The Colonization of Yugoslavia - Part 2: Imperialism, Repackaged

MediaIssues Ukraine HEADER 3

Posted: May 9, 2022   12:05:47 AM   |   Last updated: May 9, 2022   9:01:36 AM

by Pascal-Denis Lussier

Why it was a Lesson Ukrainians and the World Weren't Allowed to Learn


This post was published by error before it was completed; I've filled the gaps but additional info that was meant to be in this one will be included in the next part. 


Sorry for the delay, but I needed to reflect on a few things, and: I’m thinking that this will be my antepenultimate post (part 3 and 4 in this series, which I’ll post this week, being my last ones).    

Well, either on this type of subject matter or of the punditry kind and for a lengthy period. I know myself and I’ll have a hard time not externalizing anything so long as I have access to such a venue—it helps keep me sane—and my two main domains expire in mid-November… so I may rekindle my deep love of music—it seems I’ve lost that side of me lately; that can’t be good—and may start doing album and concert critiques again in my spare time.

However, I’m not sure there’s a benefit to expressing my honest views on political and geopolitical matters, or those that concern media outlets—I've yet to see one. With Ukraine, the current political climate is fiercely antagonistic towards anyone that dares to challenge the dominant, Western warmonger-approved narrative, and trying to promote a saner and fairer and, in the long-term, safer version of events and of that war—one that’s based on past and repeated actions, statements, and provable facts—seems to be doing me more harm than good, and I’m not presently in a position where I can scoff at such attitudes just to prioritize truth and free speech.

As such, I fear that what I've expressed here may be making matters needlessly difficult for me as I look for a full-time job, for I, too, need to eat and pay for stuff, go figure; I’ve yet to receive confirmation for a position which I was to begin on the 2nd but whose start date was postponed until the 16th. Albeit for what appears to be a valid reason, although I have some doubts that my openness, expressed through DMS&UY, may have played a part, as I've not yet received the formal paperwork a week after when I was originally told to expect them, which is far from reassuring. Although I’m to report to Winnipeg (Manitoba, Canada), the firm is headquartered in the US and, as far as I can tell, people from HQ did visit DMS&UY and part 1 of this post. I’d be real disappointed if such is the case, as I was looking forward to the challenge and the nice change from my usual focus that it provides…

So, with that, and the reality being that I can’t say that I’m affecting a change, that I’m a part of anything meaningful, or that I’m building relevant and fruitful relations through this venture, I think it’s time for me to shift my focus elsewhere, either to concentrate on the aforementioned opportunity should things finally pan out, or, otherwise, on something else that, at least, allows me to feel that I’m engaged in a constructive endeavour and contributing positively in some way.    

As should be clear by now, I’ve absolutely no interest in doing fluff and filler just to maximize volume or to attract clicks with sensationalist garbage, and acting like a vapid stenographer, simply repeating the Establishment narrative, that just ain’t me, period. My goal was never just to have a formulaic outlet simply to make money, and my current limitations versus the reality that encompasses server costs translates into my not being fully able to currently exploit data aspects of the platform I built, anyhow.  

So… I think I'll repost this series, combined with sections from other posts, maybe a month or two from now, but packaged differently, perhaps as an e-book. Like I said, I'm not seeing any real interest or reaping any benefits, which saps my motivation, hence, pushing me to focus on other things as I do like to spend my time in meaningful ways.  

The Landscape


Related - Part 1Bill Browder, the clueless Putin Expert

All in all, there aren’t a lot of truly brave journalists out there—or fully awakened ones that see with complete clarity—who are willing to sacrifice anything to go after the truth, and there are too many of them who are just terrible at their job—who shouldn’t be in that field—and far too many who are more preoccupied with not upsetting anyone, with pleasing those in power, more concerned with their social standing and acceptance than in actually being a journalist, not daring to push back against government and to keep those in power in check.

In times of peace, what normally shines through is the level of partisanship and an outlet’s devotion to the elite class, whereas when Western powers are involved in some conflict, what reports betray is an outlet’s commitment to the Establishment and their willingness to spread propaganda if not a lack of integrity and dedication to the profession of journalism and/or a striking level of incompetence.

Events in Ukraine have, since 2014, revealed much about Western news media as a whole, and Trump’s first, Ukraine-related impeachment and the Russiagate affair have exposed many as being purely interested in party-politics and in doing harm to any entity they oppose, while the invasion itself reflects a level of media integration with the state that is troubling and which should be worrying to anyone, as well as how broken the media landscape is, and how inane far too many independent outlets are, being, actually, entirely focused on aspects they claim aren’t their focus, caught in partisan games they say they’re above.

Generally, aside from qualifying as either Rightwing or Leftwing media, there are four characteristics that typify a news outlet:

  1. Those who accept all that they are told by those in positions of power, and who merely repeat, often verbatim, what they are being told is the version of events.
  2. Those who avoid discussing controversial issues that may land them in hot water with those in power or which may garner backlash from the public.
  3. Those who exploit controversy and often traverse into the realm of conspiracy theories.
  4. Those who deliver true and honest journalism.

In terms of the size of the organization and the number of employees, larger to smaller outlets tend to fall within this paradigm from one through to four, respectively, this also being representative of the corporate level of backing and structure implicated.

Most are a mix of these, depending on the topic and the anchor/reporter.

•     •      •

People like Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity aren’t being brave by countering the main pro-West and pro-NATO narrative concerning the Ukraine-Russian war, they’re simply playing their usual game, which is: twist any current issue and news item into whatever fits their anti-Dem and pro-Rightwing crusade whilst making sure to solidify notions of American exceptionalism and triumphalism.

I mostly don’t like the man and I certainly don’t support his politics (as I’ve expressed here), but Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has, through the statements he’s expressed regarding NATO and the West’s responsibility in the conflict, shown more lucidity and bravery than Carlson and Hannity, for, this time, his were claims that weren’t driven by an idiotic need to belittle the opposition—which should never be the intent of any news entity, anyhow—but one’s that called attention to a threatening pro-war attitude and agenda that lie behind NATO’s eastern expansion and the West’s meddling in Ukraine.Newsweek attack on Rand Paul

As I’ve also stated in another post, citing him, Ron Paul, Rand’s father, isn’t someone whose politics I appreciate, but not only has he always been serving them up free of the toxicity that’s become the norm from too many Republicans (Dems, too), he’s always pushed for a truthful and accurate account of America’s involvement in any wars and of any of its meddling in other country’s governments; I greatly respect him for that, and Rand, at least in this manner, appears to be mostly in line with this ideal, though doing so mostly in a manner that can be discounted as being an attack on the Dems.

On the other hand, albeit this is true for the comments made by Rand Paul on 26-Apr-2022, when he confronted Anthony Blinken during a Senate hearing, Paul wasn’t only attacked for statements made on that day, but for having made very similar ones in 2017, during Trump’s turn in office.

What Paul wanted to know was why the Biden administration was "advocating for something that our adversary absolutely hated and said was a red line." He asked Blinken:Newsweek attack on Rand Paul - McCain claim

"Knowing full well that Ukraine was unlikely to ever join NATO, since it had already been 14 years since they said they were going to become members, why was it so important last fall—before this invasion—to continue agitating for Ukraine's admission to NATO?"  

Blinken responded with: “If you look at the countries Russia attacked, these were countries that were not part of NATO.”

Paul countered with: “You could also argue the countries they've attacked were part of Russia. Or part of the Soviet Union.”

It seems clear that Paul was just refuting Blinken’s asinine retort—he offered only vapid answers throughout the hearing—with a statement that demonstrated the silliness of Blinken’s logic.

Newsweek, and the rest of corpo-media, reduced that to: “Rand Paul blames Ukraine NATO for invasion” and “During the tense exchange, Paul also pointed to Ukraine and Georgia — another country Russia invaded in 2008 — as previously being part of the Soviet Union as a ‘reason’ for the invasion.”

Yet, Paul was clear, saying: “There is no justification for the invasion, I'm not saying that. But there are reasons for the invasion.” He later reiterated: “While there is no justification for Putin's war on Ukraine, it does not follow that there is no explanation for the invasion.”

Nonetheless, many had a field day through reductive and absurd comments made to ridicule Paul.

Former Director of European and Russian affairs for the National Security Council, Alexander Vindman, tweeted: "Paul implies that Russia is justified in attacking Ukraine because, UKR was once part of the USSR. By that logic Britain is justified in attacking the U.S. and colonial powers their former holdings."

Newsweek also published a piece titled “Resurfaced Video of McCain Saying Paul 'Working for' Putin Tops 560K Views.” So, what’s real news to Newsweek is the fact that a video meant to smear Paul—presented in a manner meant to smear Paul—got over half a million views? That headline, and the article itself, is pathetic, done to elicit a specific reaction, one that reinforces the notion that anyone that questions the West’s true intentions, exploited through NATO, must, obviously, be a Putin shill. That line of thinking is what’s truly ludicrous, and pushing it signifies that one it utterly stupid or willingly playing a part in forwarding clear propaganda.

So much for free speech?

In that Newsweek piece, which translated into much more scorn being voiced towards Paul, the focus is on the fact that on the same day that Paul had questioned Blinken, the VoteVets PAC had sought to remind everyone that Paul had held the same views in 2017; the article claims:

A resurfaced video of the late Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, accusing Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, of "working for" Russian President Vladimir Putin has garnered more than 560,000 views on Twitter.

The political action committee VoteVets on Tuesday tweeted the 2017 clip of McCain slamming Paul, after the Kentucky lawmaker contended that the U.S. support for Ukraine joining NATO influenced Russia's invasion of its Eastern European neighbor. VoteVets captioned the clip of McCain, writing: '"Just a reminder that John McCain called out Rand Paul nearly a decade ago as a Russian asset. He was then, and he is now."

In the remarks from March 2017, McCain, referring to Montenegro, said Paul "has no argument to be made. He has no justification for his objection to having a small nation be part of NATO, that is under assault from the Russians. So I repeat again, the senator from Kentucky is now working for Vladimir Putin."

Actually, Paul had voiced clear objections, questioning why NATO would want to admit a country with an army of less than 2,000 soldiers into a military organization to which it provided no clear benefits though its membership would impose yet more military requirements and intervention from the US?

But let’s stick to ridiculing a senator whilst claiming to be a beacon for freedom and fairness…

The obstinate simplemindedness with which Newsweek treated the entire exchange and the way the Western mainstream media treats the topic of NATO is truly maddening.  

The NATO, No Go There

Why is it that one simply can’t say that NATO and its eastern expansion was sure to upset Russians (not just Putin; the great majority of Russians were leery and opposed to a NATO expansion) and to increase tensions in the area without expecting some backlash, even if one’s comments are dressed up with the obligatory pre and post caveats that assert that one isn’t defending Putin, one is merely bringing attention to a wider reality?

Having to tip-toe around discussing such an issue, that just blows me away. But, yeah, I do it as well, just to be safe…

This black or white, one or the other, think this way or you’re a traitor and Putin sympathizer/apologist binary idiocy… sigh. That’s just not a world I find productive or agreeable; it doesn’t allow for a deeper understanding, and it leaves no room for negotiations, let alone meaningful discussion.

Get real! Issues are far more complex and nuanced, and the world can’t be so easily divided between good or evil all the time, so that even when Washington—with or without NATO—acts in the exact same way and is guilty of the same acts that all are condemning Russia for at the moment, it’s always on the side of good, because… why?

Even the Pope has been accused of spreading conspiracy theories by well-Established, corporatized Western outlets.

Even him—the goddamn Pope!—felt he needed to couch his criticism of NATO expansionism within a careful “but” framing and softening stipulations.

But because those who benefit from this say otherwise, one must be against the US and the West if one dares say that US meddling in Ukraine since at least 2014, and NATO’s eastward

And because the media that all claim to distrust say that seeing NATO as a senselessly negative force and an imperialist tool is absurd traitor talk, people buy it?

How ignorant and/or daft does one need to be in order to spit back such binary idiocy? That anyone would assume that this aspect is just “Putin propaganda” to justify his invasion of Ukraine is simply asinine; I don’t know how else to put it and remain polite. It’s a no-brainer.

Well, I hate to break it to you, but NATO is a military organization, not a commercial one, and if one takes the time to look at how it’s been used in the past—which I’ll detail in part 3, as it relates to Yugoslavia—and the types of divisions involved and the demands it imposes on members, one quickly gets the sense that it’s designed to benefit the military-industrial complex and US colonialist goals, and that the idealist defensive front is just that, a front.

The developing world seems to possess more clarity on the issue than folks from predominantly white, rich western countries. Clearly, this has to do with the information they’re being fed while also being far removed from any of the organization’s activities.

There’s consolation, however, in knowing that I’m far from being alone to have this view, and also that I’m in good company considering that many of the highly-regarded intellectuals are forwarding the same conclusions as best as they can, which includes people like Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, Chris Hedges, and Abby Martin, to name just a few of the better-known individuals. What I’m noticing is a certain level of reluctance from many to express such thoughts on social media or on many of the comments sections, as there are many who are extremely quick to crush anyone who voice any opinion that contradicts the dominant, pro-West, Putin-is-pure-evil version of things.
Ron Paul Institute post

Also, I say, “as best as they can” because there’s always been considerable efforts placed on painting such folks as anti-Americans—why do you think such prominent, world-renown thinkers are never invited on any mainstream outlet—and, as of late, even more energy has gone into silencing the platforms that allowed them to express themselves, which includes Russia Today (RT)—if you think that RT serves up just Rightwing nonsense and Russian propaganda, then you’ve not only been fooled, you bought into the fallacy. There’s a certain amount schlock on RT, but it’s also an important outlet for particular perspectives and for some truly important Western voices who aren’t given a platform because they counter the Establishment whilst it also allowed one to get a better and honest sense of Russian views on several matters. That it and Sputnik have been banned in the West should upset everyone.

The Ron Paul Institute (RPI) which, in keeping with what I mentioned above regarding Ron Paul, always aims to offer a well-balanced and accurate view of US history and of the US’ involvement across the globe, also found itself increasingly forced to rely on RT to get word out. Now, most of RPI’s videos are heavily restricted or inaccessible to Westerners.

Meanwhile, CNN and the BBC are algorithmically amplified across platforms, and they’re the true propagandists that all should avoid if “truth” is of real concern to them.

Consortium News PayPal ban

Even worse, now PayPal decided to get in on the game, like it did with anyone that questioned Biden’s win. The way the media and certain entities vilified and blocked individuals who claimed Biden’s win was fraudulent should make anyone uncomfortable in light of the power that was wielded by institutions that are now social mainstays.      

Personally, I’m still not convinced that the 2020 elections were entirely fair, ditto regarding the court filings and post-election verifications, but without clear proof, one just has to let the issue go. Also, I’ve no doubt that Trump was planning something equally if not more underhanded, and the whole 6-Jan fiasco is ample reason, methinks, to make anyone not want to review the election fairly or to investigate matters thoroughly.   

But that’s not my focus: back to PayPal. Very few reported on this—I heard it from Democracy Now! and, a few days later, on Useful Idiots—yet this, too, should have garnered wide condemnation but didn’t. PayPal decided to block the accounts of Consortium News and MintPress News due to their critical reportage on the Ukraine-Russia war which, albeit clearly not pushing a pro-Putin take, dared to question the common, acceptable narrative. The kicker: PayPal is to investigate matters to see if their decision was truly justified, and the cost of the investigation is to be deducted from the funds held in the two outlets’ PayPal accounts. Talk about abuse of power…

Nonetheless, I don’t blame individuals who react this way for doing so, but I do blame them of being short on critical thinking skills. A tremendous amount of effort and money has gone towards demonizing certain concepts and people and nations

Warnings of the possible consequences of NATO expansionism date back to 30 years ago, and have come from many high-ranking officials since then, the majority being voiced by Americans, not Russians.
MintPress News

Ever since the NATO expansionist strategy was first proposed in the nineties as a way to both limit any plans Russia may eventually have to expand its global reach in an unforeseeable future and as a means to potentially provoke it into a conflict—which will be discussed in part 3—several authorities and US intelligence officers in the know have repeatedly warned that NATO’s expansion would be a surefire way to trigger a war with Russia, be it a cold or hot one.

As I and others have amply pointed out by now: Just imagine how the US would react if it were the Warsaw Pact considering Canada or Mexico for membership, or if Russia wanted to set up military bases in these countries. Heck, we don’t even have to imagine, as the US reacted in a way that nearly blew up the world when the Soviet Union wanted to establish a base in Cuba in return for the help it provided after US sanctions prevented any countries from dealing with the island unless it wanted to be added to the US’ shitlist and face harsh sanctions themselves. But, yeah, Washington is no bully and it always seeks peace and acts fairly…

Washington’s treatment of Cuba, its gross disregard of all the UN resolutions on the issue, and all the lies that Americans have been fed on the matter, all of it, it’s a subject that always manages to get me worked up. All’s there to establish why the mainstream version regarding events in Ukraine deserves serious scrutiny and loads of doubt, providing one is keenly aware of the real facts. And there’s the real problem, because, as a whole, I do believe that the American people are good. Those at the top, however, far from., and though some of these may believe that they’re acting with good intentions, there’s something clearly wrong with these individuals if they continue to believe that’s the case despite the reality they’ll surely have to come to grips with probably sooner than later.

By the Way, While Claiming that Putin Keeps Tabs on All Russian Citizens...

 Wall Street Journal - FBI illegal spying on citizens

That One is Aiming to Do Good Requires More Than Statements

The Millenium Challenge Corporation announced by Bush Jr. in March of 2002, launched to combat poverty in the developing world, presents a perfect example of a PR effort designed to make the US look good in the eyes of its citizens and the world while such an entity was never intended to accomplish anything. A lot of money was moved around, hardly a dime went to help the poor...
Obama lawyer tears down student dream

It seems like Biden's whole turnm in office is one big "Millenium Challenge."

What’s striking about Joe Biden’s turn in office is just how much the most powerful man in the world is painted as someone who is truly powerless. Democrats control both Houses (Senate and Congress) yet the Republicans are achieving far more to push their policies forward than the last three Dems in office have in order to uphold any of the election promises they’ve made. Yeah… makes real good sense.

And it’s not because Biden really is powerless, it’s because the Establishment had never really intended to deliver everything it promised in order to appease people while setting up all the reasons why someone else should be blamed though there's plenty of billions to send to Ukraine. Why?

Debt slavery is a huge part of how the elites apply and keep their control. Can't wipe out that side of things too easily, nor make education affordable... 

Since it's an ex-Obama adminsitration lawyer stepping in, this makes it all the more palatable and truthful somehow??? 

I’ve always suspected that what made him the ideal candidate over the other options presented to the Democratic party was that no matter what, Biden was facing the end of his career; age not only meant that there was no future left for him in politics, but any accusations and legal proceedings were, for all intents and purposes, pointless and almost cruel—he’s just a weak old man—while any angst that the planned direction would result in could be blamed on the dementia-fueled errors of a near-senile but well-meaning true America…

Duplicitous Concern for Others

Following the fall of Saddam Hussain, advisors, including Ambassador Barbara Bodine, who was in charge of Baghdad during the US occupation, made a list of 20 historic, cultural, artistic, and religious sites and facilities that, they felt, needed to be protected. This was disregarded; the oil ministry was the only major facility that received protection by the US military.

Further, months before the invasion of Iraq, testimony given in front of the Senate Arms Services Committee by the US Forces Chief of Staff, General Erin Shinseki, concerning the number of soldiers required to maintain stability in Iraq were immediately scorned by top members of Bush’s cabinet, all of whom had absolutely no military experience or any real understanding of what such an invasion and occupation entailed.  

Bodine later asserted that “there were explicit directions from Washington to not interfere with the looting.” When concerns over the looting to come were voiced to President Bush days ahead of these events, she states that his response to the matter was that “[the US] is not getting involved in that. We’re not gonna stop the looting, we’re not doing police work; that’s not what we’re here for.” [end in sight]  

Many claim that the looting was encouraged by the US in order to destroy the country right to its core due to the level of organization and its scale—many officials, including Bodine, state that it was clear that this had nothing to do with the average Iraqi—and what followed, historically invaluable sites and elements were destroyed.

The country’s national library and national archives were completely ravaged, and texts and manuscripts dating back hundreds of years—some thousands of years old—were destroyed, burnt to a crisp. The Iraq National Museum of Baghdad was number one on ORHA’s list; it received no protection whatsoever. The museum was completely destroyed; it contained artifacts dating back to the earliest records of human civilization, some of these being 7,000 years old.  

In the early hours of the looting, museum personnel had implored US military officers to send protection. Armoured vehicles were promised but none ever arrived. Iraq’s national heritage is now virtually inexistent.

Donald Rumsfeld, during an 11-Apr-2003 press conference [WHArchives], made light of it, saying that this was no worse than the looting that occurred during protest in the US, and that, simply, “stuff happens.” He ridiculed concerns, downplaying all the headlines as being Chicken Little, “Henny Penny, the sky is falling” level material before adding that what people were seeing on the news was the “same picture of someone walking out of some building with a vase” being “played over and over and over, and it’s the same picture … and you think: my goodness were there that many vases; is it possible that there were that many vases in the whole country?”

In a 15-Apr-2003 press conference [WHArchives], Rumsfeld accused anyone that was leaning on the destruction as proof that the US was acting in a completely incompetent and inexcusable manner as being absurdly unaware. 

Imagine if an occupying force took over the US then allowed what appeared to be an organized and systematic destruction of all of its historical sites and archives, leaving no recognizable trace in Washington, Boston, Philadelphia, or other cities, and ashes were all that were left of the original Constitution, Bill of Rights, and other irreplaceable documents, and all official copies, imagine the outrage and indignation then, and the violent actions this would then justify in the eyes of many.

Well, after this event, whether one was Sunni or Shia no longer mattered, as all Arabs were deeply outraged, and the opinion towards the US and its forces turned ugly, expressed through violence.

Brave citizens willing to fight to the last

Moral Inconsistency

The level of racism that’s been betrayed by the West in regard to the outrage and support for Ukraine that’s been demonstrated while worse atrocities have been disregard when these didn’t involve blonde hair and blue-eyed people is a topic that I and others have copiously covered already, but I want to bring attention to this issue again, though doing so with the focus being on how Western media treats the same thing very differently depending on who the foe is, thus, never rarely eliciting any public reaction, as these stories are avoided or given a different spin.

Does the dialogue that’s shown in the series of images on the right, which are screen grabs from a BBC reportage, ring a bell?

Haven’t we heard the same similar things being said just recently by Ukrainians?

Each time anyone said anything remotely close to that, from Zelenskyy to any citizen, including Westerners, everyone cooed over the heroism of such statements and of those who said them; this was brave. Inspirational. Bravo! It encouraged many who had no direct cause in this fight to pick up arms and to go fight the Russians.

The part that I covered says: “…scared of Israel or America as…”

The individuals interviewed are Palestinians…

Events over there, in the early eighties, were treated quite different by US media. 

And Palestinians were not treated as brave folks. Not one bit. 

Yet, because of US meddling and because of Henry Kissinger's delusions, whole camps of refugees were massacred. 

Just sayin'...

The Horror. The Horror.

The Western media has been making much noise about the human rights violations surrounding Ukraine, and much of the world is using that as justification restrict Russia from the rest of the world. My question is, considering what I detailed below, why hasn't the world been willing to react in kind for all the human rights violations (short and incomplete list) that the US has commited? 

When news surfaced of US treatment and torture of alleged terrorists and detainees, President George W. Bush (Jr.) stated, “I don’t care what international lawyers say, we’re gonna kick some ass.”

Keep in mind that:

  • An unknown number were taken to secret sites in Thailand, Romania, Poland, and Moracco, where they underwent harsh torture.
  • In all, the official count of detainees taken to Guantanamo Bay is established at 779. In 2003, there were 680 illegally-held prisoners there; the age range of prisoners varied between 13 to 88.
  • 5% were capture by US troops.
  • Over 80% were handed over to the US in exchange for cash, having been captured by Pakistan and Afghan bounty hunters or Afghan warlords.
  • Only 8% were Al-Qaeda fighters.
  • 600 have since been released, many having spent several months to several years without a trial before being deemed innocent and released without any reparations or compensation.
  • Only 6 were convicted for terrorist activities.
  • 9 died while detained, seven of which were suicides.
  • 166 were still being held without trial in 2012, by the end of Obama’s second term on 19-Jan-2017, 41 were still prisoner.


Here are the salient points concerning just three cases:

Imagine being Shaker Aamar, a British resident born in Saudi Arabia, who was held without charge or trial for 12 years and 10 months (Jan 2002 to Oct 2015); he claims to have been repeatedly tortured.

Karama Khamix, of Yemen, was picked up and held for three years before US authorities “decided’ he wasn’t linked to al-Qaeda and he was released.

Omar Khadr, a Canadian-born Afghan had been taken to Afghanistan by his father, who had ties to al-Qaeda. He was wounded and captured after a firefight broke out between US soldiers and Taliban fighters. Because he was alleged to have thrown a grenade that resulted in the death of one US special forces medic and injury to another US soldier, who lost an eye, Khadr was charged with war crimes by a US military commission. He was 15 at the time.

After spending 3 months at the Bagram Air Base prison in Afghanistan, he was transferred to Gitmo, where he spent 10 years (2002 to 2012); it took eight years for him to finally be tried (in 2010). Khadr pleaded guilty, but has since filed for an appeal as he alleges that his guilty plea was made under duress.

In 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the conditions under which Khadr was held violated basic human rights, defying the standard of treatment of detained youth suspects, and that the treatment by those Canadian authorities who’d previously interrogated him had been “offensive”. He was finally repatriated to Canada in 2012, where he was expected to serve the rest of his 16-year sentence pending his appeal (he was slated for release in 2018).

The Canadian government released him in 2015 and offered him a $10.5 million settlement in 2017 due to the interrogation process he’d undergone and for the previous administration’s handling of his case (which sought to block his conditional release based on his appeal, under pressure by the US, which the Alberta Court of Appeal had refused to do).

The dead US soldier’s widow, Tabitha Speer, filed a wrongful death and injury lawsuit against Khadr in Utah in 2014 after she had heard that “Khadr might get his hands on money from his $20 million wrongful imprisonment lawsuit.” [AP-Khadr] Without Khadr there to defend himself, nor knowing anything about his “wrongful imprisonment claim”, a US judge awarded USD$134.2 million in damages to the widow in 2015.

The sheer arrogance and egotistic attitude of the widow is, sadly, emblematic of the US’ mindset towards other nations and the people the US decides to wage war against. She’s upset because her husband, a soldier—even if a medic, he was acting as a normal war medic—went to a US-triggered war overseas and died and the person who is alleged to have killed him may not only be released, rather than rotting in jail, he may be awarded money for being wrongfully imprisoned. Who gives a hoot about the number of civilians killed in Afghanistan or the US forces’ own responsibilities towards her husband for waging that war in the first place, or her own acceptance of the conditions and potential consequences of her husband’s chosen profession, some Muslim must pay for his death, if not all of them!

US involvement in Iraq resulted in 90% of the allied forces’ casualties being civilians. None of these people have been able to claim a cent in damages from the US or US soldiers as the US doesn’t respect the ICC and refuses to adhere to the UN’s ICJ rulings; claims must be made in the US and tried by US military courts, which scoffs at such filings.     

Take Viet Nam. The US decided to meddle in a civil war that didn’t concern them in any way other than they feared that GM and Coke and other US companies may see their markets reduced. Roughly 58,000 US soldiers died in that war while 2 to 3 million Vietnamese lost their lives as a result of US involvement and their savagery (napalm, Agent Orange, mass bombings, etc.). Approximately 70% of the deaths caused by US forces were civilian non-combatants. 

The US dropped three times more bombs on Viet Nam than it did in all of WWII.

North Korea, Australia, and the Philippines, who’d been pressured to help out in that war by the US, doing so with relatively few soldiers compared to the US, all took it upon themselves to pay reparations to the Vietnamese people because all had partaken in mass slaughter of entire villages. The US not only refused to pay reparations, but they also forced Vietnamese authorities to file a case in the US, which the US courts then denied, refusing the people of Viet Nam a hearing.    

I'd never dare hold the American people responsible for any of the above, but they must realize  

Some Preliminaries


In the blink of an eye, nearly two decades of progress in easing Cold War tensions were obliterated when Ronald Reagan declared, “…the only morality they recognize is what will further their cause, meaning, they reserve under themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat, in order to attain that…”


It’s no secret: I despise Ronald Reagan. Deeply. Profoundly. Totally. Wholly. Viscerally and rationally.

I don’t understand how anyone can claim to be an admirer of Reagan and be allowed to walk freely while anyone who tries to offer a fair view of Putin and of the invasion of Ukraine—without condoning the act—is shunned by the West, doomed to be ridiculed and silenced and financially penalized.

Yet, the harm that Reagan is directly and indirectly responsible for, both to the world and to the US, is mindboggling. Never mind his criminal involvement in immoral wars, all he helped to privatize and deregulated, the harm he allowed to be done to the enviroment, from then to now, and all the ways by which he paved the way to widen the inequality gap, economically and racially, and more, he's the reason why nuclear weapons weren't globally banned and why space is America's last frontier of militarization, and no, that he's responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union is simply one big myth that neocons love to repeat. And Mikael Gorbachev was tenfold of ways a greater man than Reagan was.  

Rightwing personality Dave Rubin, appearing on Joe Rogan’s podcast, once provided an example which he thought was a good argument for Libertarian policies and approaches but, instead, provides a clear illustration of the aim of the Reagan administration and the destructive impact it has had.

Rubin, sounding a lot like Reagan, but less eloquent, argued that government should not be involved in anything that involved one’s activities or transactions, and any regulations it imposes on any market, job, product, etc., is hurtful to commerce and industry, hinders competition, and should be seen as governmental overreach and the White House overstepping its bounds.

The example he provided was of house builders. According to him, there should be no regulatory bodies involved in any aspects of building a home; the market would take care of itself, self-regulate. Crappy house builders would eventually be seen as such, and would, ultimately, have a hard time selling homes, thus, to remain competitive, they’d have no choice but to focus on building sturdy, quality homes that people wanted to invest in and live in.

It doesn’t take much brain power to see how absurdly fantasist and stupid such a notion is, but this is Rubin we’re talking about. Thankfully, though not as sharply as he should have as Rubin quickly changed the topic, Joe Rogan did call him out on this, clearly seeing how ridiculous Rubin’s take was.

First off, no insurance company would want to insure a home, let alone a high-rise building, without some standard being applied. Charlatans that would exploit an area and quickly move on to the next, disappearing with people’s money, then changing identity and company name and starting all over again, is already a problem across North America (and elsewhere, I’m sure), though this practice now requires an extremely high-level con compared to 50 years ago and before; imagine how prevalent this practice would now be if regulatory and standards associations hadn’t stepped in. More homes than not would contain troubling quantities of hidden vices and deficiencies as too many would be tempted to cut corners to keep their costs down and sell at competitive prices. Homes may look good and fine as more effort would be placed on cosmetics rather than all that’s not visible, and it would be near impossible for inspectors to judge the quality of new homes and few would want to certify them as safe—to buy or live in—until after a few years of settling. And without strict electrical standards… fuhgeddaboudit! Does Rubin expect home builders to offer, minimally, a 25-year money-back guarantee? But without that or insurance companies willing to take high-risk gambles on each home, does he also expect banks to grant anyone mortgages? And, even if home builders and contractors had only the best of intentions (yeah, right), how many people would die before they’d either realize what they’re doing wrong or their reputation veered people towards other, well-reputed builders?

If I’m not mistaken, Rogan saw Rubin for the shill and quack he obviously is, and hasn’t dared to invite back on his show since that moment.

Well, that’s precisely the idiotic logic that Reagan and his cronies applied to all that concerns Americans, from the environment to media to all aspects of the economy, including US foreign policy, the last compounding the crappy, tension-filled situation that Reagan and subsequent Presidents inherited thanks to people like Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzeziński.

From the mid-seventies to today, the folly of these two men still permeates US foreign policy decisions, their obsessions still giving credence to the lies served up as unquestionable truths that have justified a Capitalistic and wholly elitist reshaping of the world.

•     •     •

President Assad, the father, strongly believed that peace between the Arab nations and Israel, as well as the rest of the world, could only be attained if Palestinians were allowed to return to their homeland. This, however, was in conflict with Henry Kissinger’s own theory that the world had to be kept in tension through the ‘principle of interdependence’, as he believed that this would strengthen the Arab world and, consequently, upset his notion of balance of power, which, of course, favoured the US. Hence, he used his role as advisor within the Nixon and Ford administrations, as well as subsequent consultancy roles, to impose policies on the Middle East that would fracture the power of Arab states.

Enacting what he termed “constructive ambiguity,” Kissinger continually pushed foreign policy decisions that sought to disrupt peace between the Arab nations, fragmenting any alliances between them in order to maintain a tension that would propel each to keep each other in check.

And, so, Kissinger lied, coaxing Egypt into signing a separate agreement with Israel while assuring Assad that the Palestinians were included in a wider peace deal, which wasn’t the case; the Palestinians were left out entirely, not seen, to Kissinger, as being relevant to the global power structure.

When Assad found out, furious, he confronted Kissinger in Damascus, warning him that such actions “would release demons hidden under the surface of the Arab world.”

Assad, who hoped to transform the Middle East into a peaceful region, lost his optimism after this event, and retreated into a palace that “loomed over Damascus.” Those who knew him claimed that he was a deeply changed man, having lost all trust in the future, and “[believing] in nothing except revenge.”

•     •     •

Following Kissinger’s involvement, Israel interpreted the indifference shown in regard to Palestinians as US support towards their goal to crush Palestine and rid themselves of all Palestinian people, even the ones who were seeking refuge in Lebanon. In 1982, Israeli forces surrounded the refugee camps situated in Lebanese territory, such as the Sabra Camp in Beirut, then allowed Christian militiamen to massacre Palestinians as they stood by and watched.

The world expressed shock and horror, so Reagan sent Marines to Lebanon.

Assad, still seeking revenge for Kissinger’s treachery, and seeing US involvement as further proof that the US and Israel were allied in a continued plan to keep the Arab world divided, joined forces with Iran’s first Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini, who was also seeking revenge against the US (more on this below).  

Khomeini’s still nascent revolutionary force boasted a new weapon, what Khomeini called “the poor man’s atomic bomb,” better known as “suicide bombers.”

This ‘weapon” came to be as an act of desperation following Iraq’s attack on Iran, done using arms that, for the most part, were supplied to them by the US.

Unable to match the Iraqi forces’ superiority, Khomeini twisted the Quran’s dictates regarding suicide, making such an act not only acceptable if done to kill as many enemies as possible, but he also convinced his people that this was a revered and selfless act of utmost bravery.

Tens of thousands of young men were taken out of school and loaded onto buses and brought to the frontlines; they marched through the minefields, clearing a path for Iran’s soldiers.  

This is the weapon that Assad now sought to use against the Americans in order to drive them out of the Middle East, doing so by taking things a step further: killing oneself to clear mines was one thing, but strapping bombs to one’s body and killing as many enemies as possible while killing oneself was far more meaningful an act…

In October of 1983, after two suicide bombers successfully drove trucks loaded with explosives into US Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Americans, the West realized that they were dealing with a force that was far more fierce than they were prepared for. This was the first time that Hezbollah made themselves known to the West.

Most were Iranians, but fought under orders from Syria.

This type of act wasn’t new, per se, the US having encountered kamikaze fighters during WWII, as well as similar individuals during the Viet Nam war, although the latter usually acted in a manner that betrayed some hope of escaping alive, albeit death was almost always assured (Viet Minh soldiers dressed as civilians, as well as regular civilians, would get as close to US troops and equipment as they could, and detonate a grenade).

Reagan condemned Syria and Iran’s actions, assuring the world that these were led by fanatical crazies who would stop at nothing to “have their way and drive [the US] out of the area,” and that he wouldn’t give them the satisfaction, determined to reestablish peace in the region.

One sees the irony in that, I hope?

However, realizing that the politics in the region were far more complex than what the US had assumed, and that they were facing a type of determination that was reminiscent of the one they had faced in Viet Nam, on 26-Feb-1984, within four months after his “US will vanquish the ‘crazies’” speech, President Reagan pulled all US troops out of the area.

Assad was heralded as a hero; he’d managed to send the US back home.   

•     •     •

Things get even weirder (though “weirder” isn’t the word I have in mind).

Reagan figured: If you can’t beat ‘em, may as well profit from them while encouraging them to kill off one another n great numbers. So, while the US sold arms to Iraq to give it a leg up in its war against Iran, it also sold arms to Iran, secretly, and used those funds to fight another secret war in Nicaragua, one that had been forbidden by Congress.

This is what became known as the Iran-Contra Affair. This was highly illegal and immoral, and it led to all kinds of Human Rights violations, including far worse atrocities than anything the Russian’s are accused of doing in Ukraine to date.

To be continued...

To Keep in Mind

Aside from the WMD lies used to justify the Iraq war, Washington had already established, with the Gulf War, to what lengths it was willing to go to in manufacturing a narrative that would, in the eyes of the public, justify military action against another state. If not familiar with the story of Nayirah, I suggest you look it up. It's highly revealing, and far from being the only example of such lies. At the time, Biden was also highly involved, likewise for events that unfolded in Yugoslavia, given his Senate Foreign Relations role. But more on that in the next parts.

Also: Kuwait featured a far fiercer dictator tha Saddam Hussein ever was. 

And: The attack on Iraq that, based on the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). never received the approval of the UN, as no Security Council resolution was granted for the war. All of that was highly illegal, immoral, and resulted in far greater destruction and far more deaths—far more of them being civilians—than Putin's invasion of Ukraine. 

Further: In 2002, it was leaked that, after Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, and Somalia were all on the agenda, and plans concerning Ukraine can be traced as far as 1994. 

So, until part 3, just keep these things in mind, perhaps doing so as you consider the number of "dictators" that the US wrongly demonized as it sought to globalize the world and retainm its USD zas the dominant currency, a necessary part of it obsession with hegemony.

US Lies - Nariyah Iraq War

Also, as is well established, US Capitalism is the biggest driver of economic inequality across the globe, so, not only is its religion, i.e. Capitalism, seen as the biggest threat by the world, the country itself is also perceived as being a bigger threat and barrier to world peace than both Russia and China. I'd reported on this study when it was initially released, but I'll provide it again in the part 3.

2021 - Threats to Democracy

Sources and Additional Info

Click to Close



Embedded Links

The Atlantic Council

Atlantic Council logo


Chairman: John Francis William Rogers is an American businessman, serving as Executive Vice President, Chief of Staff and Secretary to the Board of Goldman Sachs.

Chairman, International Advisory Board: David Harold McCormick is an American politician and businessman. McCormick served as the CEO of Bridgewater Associates, one of the world's largest hedge funds, from 2020 to 2022.

Jr., Executive Chairman Emeritus: James Logan Jones Jr. (born December 19, 1943) is a retired United States Marine Corps four-star general who served as the 22nd United States National Security Advisor from 2009 to 2010. During his military career, he served as the 32nd Commandant of the Marine Corps from July 1999 to January 2003, and Commander, United States European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe from 2003 to 2006. Jones retired from the Marine Corps on February 1, 2007, after 40 years of service.

Executive Vice President: Damon M. Wilson (born May 24, 1973) is an American foreign policy expert and the President and CEO of the National Endowment for Democracy, an independent grant-making foundation supporting freedom and democracy around the world. From 2011 to 2021, he was the Executive Vice President at the Atlantic Council, a nonpartisan think tank focused on international cooperation. A former civil servant, Wilson served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European Affairs at the National Security Council during the second term of President George W. Bush

Executive Vice Chair: Stephen John Hadley (born February 13, 1947) is an American attorney and senior government official who served as the 21st United States National Security Advisor from 2005 to 2009. He served under President George W. Bush during the second term of his administration. Hadley was Deputy National Security Advisor during Bush's first term. Before that Hadley served in a variety of capacities in the defense and national security fields. He has also worked as a lawyer and consultant in private practice.

Director, Eurasian Energy Futures Initiative, Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center: Dávid Korányi is a chief advisor of city diplomacy for Gergely Karácsony, the mayor of Budapest. Prior to that he was a director of the Atlantic Council's Eurasian Energy Futures Initiative and deputy director of the Atlantic Council's Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center. In 2009 he was undersecretary of state, chief foreign policy, and national security advisor to the Prime Minister of the Republic of Hungary, Gordon Bajnai. He was a member of the Hungarian NATO Strategic Concept Special Advisory Group.

Notable directors include:

Henry A. Kissinger KCMG

Honorary Directors

James A. Baker, III:  Served as White House Chief of Staff and United States Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan, and as U.S. Secretary of State and White House Chief of Staff under President George H. W. Bush.

Ashton B. Carter: American public policy professor who served as the 25th secretary of defense from February 2015 to January 2017. He is currently director of the Belfer Center for Science & International Affairs at Harvard Kennedy School.

Robert M. Gates: American intelligence analyst and university president who served as the 22nd United States secretary of defense from 2006 to 2011. He was originally appointed by president George W. Bush and was retained for service by President Barack Obama.

James N. Mattis: Retired United States Marine Corps four-star general who served as the 26th US secretary of defense from January 2017 to January 2019. During his 44 years in the Marine Corps, he commanded forces in the Persian Gulf War, the War in Afghanistan, and the Iraq War

Michael G. Mullen: Retired United States Navy admiral, who served as the 17th chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from October 1, 2007, to September 30, 2011.

Leon E. Panetta: American Democratic Party politician who has served in several different public office positions, including Secretary of Defense, CIA Director, White House Chief of Staff, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and as a U.S.

William J. Perry: American mathematician, engineer, businessman, and civil servant who was the United States Secretary of Defense from February 3, 1994, to January 23, 1997, under President Bill Clinton. He also served as Deputy Secretary of Defense (1993–

Colin L. Powell: American politician, statesman, diplomat, and United States Army officer who served as the 65th United States Secretary of State from 2001 to 2005. He was the first African-American Secretary of State. He served as the 16th United States national security

Condoleezza Rice: Condoleezza Rice is an American diplomat and political scientist who is the current director of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. A member of the Republican Party, she previously served as the 66th United States secretary of state from 2005 to 2009 and as the 20th United

William H. Webster: American attorney and jurist who most recently served as chair of the Homeland Security Advisory Council from 2005 until 2020. He was a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and a United States circuit judge

From Wikipedia:


Former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen called the Council a "pre-eminent think tank" with a "longstanding reputation", [non-primary source needed] and former U.S. Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) said that the Council is "held in high esteem within the Atlantic community". [non-primary source needed]

In 2016, the Atlantic Council drew criticism from the founder of the Human Rights Foundation for its decision to award a Global Citizen Award to Ali Bongo Ondimba.[66] Bongo declined the award amidst controversy over the 2016 Gabonese presidential election.

In July 2019, Russia said the activities of the Atlantic Council pose a threat to the foundations of its constitutional system and the security of the Russian Federation. Russia added the Atlantic Council to its list of "undesirable" organizations, preventing it from operating within Russia.


The Atlantic Council produces publications and issue briefs about global policy issues ranging from NATO's global role to energy security.

In 2014, The Atlantic Council produced a report promoting the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) — a proposed trade-accommodation agreement between the European Union and the U.S. — with the financial backing of FedEx, who were simultaneously lobbying Congress directly to decrease transatlantic tariffs.

In 2015 and 2016, the three largest donors, giving over $1 million USD each, were US millionaire Adrienne Arsht (executive vice chair), Lebanese billionaire Bahaa Hariri (estranged brother of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri), and the United Arab Emirates. The Ukrainian oligarch-run Burisma Holdings donated $100,000 per year for three years to the Atlantic Council starting in 2016. The full list of financial sponsors includes many military, financial, and corporate concerns.

The leading donors in 2018 were Facebook and the British government.

According to the Council, of its 2019 revenue, 14% (approximately $5.5 million) came from non-US government donors.

Globalization Meets and Parties Involved (2021)

'Tis a wide web indeed, that the liberals and progressives have spun, and a world wide one at that. They openly talk of a "liberal world order" and also label themselves as a cabal, but one whose fortification efforts are plied at a higher level, and not as a tool of the "old West".

These are all groups that partook in a 'meet' arranged with globalization in mind. I've already discussed this last year, but I'll repost this tab with additional info in part 3 or 4. I'm just providing these now for your consideration, hopefully, to trigger your own search.


Globalization Meet

Globalization Meet


Post your comment

If you're scum 'commenting' with Cialis or other product links, shove your comment real far up your...
You're a waste of skin and, anyhow, comments are moderated, precisely because of a-holes like you. The world has had its fill of losers like you. Be useful... go die or something.


No one has commented on this page yet.

RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments

Your support goes a long way

Have content, research, or dev needs? Email to discuss. Flexible. Competitive rates.