|
Murder, Spies And Weapons – Three Fascinating ‘Deep State’ Stories
350 "diplomatic" flights transporting weapons for terrorists – Trud
Azerbaijan's Silk Way Airlines transported hundreds of tons of weapons under diplomatic cover to Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan Congo
- the weapons and ammunition are usual from east Europe (Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia, Ukraine …)
- the contracts are with U.S. companies themselves hired by the CIA and/or Pentagon as well as with Saudi and Israeli companies
- offloading during unusual "fueling stops" allowed to disguise the real addressee of the loads
With lots of details from obtained emails.
Ten thousands of tons of weapons and ammunition to al-Qaeda and other Takfiris in Syria also came first from Libya by ship, then on at least 160 big cargo flights via Saudi Arabia and Qatar to Turkey and during the last years by various ships under U.S. contracts from mostly east-European countries.
—
With all the Trump-Russia nonsense flowing around one person's involvement in the creation of the issue deserves more scrutiny:
McCain and the Trump-Russia Dossier: What Did He Know, and When? – Reason
A British spy. An Arizona senator. And one inflammatory dossier on Donald Trump. The connection between them is starting to unravel…
- there are indications that McCain was the one who hired the company which created the infamous Steele dossier.
- there is evidences that he distributed it to the CIA, FBI and to the media.
- the issue is now in front of a British court.
—
Another Scorpene Submarine Scandal – Asia Sentinel (a bit older but it was new to me)
Document hack could imperil subs in Oz, India, other countries
- a commercial cyber-crime case but likely with state involvement
- French submarine sales usually include the payment of various "commissions" with kickbacks to French politicians
- sometimes people involved in the business end up dead
64) It does not matter how small or great the Shah was, monarchy is not a viable option for modern governance.
Political Islam was and is supported by US geopolitical rationale.
Posted by: somebody | Jul 23, 2017 9:29:18 AM | 65
I do not have access to a methodology that would determine the suitability of ‘system x’ vs ‘system y’ for “modern governance”. That very formulation in quotes itself presents problems for me. What do you mean by modern? And if you think I am advocating a return of Kings in Iran, I would not wish the throne of Iran on my worst enemy. Clearly it is a thankless job.
I also used to hold the view that the architecture of the system was the determinant of its viability. Spending 4 decades in the West has disabused me of such notions. Consider the United States of America, with a (relatively) robust consitution, seperation of powers, elections, etc. Indeed, consider the depth to which that Republic has fallen and the progressively diminishing stature of “Presidents” of the Americans with the current vulgarian as the exclamation mark.
Now I am convinced that foundational principles (equal treatment before law, transparency, inalienable rights, ..) and a continually renewed generational allegiance to these principles is what really matters. It makes no difference if you possess even a sublime consitution, if the society is corrupt, duplicity and deception are the social norm, and the minds of the populace are ‘backdoored’ by propaganda, idle amusements, and excitation of the Triune brain designed to suppress the higher mind functions, all is lost regardless of the nominal political ‘system’.
In principle, I reject ideology as a sound basis for thought, speech, or action (collectively or personally). I am Human, not a soul-less Machine, and reject formalism as a governing principle for my thoughts.
I am an empiricist. It is, all things considered, the most practical and sensible approach to mapping a space of possibilities. Empiricism does not place a straight jacket on your mental processes, does not lead you to dead ends you can not back out off, and it does not appeal to sentiment, nor does it agitate the excitable youth.
It may be that Monarchy is better suited to the psychological disposition of some people. Or maybe it is not. Review and compare note. (Today the Islamic Republic has been in power for 38 years. The Shah of Iran reigned for 37 years. Which Iran would you prefer to live in?)
That said, as Pft and ProPeace have noted, when the controlling component of a society is occult, oy vey to the subjects who have no idea to whom they must address the grievances. At least with a king, you know whose head need to be cut off.
~
Political Islam in modern Iran:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_al-Din_al-Afghani
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naser_al-Din_Shah_Qajar#Assassination
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Protest
That last event, which I applaud, must have underlined the importance of getting in bed with the priests to the British.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fadayan-e_Islam << "alleged terrorist organization" Wikipedia cracks me up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalil_Tahmassebi << the "alleged" terrorist
Political Islam was and is supported by US geopolitical rationale.
(Remember Nixon.)
The problem with the American thinking set, in my opinion, is that they suffer from a sense of civilizational and intellectual inferiority relative to their European “cousins” and consistently undervalue the indigenous mind products. Let’s just leave it at that.
Posted by: nobody | Jul 23 2017 15:37 utc | 72
|
