem mulighed for at vinde kampen mod ekstremisme.«
• En indenrigs-terrorplan som svar på de heldige operationer i Syrien, blev opløst af de russiske myndigheder.
• Obama og saudierne er i færd med at genbevæbne den hårdt ramte, syriske terrororganisation med TOW antitank-missiler og andre våben, netop på samme tidspunkt, hvor Syrien og deres russiske allierede har forjaget dem.
• NATO’s militærøvelse »Steadfast Noon« blev lanceret, og vil finde sted i perioden 13. – 16. oktober, fra Büchel-flybasen i Tyskland. Øvelsen vil simulere affyringen af atomvåben fra bombefly, inklusive fra tyske Tornado-kampfly. Den involverer USA og otte andre NATO-stater: Tyskland, Italien, Holland, Belgien, Polen, Tjekkiet, Grækenland og Tyrkiet.
• Et politisk slagsmål er ligeledes brudt ud i Det forenede Kongerige over, hvilken politik man skal forfølge, både økonomisk og strategisk. Denne strid er nu brudt ud på nationalt fjernsyn med BBC »Panorama«, der kører et show med et skamløst forsvar for en pædofiliring, der skærer dybt ind i det britiske monarki.

Fjernelsen af Barack Obama fra Det Hvide Hus er fortsat den mest effektive vej til at forhindre truslen om atomkrig og til den endelige begravelse af Det britiske Imperium og dets dødbringende politik.

13. oktober 2015 – Den russiske præsident Vladimir Putins interview til Rossiya-1 Tv den 10. okt., hvis ordlyd nu foreligger i sin helhed på Kremls engelsksprogede webside, viser en selvsikker, humoristisk, kreativ leder, der står i skarp kontrast til Barack Obamas paranoide, narcissistiske dræberoptræden på CBS’s program ’60 Minutes’ den 11. okt. Følgende er væsentlige uddrag af dette interview med Putin:

Som svar på et spørgsmål fra intervieweren Vladimir Solovyov om, hvordan »Obama mener, De handler udelukkende ud fra forfængelighed«, og at De »kører økonomien i sænk«, svarede Putin fattet:

»Med hensyn til den økonomiske dimension … Det er nu 10 år siden, vi begyndte arbejdet med disse planer [om modernisering af våben] og med formulering af opgaverne forude. Lad mig gentage, at dette alt sammen handlede om den naturlige erstatning af aldrende våbensystemer. En anden omstændighed, jeg gerne vil bemærke i denne henseende, er, at hele dette arbejde involverer avanceret teknologi, og de opgaver, vi udfører i forsvarsindustrien, vil skubbe os frem mod udviklingen af ikke blot anvendt videnskab, men også grundforskning, og vil få gavnlig betydning for hele økonomien …

Vi må udvikle videnskab og industri her i Rusland. I denne forstand er den erstatning for import, som vore partneres handlinger [sanktioner] har skubbet os ud i, rent faktisk nøjagtigt er det, vores land har brug for. Vi skaber derfor ikke problemer for vores økonomi, men hæver den tvært imod til nye højder for teknologisk fremskridt.«

Dernæst tegnede Putin et internationalt billede af denne politik:

»Vi byggede f.eks. BrahMos-missilet sammen med vore indiske partnere og udviklede en helt ny sektor i den indiske industri. Indiens forskere arbejdede meget aktivt. Dette var virkelig et skridt hen imod udviklingen af en højteknologisk produktionssektor i Indien. Vore indiske partnere er meget tilfredse og har foreslået, at vi udvikler dette program yderligere, hvilket vi har til hensigt at gøre.«

Han gjorde dernæst grin med Obamas totalt mislykkede »Uddan og udstyr«-politik i Syrien:

»Jeg forstår dog ikke nogle af vore kolleger i Europa og USA, når de siger, at de bekæmper terrorisme, men vi ikke ser nogen reelle resultater. Desuden er det et velkendt faktum, at amerikanerne har lukket programmet for at uddanne den Frie Syriske Hær ned. De begyndte med planer om at uddanne 12.000 personer, dernæst sagde de, at de ville uddanne 6.000, og sluttelig uddannede de kun 60 personer, og det viste sig, at der sluttelig kun var 4-5 personer, der faktisk bekæmper ISIS. De brugte 500 mio. dollar på dette. Det havde været bedre, om de havde givet os de 500 mio. dollar, og så ville vi have brugt pengene bedre mht. bekæmpelse af international terrorisme, det er helt sikkert. Hvorom alting er, så må vi forsøge at få et samarbejde på niveau af totalt fælles efterretningsinformationer, som jeg sagde.«

Putin forklarede den russiske politik i Syrien:

»Den enkleste metode ville have været, at de [USA og dets allierede] tilsluttede sig vores indsats, og på denne måde bringe deres egne operationer på syrisk jord inden for lovens rammer på samme tid. Hvis vi har et mandat til at handle fra de syriske myndigheder, ville den enkleste løsning være, at andre tilsluttede sig os og arbejdede under det samme mandat. Desværre har vi hidtil ikke kunnet nå frem til en sådan aftale med vore partnere og kolleger, men vi har ikke mistet håbet om, at dette endnu er muligt … «

»Hvis vi ser på den rent militære dimension, så har andre bebrejdet os, at vore luftangreb ikke rammer ISIS og andre terrororganisationer som Jabhat al-Nusra og lignende, men derimod styrker, der tilhører den sunde opposition. I denne situation siger vi til vore partnere, at, hvis de kender situationen på jorden bedre end os og allerede har været der i et år – ulovligt, sandt nok, men ikke desto mindre til stede – hvis de bedre end os ved (og jeg tvivler på, at dette er tilfældet, men lad os antage, det er tilfældet), så burde de give os information om mål, og vi vil arbejde mod disse mål.«

Putin gjorde det ligeledes meget klart, at affyringen af krydsermissiler fra skibe i det Kaspiske Hav havde til hensigt at afgive et budskab:

»Det var Kalibr-missiler. Vi begyndte at kommissionere disse missiler for ikke så længe siden, i 2012. De har en rækkevidde på 1.500 kilometer, som det allerede er bemærket. Det er absolut sidste skrig i højpræcisionsvåben. Det er vores plan at genbevæbne vore væbnede styrker med ikke alene missiler af denne art, men også med seneste generation land- og fly-udstyr. Det er alt sammen sofistikerede våbensystemer, der har bevist deres store effektivitet i praksis.

De krydsede to lande. De foretog 147 drejninger langs ruten og fløj i en højde af mellem 80 og 1.300 meter … De flyver med omtrent samme hastighed som et jetfly. Dette er velkendt og slet ikke hemmelig information. Alle vore partnere, i det mindste på ekspertniveau, ved, at Rusland har våben af denne art. Men én ting er, at eksperterne er bevidste om, at Rusland angiveligt skulle være i besiddelse af disse våben, og noget andet er at se for første gang, at de virkeligt findes, at vores forsvarsindustri fremstiller dem, at de er af høj kvalitet, og at vi har uddannet personel, der kan betjene dem effektivt. De har nu ligeledes set, at Rusland er klar til at bruge dem, hvis det er i vort lands og vort folks interesse.«

Putin henviste også til sin egen, forudgående erfaring i håndtering af den tjetjenske terrorisme i slutningen af 1990’erne, med hensyn til, hvordan han skulle håndtere den aktuelle krise:

»Dengang jeg traf beslutning om at lancere operationer imod internationale terrorgrupper efter angrebet på Dagestan, sagde mange mennesker til mig, at vi ikke kunne gøre dette af alle mulige grunde; de sagde, at der er risiko for, at terroristerne gjorde dit, forsøgte dat. Jeg kom til den konklusion, at hvis vi er bange for, at terroristerne vil gøre noget, så vil de bestemt gøre det. Vi må gribe til forebyggende handling. Selvfølgelig er der risici, men lad mig sige, at disse risici alligevel var til stede, selv inden vi begyndte på vore operationer i Syrien.«

12. oktober 2015 – RT rapporterer i dag, at Storbritanniens Forsvarsministerium har benægtet rapporten, oprindeligt fremkommet i Sunday Times of London, om, at britiske piloter har fået ordre til at nedskyde russiske kampfly, hvis de blev angrebet eller »mente, de ville blive beskudt«. En talsmand for det Britiske Udenrigsministerium sagde i en udtalelse, at attacheen afholdt et møde i det Russiske Forsvarsministerium, efter at dette søgte at »få en redegørelse over unøjagtige avisrapporter vedr. Royal Air Force-regler for kampindsats i Irak«.

»Der er intet hold i historien«, kommenterede ministeriet på sin blog.

Forsvarsministeriet har ikke udsendt nogen officiel benægtelse af rapporten fra den britiske pilot om, at deres fly nu bliver bevæbnet med luft-til-luft-missiler for at forsvare sig mod russiske fly.

RT tilføjer: »Alle operationelle flyvninger i Syrien udføres med aktiveret, radioelektronisk kampgear til forsvarsformål om bord«, sagde Igor Konashenkov, talsmand for det Russiske Forsvarsministerium, den 3. okt. »Dette betyder, at et automatisk missilsigte på et russisk 4++ generation kampfly ville være en vanskelig opgave for et ældre, britisk fly.«

Foto: Russiske kampfly, arkivbillede

11. oktober 2015 – »Der er ingen tvivl om dette«, udtalte Lyndon LaRouche lørdag; bombningen af hospitalet under Læger uden Grænser i Kunduz, Afghanistan, den 3. oktober,

»var et mord fra Obamas side, som var besluttet og fremført af ham, som følge af had til Putin. Han gjorde det med overlæg. Og han gjorde det i to faser. Først kom det første angreb. Så kom budskabet ud om, hvad man gjorde ved hospitalet, det berømte hospital på stedet. Og de fortsatte! Og Obama lod det fortsætte.«

LaRouche kom med denne anklage i den bredere sammenhæng med diskussion med deltagere ved hans dialog med Manhattan-projektet den 10. okt. om »den nye tilstand af organisering«, som den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin har skabt i selve USA gennem sin flankemanøvre i Syrien. Putins handlinger har efterladt Obama og slige folk uden muligheder, og Obama, der i sig selv er en satanisk personlighed, »er gået amok«, sagde LaRouche.

»Obama lancerede dette angreb på hospitalet og myrdede folk! Slet og ret myrdede dem.«

Læger uden Grænsers internationale præsident Joanne Lius krav fra 7. okt. om, at den Internationale Kommission til Undersøgelse af Kendsgerninger (IHFFC) skal undersøge denne krigsforbrydelse, blev publiceret i går som en kronik i Sunday Independant i Sydafrika, bakket op af data, der forklarede kendsgerningerne i det 80 minutter lange angreb, der ikke alene dræbte 22 mennesker, læger såvel som børn, men som også delvis ødelagde det eneste akuthospital i det nordøstlige Afghanistan, der var i stand til at yde behandling på højt niveau til akut redning af liv og lemmer; hospitalet er nu ikke længere operationelt.

IHFFC blev oprettet under artikel 90 i et første protokoltillæg til Genevekonventionen og udstak procedurer til sikring af respekten for, og ærlig implementering af, international humanitær lov.

I et eksklusivt interview med Tysklands Deutsche Welle, der skal sendes i sin helhed den 14. okt., sagde NATO’s øverstkommanderende og firestjernet amerikanske general i Luftvåbnet, general Philip Breedlove, at han støtter den undersøgelse, som Læger uden Grænser kræver gennemført af IHFFC. Det er »deres absolutte ret at kræve denne undersøgelse«, sagde Breedlove, og »vi vil støtte det«.

Og hvad er Obama-teamet kommet frem med for at lægge en dæmper på sagen, for denne krigsforbrydelse? Det vil få Pentagon til at tilbyde penge (»kompenserende betalinger«) til ofrene for dets luftangreb, inklusive mod Læger uden Grænser, og hjælpe med at reparere det ødelagte hospital.

Foto: Læger uden Grænser kræver en uafhængig, international kommissionsundersøgelse af den dødbringende, amerikanske bombning af deres hospital i Kunduz, Afghanistan. Formand Joanne Liu ses i midten.

11. oktober 2015 – En artikel af Romil Patel i International Business Times fra 11. okt. rapporterer, at britiske

»piloter fra Royal Air Force (RAF) har fået grønt lys til at nedskyde russiske militære kampfly, når de flyver missioner over Syrien og Irak, hvis de er i fare for dem.«

Patel citerer en artikel i Londons Sunday Times, der citerer en unavngiven kilde fra Det forenede Kongeriges Permanente Fælles Hovedkvarter (PJHQ), som beskrev den nye kampordre:

»Det første, en britisk pilot vil gøre, er at forsøge at undgå en situation, hvor et angreb i luften kunne tænkes at finde sted … man undgår et område, hvis der er russisk aktivitet. Men, hvis en pilot bliver anskudt, eller mener, at han vil blive det, må han forsvare sig. Vi har nu en situation, hvor en enkelt pilot, uanset nationalitet, kan få strategisk indvirkning på fremtidige begivenheder«  

[fremhævelse tilføjet].

For at muliggøre en sådan potentiel hændelse vil RAF Tornadofly nu blive bevæbnet med varmesøgende luft-til-luft-missiler, der kan flyve ved Mach-3. Dette, skriver Patel, ville »gøre det muligt for RAF-piloter at nedskyde fjendefly uden selv at blive mål.«

Endnu en britisk militærkilde sagde til Sunday Times:

»Vi tager et skridt nærmere til krig. Kun ét enkelt fly behøver blive nedskudt i en luftkamp, og hele landskabet vil ændres.«  

’Vi tager et skridt nærmere til krig …’ The Sunday Times.

Det folkemorderiske Britiske Imperium er, både i USA og internationalt, kommet til undsætning i forsøg på at redde deres marionet Barack Obama, der er blevet totalt udmanøvreret og overlistet af den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin og har således anbragt selve det britiske systems eksistens på huggeblokken.

Mest spektakulært kom Bernie Sanders, der er demokratisk præsidentiel prækandidat, og som medierne har kørt frem som »den førende oppositionsfigur« til den aktuelle Washingtonregering, ud med en helhjertet støtte til Obama på nationalt fjernsyn søndag – umiddelbart forud for næste tirsdags debat mellem de demokratiske kandidater, der sendes på Tv. Sanders, der således viser sig som et totalt britisk aktiv, udtalte, at han har

»en enorm respekt for Barack Obama … han hjalp mig med at blive valgt, og jeg arbejder sammen med ham omkring mange, mange spørgsmål … det er kun meget partiske folk, der nægter at erkende den virkelighed, at vores økonomi i dag er ikke så lidt bedre end den var, da George W. Bush gik af.«

Dette, mens det brændende spørgsmål, som landet konfronteres med, er en tilbagevenden til Glass-Steagall og udslettelsen af Wall Street og alt, hvad Bush- og Obamaregeringerne repræsenterer. Det bør ikke overraske nogen, at, iflg. velplacerede Washingtonkilder og nogle medieberetninger, en stor del af Sanders’ fundraising-organisation blev overdraget ham af Barack Obama.

I går beskrev Lyndon LaRouche Sanders-udviklingen som »virkelig grimme, dårlige nyheder«, der reflekterer, at der er et skift i gang fra briterne globalt. Han advarede om, at vi bør forvente yderligere »djævelske« handlinger fra Obama og hans britiske sponsorer, inklusive mord på ledende personer fra lande, der arbejder sammen med den russiske præsident Putin. »Briterne har intet tilbage ud over sådanne handlinger«, understregede LaRouche. Det britiske Imperium står for at miste sin elementære eksistens, så hold øje med enhver tænkelig form for beskidte affærer, der kommer fra de kanter, der ellers ikke har været synligt aktive et stykke tid.

Når Obama har problemer, vender han sig mod briterne, udtalte LaRouche, så forvent beskidte handlinger, inklusive direkte britiske deployeringer i USA for at forsøge at forstærke Obamas ustabile psykologi.

Bemærkelsesværdig i denne henseende er også rapporten i denne weekend i Londons Sunday Times om, at den britiske regering har udstedt instrukser til sine piloter, der flyver missioner i Syrien, der giver dem tilladelse til at nedskyde russiske fly under visse betingelser:

»Hvis en pilot bliver beskudt, eller mener, at han vil blive beskudt, må han forsvare sig«

[fremhævelse tilføjet]. Det Russiske Forsvarsministerium anså rapporten i pressen for at være alvorlig nok til, at han udbad sig den britiske forsvarsattache i Moskvas fremmøde for at aflægge forklaring.

»Glem ikke, hvem Obama er«, advarede LaRouche. Han er en løgnagtig, morderisk, satanisk person. Hans journal er kendt. »Obama må knuses«, erklærede LaRouche i dag. Den eneste måde, hvorpå faren for Tredje Verdenskrig kan fjernes, er ved at fjerne Obama fra Det Hvide Hus.

Supplerende dokumentation:

Britiske piloter får tilladelse til at nedskyde russiske fly over Syrien

11. oktober 2015 – En artikel af Romil Patel i International Business Times fra 11. okt. rapporterer, at britiske

»piloter fra Royal Air Force (RAF) har fået grønt lys til at nedskyde russiske militære kampfly, når de flyver missioner over Syrien og Irak, hvis de er i fare for dem.«

Patel citerer en artikel i Londons Sunday Times, der citerer en unavngiven kilde fra Det forenede Kongeriges Permanente Fælles Hovedkvarter (PJHQ), som beskrev den nye kampordre:

»Det første, en britisk pilot vil gøre, er at forsøge at undgå en situation, hvor et angreb i luften kunne tænkes at finde sted … man undgår et område, hvis der er russisk aktivitet. Men, hvis en pilot bliver anskudt, eller mener, at han vil blive det, må han forsvare sig. Vi har nu en situation, hvor en enkelt pilot, uanset nationalitet, kan få strategisk indvirkning på fremtidige begivenheder« 

[fremhævelse tilføjet].

For at muliggøre en sådan potentiel hændelse vil RAF Tornadofly nu blive bevæbnet med varmesøgende luft-til-luft-missiler, der kan flyve ved Mach-3. Dette, skriver Patel, ville »gøre det muligt for RAF-piloter at nedskyde fjendefly uden selv at blive mål.«

Endnu en britisk militærkilde sagde til Sunday Times:

»Vi tager et skridt nærmere til krig. Kun ét enkelt fly behøver blive nedskudt i en luftkamp, og hele landskabet vil ændres.« 

LaRouche anklager, at Obama med overlæg 

bombede Læger uden Grænser-hospital

11. oktober 2015 – »Der er ingen tvivl om dette«, udtalte Lyndon LaRouche lørdag; bombningen af hospitalet under Læger uden Grænser i Kunduz, Afghanistan, den 3. oktober,

»var et mord fra Obamas side, som var besluttet og fremført af ham, som følge af had til Putin. Han gjorde det med overlæg. Og han gjorde det i to faser. Først kom det første angreb. Så kom budskabet ud om, hvad man gjorde ved hospitalet, det berømte hospital på stedet. Og de fortsatte! Og Obama lod det fortsætte.«

LaRouche kom med denne anklage i den bredere sammenhæng med diskussion med deltagere ved hans dialog med Manhattan-projektet den 10. okt. om »den nye tilstand af organisering«, som den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin har skabt i selve USA gennem sin flankemanøvre i Syrien. Putins handlinger har efterladt Obama og slige folk uden muligheder, og Obama, der i sig selv er en satanisk personlighed, »er gået amok«, sagde LaRouche.

»Obama lancerede dette angreb på hospitalet og myrdede folk! Slet og ret myrdede dem.«

Læger uden Grænsers internationale præsident Joanne Lius krav fra 7. okt. om, at den Internationale Kommission til Undersøgelse af Kendsgerninger (IHFFC) skal undersøge denne krigsforbrydelse, blev publiceret i går som en kronik i Sunday Independant i Sydafrika, bakket op af data, der forklarede kendsgerningerne i det 80 minutter lange angreb, der ikke alene dræbte 22 mennesker, læger såvel som børn, men som også delvis ødelagde det eneste akuthospital i det nordøstlige Afghanistan, der var i stand til at yde behandling på højt niveau til akut redning af liv og lemmer; hospitalet er nu ikke længere operationelt.

IHFFC blev oprettet under artikel 90 i et første protokoltillæg til Genevekonventionen og udstak procedurer til sikring af respekten for, og ærlig implementering af, international humanitær lov.

I et eksklusivt interview med Tysklands Deutsche Welle, der skal sendes i sin helhed den 14. okt., sagde NATO’s øverstkommanderende og firestjernet amerikanske general i Luftvåbnet, general Philip Breedlove, at han støtter den undersøgelse, som Læger uden Grænser kræver gennemført af IHFFC. Det er »deres absolutte ret at kræve denne undersøgelse«, sagde Breedlove, og »vi vil støtte det«.

Og hvad er Obama-teamet kommet frem med for at lægge en dæmper på sagen, for denne krigsforbrydelse? Det vil få Pentagon til at tilbyde penge (»kompenserende betalinger«) til ofrene for dets luftangreb, inklusive mod Læger uden Grænser, og hjælpe med at reparere det ødelagte hospital.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

11. oktober 2015 – Den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin sagde i et interview søndag til Rossiya 1 Tv, at Rusland ikke har planer om at lancere en landoffensiv i Syrien (»uanset, hvad der sker, så gør vi ikke dette«), og at Ruslands formål er »at stabilisere dette lands legitime myndighed og skabe betingelser for at søge et politisk kompromis«.

Putin understregede også, at der forud for de syriske luftangreb blev foretaget grundige overvågninger med satellit og fly; »derfor er alt det, der sker i luften og på jorden, ikke resultat af en spontan handling, men virkeliggørelsen af planer, der er lagt forudgående.«

Tv-journalist Vladimir Solovyov spurgte Putin om angrebet med krydsermissiler fra det Kaspiske Hav og kommenterede, at amerikansk efterretning var ophørt med at virke fra dette tidspunkt at regne, til hvilket den russiske præsident svarede:

»Lad os nu ikke kaste med sten. Amerikansk efterretning er en af de mest magtfulde i verden, og dog ved den ikke alt – og bør ikke vide alt, for den sags skyld.« Med hensyn til krydsermissilerne, så »har disse missiler ikke været i brug ret længe – fra 2012. Deres rækkevidde er 1.500 kilometer, og de repræsenterer moderne, højteknologiske højpræcisionsvåben.«

Putin understregede også, at Rusland ikke har nogen imperieambitioner: »Vi har hverken brug for fremmede territorier eller naturlige ressourcer. Vi har alt i overflod. Vi er et selvforsynende land … vi må imidlertid forsvare vores uafhængighed og suverænitet. Det har vi gjort før, og det vil vi gøre i fremtiden.«

Han udtrykte ligeledes sin stærke fordømmelse af den dobbelte terrorbombning i Tyrkiet og kaldte det et »åbenlyst« forsøg på at destabilisere Tyrkiet, og han tilbød Ruslands hjælp til at bekæmpe terrorismen. »Det er nødvendigt at forene indsatsen imod denne ondskab. Det, der skete i Tyrkiet … er helt bestemt et skamløst terrorangreb, en terroristforbrydelse med snesevis af ofre.«

10. oktober 2015 – Thorsten Schäfer-Gümbel, leder af SPD-oppositionen i forbundsstaten Hesses parlament, fordømte propagandaen imod flygtningene i et interview til den lokale udgave af Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung i går og understregede, at støtte til flygtningene ikke kan, og ikke vil, komme fra nedskæringer i andre budgetter, ligesom det heller ikke vil være muligt at overholde politikken med en streng budgetbalance. »Der må findes ekstra penge«, sagde han.

Han tilføjede dog, at det vigtigste »for fremtiden betød, at årsagerne til flygtningestrømmen må bekæmpes. Krige som den i Syrien må afsluttes, og folk i Afrika og de vestlige Balkanstater må have et perspektiv for deres liv. Dette er alfa og omega. Så vil folk opgive planer om at begive sig ud på livsfarlige flygtningeruter.«

Med hensyn til Tyskland sagde Schäfer-Gümbel, at han var optimistisk, at landet kunne håndtere denne aktuelle udfordring, for tyskerne klarede også de to andre, store udfordringer med den økonomiske genopbygning efter krigen, samt Tysklands genforening. Virkelighedschokket med flygtningestrømmen fik et budskab ud til den tyske befolkning om, at »ikke alene er der noget galt i verden, men at de måtte gøre noget ved det … Mange mennesker her føler nu, at denne verden må blive mere retfærdig og mere fredelig«. Tyskland må investere i ekstra lærere, socialarbejdere, mere politi, bygge flere hjem (hvilket ikke kan gøres på blot et kvartal), og så videre. »Det ville være en alvorlig fejltagelse ikke at investere nu«, tilføjede han.

Sluttelig sagde Schäfer-Gümbel: »En ting er sikkert: hvis det ikke lykkes os at gøre verden mere retfærdig og mere fredelig, vil flygtningespørgsmålet forfølge os i lang tid fremover. Tysk politik må endelig leve op til sit globale ansvar. Alle, der forsøger at løse problemet med mure og pigtråd, vil herigennem finde ud af, at ingen vil blive afskrækket fra at søge sikkerhed for sig selv og sine børn. Konsekvent europæisk handling for at bekæmpe årsagerne til flygtningestrømmene – er den eneste måde, hvorpå flygtningestrømme i denne skala kan forhindres på en varig måde.« (Er Schäfer-Gümbel blevet inspireret af Helga Zepp-LaRouches seneste erklæring, i hvert fald mht. nogle af sine bemærkninger?)

Fra vor svenske søsterorganisation, LaRouche-rörelsen i Sverige – EAP http://www.larouche.se/  – har vi modtaget følgende rapport:

Stockholm, 8. oktober 2015 – Med det formål at fremme fred og forsoning i Syrien, har to medlemmer af Den svenske Rigsdag, Emmanuel Öz og Yilmaz Kerimo, begge fra det regerende parti, Socialdemokratiet, fremstillet et lovforslag i Rigsdagen, der kræver samarbejde også med de syriske regeringsinstitutioner under præsident Bashar Assad. Lovforslaget hilser velkommen erklæringen fra formanden for FN’s Sikkerhedsråd S/PRST/2015/15, der blev enstemmigt vedtaget den 17. august i år, og som understreger nødvendigheden af at sikre regeringsinstitutioners kontinuitet og Syriens enhed. Denne FN-erklæring »bør ligge til grund for en øget, svensk støtte til fred og forsoning i Syrien«, lyder det i lovforslaget, som fortsætter:

»Erklæringen betyder, at også USA og Rusland er enige. Hvis dette førte til en heldig løsning af den syriske krise, ville det være et vigtigt skridt til reducering af spændingerne i verden, hvor supermagterne risikerer en direkte militær konflikt.  Det er fremvæksten af Islamisk Stat, der er årsag til denne genovervejelse af politikken over for Syrien, der gives udtryk i FN-erklæringen, nemlig, at regeringsinstitutionernes og de offentlige tjenesteydelsers kontinuitet bør bevares, og at en fredelig, politisk overgangsløsning bør inkludere alle villige politiske partier i både regering og opposition. De syriske regeringsinstitutioners kontinuitet betyder, at en gentagelse af fejltagelsen i Irak bør undgås, idet opløsningen af staten dér førte til den kaotiske situation, der banede vejen for den ekstreme jihadisme. Eftersom det er den syriske regering under præsident Bashar Assad, der opretholder regeringens og myndighedernes funktion, vil FN-erklæringen sige, at alle lande i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd er enige om at samarbejde med disse institutioner i den igangværende indsats for at bekæmpe terroristorganisationen IS og al-Nusra (al-Qaeda), og for at finde en overgangsløsning med det formål at bevare denne krigshærgede nations enhed.«

Dernæst påpeger lovforslaget på især den kristne befolknings og andre minoritetsgruppers ekstremt vanskelige situation under angrebene fra de ekstreme jihadister. Lovforslaget opfordrer til »det nødvendige i at samarbejde med syriske statslige og lokale institutioner for at være i stand til at redde de kristne og befri de tilfangetagne kvinder og børn, samt til langvarig rehabilitering.«

Sluttelig lyder lovforslaget, med reference til flygtningekatastrofen i Middelhavet, at det er »nødvendigt at bevare de eksisterende offentlige tjenesteydelsers kontinuitet for at hjælpe flygtningene internt i landet, af hvilke der er dobbelt så mange som uden for landet.«

Lovforslaget: http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dokument-Lagar/Forslag/Motioner/Fred-och-forsoning-i-Syrien_H3022141/

Hjemmeside Emmanuel Öz: http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/ledamoter-partier/Hitta-ledamot/Ledamoter/z-Emanuel-0283117091429/

Hjemmeside Yilmaz Kerimo: http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/ledamoter-partier/Hitta-ledamot/Ledamoter/Kerimo-Yilmaz-0515990253512/

Erklæringen fra formanden for FN’s Sikkerhedsråd: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/PRST/2015/15&referer=/

United Nations

S

/PRST/2015/15

Security Council

Distr.: General

17 August 2015

Original: English

Statement by the President of the Security Council

At the 7504th meeting of the Security Council, held on 17 August 2015, in connection with the Council’s consideration of the item entitled “The situation in the Middle East”, the President of the Security Council made the following statement on behalf of the Council:

“The Security Council recalls its resolutions 2042 (2012), 2043 (2012), 2118 (2013), 2139 (2014), 2165 (2014), 2170 (2014), 2175 (2014), 2178 (2014), 2191 (2014), 2199 (2015), and 2235 (2015) and Presidential Statements of 3 August 2011, 2 October 2013 and 24 April 2015.

“The Security Council reaffirms its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Syria and all other States affected by the Syrian conflict, and to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

“The Security Council stresses that the only sustainable solution to the current crisis in Syria is through an inclusive and Syrian-led political process that meets the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people, with a view to full implementation of the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012 and, in this regard, emphasizes the urgency for all parties to work diligently and constructively towards this goal.

“The Security Council reiterates its demands as set forth in resolution 2139 that all parties cease any attacks against civilians as such, as well as any indiscriminate use of weapons in populated areas, including such use involving shelling and barrel bombs; as well as its demand for the immediate end to arbitrary detention, torture, kidnappings, abductions and forced disappearances of civilians and the immediate release of those arbitrarily detained, including journalists and humanitarian personnel; stresses the importance of implementation of such demands, in accordance with relevant provisions of international law, in creating an environment conducive to the commencement of substantive political negotiations and in building confidence among the parties; and reiterates, in this regard, that the primary responsibility to protect its population lies with the Syrian authorities.

“The Security Council expresses its gravest concern that parts of Syria are under control of terrorist groups such as Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Al Nusrah Front (ANF), condemns the ongoing and multiple terrorist acts by ISIL, ANF and all other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with Al-Qaida, condemns further the targeting of civilians based on their ethnicity, religion and/or confessional affiliations, expresses concern about the negative impact of terrorism, violent extremist ideology in support of terrorism, and action that destabilizes Syria and the region, with a devastating humanitarian impact on the civilian population, reaffirms its resolve to address all aspects of the threat, and calls on all parties to commit to putting an end to terrorist acts perpetrated by ISIL, ANF and all other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with Al-Qaida.

“The Security Council commends the Special Envoy for his efforts in convening the Geneva consultations, from April to June 2015, with a broad range of stakeholders with respect to the crisis in Syria as part of the effort to operationalize the 2012 Geneva Communiqué.

“The Security Council supports the approach set out by the Special Envoy that in order to work towards political negotiations and a political transition based on the Geneva Communiqué, four thematic areas need to be addressed through more focused consultations and discussions with the Syrian parties in four thematic working groups: safety and protection for all; political and legal issues; military, security and counterterrorism issues; and continuity of public services and reconstruction and development.

“The Security Council urges all parties to engage in good faith in the efforts of the Special Envoy, through his good offices, and to continue consultations and thematic discussions, and notes that these efforts can build on recent initiatives, including the meetings in Moscow, Cairo, Paris and Astana.

“The Security Council demands that all parties work urgently towards the comprehensive implementation of the Geneva Communiqué, aimed at bringing an end to all violence, violations and abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law and the launching of a Syrian-led political process leading to a political transition that meets the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people and enables them independently and democratically to determine their future, including through the establishment of an inclusive transitional governing body with full executive powers, which shall be formed on the basis of mutual consent while ensuring continuity of governmental institutions.

“The Security Council welcomes the Secretary General’s statement of 29 July 2015 that there can be no military solution to the Syrian conflict, and reiterates its endorsement of a political solution through implementation of the Geneva Communiqué.

“The Security Council stresses, that rapid progress on a political solution should include full participation by all segments of Syrian society, including women, and represents the only sustainable way to resolve the situation in Syria peacefully.

“The Security Council emphasizes the need for robust international and regional assistance in support of the Special Envoy’s efforts.

“The Security Council expresses grave alarm that the Syrian crisis has become the largest humanitarian emergency crisis in the world today, threatening peace and security in the region, and that at least 250,000 have been killed, including well over 10,000 children, and 12 million people have been forced to flee their homes, including over 4 million who have sought refuge in neighboring countries, and more than 12.2 million people in Syria require urgent humanitarian assistance. In this regard, the Security Council recalls its decision as set forth in resolution 2165 (2014) that all Syrian parties to the conflict shall enable the immediate and unhindered delivery of humanitarian assistance directly to people throughout Syria.

“The Security Council recalls the need for all parties to respect the relevant provisions of international humanitarian law and the United Nations guiding principles of humanitarian emergency assistance.

“The Security Council requests that the Secretary General report back to the Security Council on the results of the next phase of consultations within 90 days.”

Förslag 2015/16:2141

Fred och försoning i Syrien

• Motion 2015/16:2141 (pdf, 67 kbyte, nytt fönster)

av Emanuel Öz och Yilmaz Kerimo (båda S)

Förslag till riksdagsbeslut

1. Riksdagen ställer sig bakom det som anförs i motionen om att verka för fred och försoning i Syrien och tillkännager detta för regeringen.
2. Riksdagen ställer sig bakom det som anförs i motionen om att samverkan för fred bör ske med alla syriska parter som inte är terroristförklarade i konflikten, detta i enlighet med ordförandeuttalandet S/PRST/2015/15 från FN:s säkerhetsråd den 17 augusti 2015 och med hänsyn till kontinuiteten i de syriska regeringsinstitutionerna och upprätthållandet av den offentliga servicen, och riksdagen tillkännager detta för regeringen
3. Riksdagen ställer sig bakom det som anförs i motionen om att omedelbart öppna vägar inne i Syrien för att skydda den särskilt utsatta kristna befolkningen och andra minoritetsgrupper och i synnerhet för att befria och långsiktigt hjälpa offren för IS och andra terroristorganisationers våld mot kvinnor och barn och tillkännager detta för regeringen.

Motivering

FNs uttalande S/PRST/2015/15 om Syrien, som antogs enhälligt av FNs Säkerhetsråd den 17 augusti 2015, ska välkomnas och måste bli en utgångspunkt för ett ökat svenskt engagemang för fred och försoning i Syrien. Uttalandet innebär att även USA och Ryssland är överens. Om detta kan leda fram till en framgångsrik lösning på syrienkrisen, kan det bli ett viktigt steg att minska spänningarna i världspolitiken också på andra håll där stormakter riskerar att hamna i direkt militär konflikt. Det är framväxten av den Islamiska staten, som har lett till den omprövning av Syrienpolitiken som FN-uttalandet ger uttryck för, nämligen att kontinuiteten av de syriska regeringsinstitutionerna och offentliga servicen bör upprätthållas och att en fredlig övergångslösning måste innefatta alla de parter som är beredda att samverka för detta inom både regering och opposition. Bevarandet av den syriska statens regeringsinstitutioner innebär att man inte vill göra om misstaget från Irak där statens upplösning ledde till det kaos som banat väg för den extrema jihadismen. Eftersom det är den syriska regeringen under president Bashar Assad som upprätthåller regeringens och myndigheternas funktioner, innebär FN-uttalandet att alla länder i FNs säkerhetsråd är överens om att samverka med dessa institutioner i det fortsatta arbetet med att bekämpa terroristorganisationerna IS och Al Nusra (Al Qaeda), och att finna en övergångslösning som kan hålla ihop det av mer än fyra år långa krigsdrabbade Syrien.

Särskilt hårt drabbas den kristna befolkningen och andra minoritetsgrupper av extrema jihadist-gruppers framfart i Syrien. Tusentals kristna familjer har tillfångatagits och deras egendomar beslagtagits. Många har dödats och kvinnor och barn har gjorts till sexslavar. Kyrkor, kloster och kulturskatter har plundrats och förstörts. Skall de kristna kunna undsättas är det nödvändigt att samverka med de syriska statliga och kommunala institutionerna i synnerhet för att befria och långsiktigt hjälpa de tillfångatagna kvinnor och barn som utsätts för IS och andra terroristgruppers systematiska våld.

Den syriska flyktingkatastrofen, som nu drabbar hela Medelhavsregionen, handlar om de flyktingar som lämnat landet. Dubbelt så många är internflyktingar, som har flytt till regeringskontrollerade områden. För en fungerande försörjning med mat, hälsovård, skolgång och bostäder är det nödvändigt, som FN-uttalandet lyder, att de existerande offentliga myndigheternas kontinuitet bevaras, d.v.s. inte kollapsar. För att flyktingkatastrofen på Medelhavet inte skall bli än värre är det nödvändigt att Sverige och resten av Europa är solidariska med dem som flyr från Syrien.

Emanuel Öz (S)

Yilmaz Kerimo (S)

9. oktober 2015 – I et interview til RT, der blev offentliggjort i dag, udtalte pens. amr. oberst Lawrence Wilkerson, fhv. stabschef for fhv. udenrigsminister Colin Powell, eftertrykkeligt, at topprioriteten i Syrien nu må være at besejre Islamisk Stat, og intet andet. »Vi må stoppe det, ligesom man stopper cancer på det sted, det opstod«, sagde han. »Dette er, hvad alle burde arbejde på. Jeg hilser Ruslands assistance velkommen.«

Når ISIS først er besejret, »og det skal gøres grundigt færdigt, vel at mærke – ikke, som vi gjorde i Libyen«, så kan spørgsmålet om den syriske regering adresseres. »Først da, og ikke før, bør vi arbejde på en overgangsregering, sandsynligvis inklusive præsident Assad, og en mere repræsentativ regering for det syriske folk, hvilket sandsynligvis vil betyde, at Assad må gå på et tidspunkt.« Men, understregede Wilkerson, »lad os prioritere dette korrekt, og lad os behandle prioriteringerne i den rette orden«.

Oberst Wilkerson udtalte, at han var uenig i de vestlige mediers vurdering, at Ruslands involvering i Syrien vil destabilisere dette land. »Jeg håber, jeg ønsker, jeg beder til, at Moskva, Washington, Ankara og Teheran og måske andre, i øjeblikket forhandler om, hvordan de skal koordinere deres indsats for at opnå det, der bør være alles førsteprioritet … skub alt andet til side«, indtil ISIS er slået.

Forespurgt om, hvorfor Barack Obama er så besat af regimeskift i Syrien, udpegede Wilkerson FN-ambassadør Samantha Power og »andre i Det Hvide Hus«, der har formet Det Hvide Hus’ politik. Han bemærkede, at Assad har »en temmelig stærk magtbase i landet … Så han går ingen steder lige foreløbig«. USA, sagde han, »har lidt ’skade af sit eget kanonslag’ pga. sin holdning til Assad«.

10. oktober 2015 – Tysklands udenrigsminister Frank-Walter Steinmeier og hans spanske modpart, Jose Garcia-Margallo y Marfil, opfordrede til, at Moskva og Washington samarbejder imod »en fælles fjende, ISIS«, rapporterede TASS 9. okt. fra Madrid. Steinmeier opfordrede USA og Rusland til at »intensivere deres dialog« om Syrien. Garcia-Margellos opfordring til, at »alle interesserede parter«, inklusive Rusland, USA, Tyrkiet og Iran, arbejder sammen om at besejre ISIS, er bemærkelsesværdig i betragtning af, at den provokerende Trident Juncture øvelse med 35.000 tropper i øjeblikket finder sted på spansk jord.

Foto: Den tyske udenrigsminister Frank-Walter Steinmeier 

9. oktober 2015 – De større nyhedsmedier, med aktive bidrag fra CSU’s lederskab og mange andre i CDU, SPD og De Frie Demokrater (FDP), fortsætter med at sprede negative nyheder om flygtningene. Indenrigsminister Thomas de Maizière (CDU) har endnu engang klaget over »en bekymrende stigning i vold imod flygtningehjem« og påpeget 490 angreb allerede i år, hade-mail og deslige. Han undgik enhver omtale af organiseret, verbal vold og antimuslimsk propaganda fra PEGIDA, det Tyske Nationalparti (NPD), Alternativ for Tyskland (AfD), og lagde i stedet skylden på »almindelige borgere i området, der ikke har nogen straffeattest«.

Den næstestørste Tv-kanal ZDF har offentliggjort en ny meningsmåling, iflg. hvilken stemningen i den tyske befolkning skulle være i færd med at tippe over mod et negativt syn på flygtninge: 51 % mener, at Tyskland ikke kan klare det, mod 45 %, der mener, det kan. For to uger siden var kun 40 % skeptiske, mod 57 %, der var optimistiske. Henved 75 % mener, at, for at kunne dække omkostningerne for flygtningene, må man finde budgetbesparelser andre steder, hvilken også har været det, man har hørt fra finansminister Schäuble. Henved 62 % forventer en stigning i kriminaliteten i Tyskland på grund af flygtningene, alt imens 33 % frygter en trussel mod Tysklands sociale og kulturelle værdier fra flygtningene.

Overordnet set ser 48 % Merkels rolle som negativ, mod 46 %, som støtter hende. Ifølge medierne er situationen i Tyskland temmelig polariseret og vil blive det endnu mere i de kommende uger. Med hensyn til de såkaldte »tyske værdier«, så er det tvivlsomt, om alle de personer, der refererer til dem, i det hele taget ved, hvad det betyder. Det er sandsynligvis ikke andet end Schäubles inkvisitions-lignende »kristne« baggrund, eller den berømte »schwabiske husmor«, der omhyggeligt sorterer husholdningsaffaldet og aflåser skraldespanden om natten, men som i øvrigt knap nok kender navnet Friedrich Schiller, der trods alt er en indfødt søn af denne sydvestlige, tyske region.

Foto: Borgere i Tyskland protesterer mod planer om lokalt flygtningehjem. Fra december 2014.