1.  “Perhaps KSM is also a magician, and used voodoo to make WTC 7 fall at partial freefall, to make jet fuel “switch elevators” on its way to the lobby, and to then spring the jet fuel over to WTC 7. Perhaps he used magic to persuade the FBI to drop their surveillance of the 1993 bombers, and to fill the towers with nano-thermite. Perhaps KSM used voodoo to vaporize lead and steel in the towers, and to hide Saddam’s mysterious WMD.”

http://www.911blogger.com/node/21923

2.  What a grotesque charade:

“Albania: Town to Unveil Statue of President Bush”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/world/europe/21briefs-Albania.html?_r=1&ref=world

3.  “USA Today undermines the entire master narrative of US/NATO military operations in Afghanistan, writing: “The U.S. military says the vast majority of the 700 detainees at its biggest prison in Afghanistan could eventually be released because they’re fighting more for money than ideology.”

War hawks are always saying we are there to fight the Taliban because they are ideologically aligned with and inseparable from al-Qaeda. But the guys we’ve been fighting and imprisoning seem just to be poor schmucks looking to make a buck by militia activity.”

http://www.juancole.com/

4.  “Wells Fargo Says It Doesn’t Have to Reserve Against Its Off-Balance Sheet Residential Exposure Because the FHA (Meaning the Taxpayers) Will Pay For It

WFC is basically saying that none of the bank’s $1.1 trillion in conforming OBS [off balance sheet] exposures need to be represented or reserved against.
…
Bottom line: Wells Fargo is saying that since the FHA – that is, the government, that is, the taxpayers – will bail out Wells for loans that go bad, the giant bank doesn’t have to reserve against these possible losses.

Yes, Wells is as bad as the other too big to fails. See this, this, this and this.”

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/11/wells-fargo-says-it-doesnt-have-to.html

5.  “Why we fight”: The Nature of Modern Imperialism

Aggressive and exclusive military alliances like NATO should be disbanded

Alan McKinnon shows that the UK and US ‘defence’ policy is in fact a ‘projection of power’ policy with the primary purpose of defending the commercial interests of transnational companies

The Gulf area still accounts for up to 70 per cent of known oil reserves where the costs of production are lowest. So it is no surprise that US policy continues to focus on Iran which has the world’s second largest combined oil and gas reserves.

The US response has been largely military – the expansion of NATO and the encirclement of Russia and China in a ring of hostile bases and alliances. And continuing pressure to isolate and weaken Iran by a campaign of sanctions orchestrated through the IAEA and the United Nations with the threat of military action lurking in the background. The danger is that, even under the presidency of Obama, an economically weakened United States will tend to use the one massive advantage it has over its rivals – its global war machine.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16210

Iraq has dominated the headlines in the past six years, but the legacy of a less-discussed ongoing conflict may be more relevant to future security and state-building efforts.  Say what you will about the moral relevance of America’s role in Iraq, but it is Afghanistan that stands most prominent and most challenging in the effort to improve global security.

Photo: REUTERS/Goran Tomasevic

It’s been over eight years since American troops hit the ground in Afghanistan, and the results have been underwhelming.  Osama bin Laden is still at large, the Taliban is still entrenched in wide swaths of the country, and democracy is tenuous at best.  President Obama has announced a troop increase to establish a wider security perimeter around Kabul and hopefully turn the tide against pockets of insurgent resistance throughout the countryside.  However, this decision has been met with a large amount of skepticism, as it represents an escalation rather than a significant shift in strategy.

Perhaps it is time to go back to the drawing board and completely rethink our Afghanistan strategy.

An appropriate starting point is objectives.  To date, our Afghanistan policy has had three goals: to eliminate elements of al Qaeda in Afghanistan, to achieve lasting security through the elimination of armed resistance associated with the Taliban, and to establish and promote a working democracy.  After eight years, these objectives remain wishful thinking.  Recent news reports from Afghanistan – of an increase in violence and a deeply flawed election – cast doubt on the efficacy of the mission.

By reconceptualizing how we view a post-conflict Afghan society, we may be able to temper some of the discontent and division that has made security and the practice of democracy impossible.

A recent Transparency International report, the 2009 Corruption Perceptions Index, measured the level of corruption in the public spheres of 189 countries and decried Afghanistan as the second-most corrupt state in the world after Somalia.  Like in Somalia, many regions of Afghanistan remain outside effective government control.  This limits the ability of the state to enforce the rule of law or establish legitimacy as a source of arbitration or regulation.

As Jeffrey Herbst writes, states that fail to establish influence in the periphery of territories become hollow shells, with the inviolability of borders defended by international institutions like the UN and legitimate state institutions clustered solely at the center.   The state lacks the capacity to project power from the center across the geographic territory enclosed by the internationally recognized borders.  The result is effectively a state that exists only in the capital; outside Kabul, chaos reigns.  In William Reno’s seminal work on warlordism in Africa, he writes that a hollow state creates the opportunity for entrepreneurs to challenge state sovereignty and ownership of resources in the periphery.  Pockets of alternate resource provision rise, as these entrepreneurs establish links with localized populations and compete for local hegemony with both rivals and the state.

We’ve seen this happen in Afghanistan, where the absence of the state in places like Kandahar and Jalalabad has given berth to factionalized groups seeking to assert dominance.  As Gilles Dorronsoro of the Carnegie Endowment writes:

The Taliban are mostly LOCAL. It is not possible to “protect the population” against the Taliban; they are part of the population and the more we fight the more they are popular.

Kandahar: Outside State Control. Photo: PHILIP POUPIN.

The factor most limiting to the ability of the state to assert control over the periphery is legitimacy.  Most Afghans view the alternate sources of power of warlords and the Taliban as stronger and more real than the state.  But many also view them as more legitimate voices of the people, representing local interests in the community rather than the international norms hoisted upon the national government in Kabul.  The embedded nature of insurgent groups makes it difficult to severe the ties of political trust placed in localized groups, however violent they may be.  As Austin Long of Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs writes:

The Taliban [in Kandahar] are local, but the motives of local Taliban are not automatically the same as the motives of the Quetta Shura. They are about specific local grievances that can be addressed. This may be hard given that many of the grievances are against the Afghan government or parts of it, but it is not impossible.

Democratization is in part about establishing legitimacy of a national representative government, and this is an area in which the nation-building project in Afghanistan has failed.

President Hamid Karzai has offered little reassurance in the legitimacy of the state.  After four years as President that were marked most notably by the lack of real anti-corruption reform, the recent 2009 presidential elections were marred by allegations of voter intimidation and ballot-stuffing.  Corruption and electoral fraud serve to further distance the state from the peripheral population, whose criticisms of the non-representative nature of the national government have been partially confirmed.

We’ve reached something of an impasse in Afghanistan, where the entrenched militant groups become more popular with the continued failings of the national government, and efforts to eliminate pockets of the Taliban through ISAF-led military operations have only created additional grievances among local populations.  A new strategy is clearly needed.

In attempting to explain continued inequality in the face of professed universal liberty in the United States, Judith Shklar laid the foundation for a modern theory of citizenship that aptly captures a disconnect between Afghan society and policy implementation there.  Shklar described two forms of citizenship – republican citizenship tied closely to locality and kinship, common in the ancient Greek polis; and liberal citizenship signifying a universal membership in a larger body politick, such as that forged by the Roman Empire.

Contemporary notions of citizenship tend to be liberal.  The nation-state has become the predominant political actor in world politics today, and as such, nation-building is a paramount developmental activity of the modern state.

In Afghanistan, the commitment to liberal citizenship is an assumption made by Western states and institutions seeking to shape a modern Afghan state.  It is not necessarily an indigenous value.  In fact, evidence that Afghans feel a close bond with factions tied to individual communities suggests that the widespread conception of citizenship in Afghanistan is republican in nature.  If this is the case, it is no wonder that there is little widespread appeal of a national state based on universalistic values rather than local issues and identities.

A man rides a bike across the ruined landscape of Kabul. Photo: AP Photo/Rahmat Gul

A reconceptualization of the ideal Afghan state is thus in order.  Rather than focusing on a centralized political apparatus that emanates power from Kabul, strategies that decentralize state power and embed institutions in local communities is necessary.  Given the low density and large territory of Afghanistan, this is a monumental task.  However, there is already evidence that it is more effective than current strategy.  As Austin Long describes:

Spin Boldak district, which, being on the border with Pakistan should be easy prey, is not secure, but neither is it Taliban dominated. This is despite the low presence of ISAF (coalition) troops. Why? The local strongman, General Razziq of the Border Police, is effective at both managing local tribal grievances and fighting the Taliban.

A clear strategy emerges from this anecdote. Rather than seeking to replace existing power structures in Afghanistan, the international community (and the Afghan central state) should actively seek out local institutions and individuals that can be entrusted to utilize state resources in this way.  Conflict mitigation is an important step in increasing state legitimacy.  As embedded institutions and individuals make headway in replacing elements of the Taliban as legitimate purveyors of the rule of law and community reconciliation, faith in government institutions as legitimate will only increase.  In fact, this is not entirely different from the strategy for Iraq proposed and articulated by Vice President Joe Biden when he served as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

This is a long project, and not an easy one.  But if we refocus our efforts in Afghanistan to include legitimacy-building as well as democracy promotion, we may still achieve the outcomes we desire: human security, the elimination of the Taliban and al Qaeda as popular alternatives to the state, and democratic capacity.

La Alianza del Atlántico Norte, que incluye a los países más ricos y mejor armados del mundo, ha decidido invitar a la marina israelí  a participar en unas maniobras conjuntas, es decir, al igual que Ucrania o Rusia, pasar al estatuto semi-oficial de potencia aliada que aun no es miembro de pleno derecho de la Alianza. Sólo Turquía ha puesto pegas a esta invitación, lo cual puede a la larga acarrear no solamente que se retrase para siempre su entrada en la Unión Europea, sino que en un momento dado también su expulsión de la OTAN. Esta invitación es una declaración no-oficial de guerra a Palestina, al no-Estado de Palestina en el territorio ocupado donde colonizan, explotan y asesinan a la población palestina no reconocida y desprotegida legalmente ante los ataques cotidianos de soldados y colonos israelíes.

La OTAN está por lo tanto en guerra simultáneamente contra Afganistán y Palestina, mientras mantiene contingentes de ocupación en numerosos países africanos y en Irak. Desde este punto de vista, es decir, desde el punto de vista de los agredidos por la OTAN, parece evidente que la OTAN ataca a los países más débiles de manera sistemática. Ahora bien, como la explicación oficial de las maniobras conjuntas con Israel es que forman parte de una estrategia global contra el terror, cabe hacer una síntesis y deducir de ambas perspectivas que la OTAN es una organización terrorista de una enorme magnitud que condena a los pobres a la miseria y a la violencia sin límite que merecen los terroristas. Es evidentemente una antisituación sádica en la que los ricos machacan a los pobres y los llaman, entre otras cosas, terroristas. El sadismo del capitalismo se encauza por lo tanto en la OTAN a la que pertenecemos. Nuestro Estado es por lo tanto cómplice de una agresión sádica y colectiva cuya ideología no asume en absoluto su sadismo. Si no lo asume es porque no puede hacerlo, por lo tanto hay una mala conciencia. Es la razón por la cual debemos seguir aireándola, porque así el Estado llegará a un punto crítico: cambiar o aplastar la libertad de expresión.

di Tommaso Di Francesco, Il manifesto – 15 novembre 2009

Inaugurata a Pristina da Bill Clinton la sua statua di bronzo a ringraziamento della guerra «umanitaria» della Nato del 1999. All’ombra del potente premier Hashim Thaqi su cui crescono i dossier internazionali per crimini di guerra, un Kosovo solo albanese, povero e devastato dalla corruzione, va oggi al primo voto etnico-amministrativo. Il mese di novembre 2009 passerà alla storia del sud-est europeo balcanico. Dopo il crollo dell’89 che vide lo smantellamento dei simboli del «socialismo reale» a cominciare dalle statue imbalsamate dei leader del comunismo, a Pristina è stata eretta con cerimonia, bande e trionfo, la statua del nuovo «piccolo padre», o padre della patria: Bill Clinton.

L’ex presidente degli Stati uniti a inizio mese si è presentato a Pristina in un tripudio di folla, ben spesato dalle fondazioni albanesi d’America – una lobby che è riuscita ad eleggere un capo della Cia – ad inaugurare la sua statua. Alta 3,4 metri – come quelle di Stalin nella connazionale Albania -, pesa 900 chilogrammi, ed è stata sponsorizzata dall’Associazione kosovaro albanese «Amici degli Stati uniti», è opera dello scultore Izeir Mustafa. Abbracciato come un eroe, sorridente per le tv locali, ha inaugurato la sua immagine di bronzo sulla piazza che porta già il suo nome. Presenti il presidente Fatmir Sejdiu e il potente premier Hashim Thaqi, ex leader dell’Uck. Quel Thaqi di cui proprio Carla Del Ponte nel suo libro «La caccia» denuncia corresponsabilità in una vicenda truculenta: l’espianto d’organi nel nord dell’Albania a 150 prigionieri serbi perpetrata dalle milizie al diretto comando dell’attuale premier di Pristina. Una delegazione del Consiglio d’Europa che indaga su questo, guidata dal Rapporteur Dick Marty, è stata cacciata nell’agosto scorso dall’Albania. «I cittadini del Kosovo – ha detto Hashim Thaqi alla festosa cerimonia – sono grati per la decisione di intervenire militarmente per prevenire un genocidio senza precedenti». Un discorso elettorale, visto che oggi in Kosovo si vota per le amministrative. Votano solo gli albanesi, i serbi le boicottano e anche Belgrado consiglia di «non andare a votare. Ma alle prime elezioni politiche di quasi un anno ci fu la sorpresa dell’astensione, votò infatti solo il 43% dei kosovari albanesi aventi diritto.
«Ero qui 10 anni fa – ha dichiarato Clinton – per fermare le cose terribili che accadevano allora e sono qui dieci anni dopo per testimoniare di un futuro migliore di progresso per il Kosovo che è riuscito a creare istituzioni democratiche, una stampa libera e una forte società civile» inoltre è stato accettato dal Fondo monetario e si avvicina alla Nato e all’Unione europea».
Ne avesse indovinata una. Sia sulla reale situazione del Kosovo, sia sulla legittimità dell’intervento armato della Nato che dal 24 marzo 1999 devastò con una micidiale sequela di bombardamenti «umanitari» aerei tutta l’ex Jugoslavia, Serbia e Kosovo.
Perché la realtà del Kosovo è questa: più del 50% di disoccupazione, con il 73% dei giovani disoccupati e in fuga dal paese secondo il primo giornale di Pristina Koha Ditore; con una «corruzione dilagante e scarsa libertà di parola», mega-traffici mafiosi, denuncia il Rapporto dell’Ue del 12 ottobre scorso; con le poche minoranze non serbe in fuga secondo l’Ong Minority Rights Group; con 300.000 profughi serbi e altrettanti rom fuggiti nel terrore proprio a partire dall’ingresso delle truppe Nato nell’estate del 1999; con l’Osce che in un suo documento di questi giorni accusa che «Pristina non adempie all’obbligo di assistere i rifugiati non albanesi costretti a non rientrare nel paese»; con l’Unicef che rivela il tasso più alto in Europa di mortalità infantile e tra le donne «a causa delle carenze sanitarie»; con il 90% della popolazione che ritiene, secondo una sondaggio condotto dall’Undp-Onu, responsabile dello sfascio economico e sociale del paese il governo di Hashim Thaqi, né si fida dell’opposizione rappresentata da Ramush Haradinaj – già incriminato all’Aja per crimini e stragi commessi già nel 1998 contro civili serbi e rom.
Quanto a legittimità e risultati dell’intervento «salvifico» dell’Alleanza atlantica, sponsorizzato dallo «statuario» Bill Clinton e dagli allora leader democratici della Nato come Javier Solana, Massimo D’Alema, Tony Blair, ecc. ecc. Va ricordato che quella guerra del marzo 1999 fu illegale, venne fatta senza l’Onu e contro l’Onu. Mise in scacco l’autonomia dell’Europa e permise agli Stati uniti di riappropiarsi della Nato. Che ebbe, anche quella un voto bipartisan – Berlusconi in Italia votò a favore – legittimato solo da un castello di provocazioni e menzogne denunciate perfino dall’allora ministro degli esteri italiano Lamberto Dini. Che cancellò la possibilità che la controversia interna all’ex Jugoslavia potesse essere composta da una mediazione internazionale in corso quale era la missione dell’Osce. Azzerando i principi dell’articolo 11 della nostra Costituzione che «rifiuta la guerra come mezzo di composizione delle controversie internazionali».
La guerra fu motivata da ragioni umanitarie. «500mila morti» titolava il New York Times, «Sessantamila vittime» Liberation, «Genocidio» Le Monde. Ma quei giornali (non proprio gli ultimi) non hanno nemmeno titolato – arrivarono solo 15 righe della Reuters – quando il 6 settembre 2001 proprio la Corte suprema di Pristina, sotto egida Onu, sancì che i miliziani serbi nel 1998-1999 furono responsabili sì di violenze ai danni della popolazione albanese che, comunque, cominciarono dopo i raid aerei della Nato, ma non di genocidio. E il Tribunale dell’Aja con l’inchiesta sul campo non trovò prove del «massacro», rinvenne il seppellimento di duemila morti, ma caduti in combattimento. Non solo: la Corte di Pristina in quel dibattimento ha dichiarato di avere le prove che il drammatico esodo di 890mila persone – rimaste in attesa sul confine e tutte rientrate dopo 78 giorni di guerra – non fu provocato dai miliziani serbi, come ci venne detto, ma dal terrore di essere colpiti dalle bombe della Nato. Un terrore giustificato, viste le stragi efferate tra la popolazione civile, sia in Serbia che tra gli albanesi in Kosovo – Djakovo, Korisha, Pristina – con i cosiddetti effetti collaterali che un’indagine di Amnesty International ha dimostrato essere omicidi deliberati per terrorizzare i civili.
Alla fine la farsa di Rambouillet (il diktat con cui si pretendeva di mettere l’intera ex Jugoslavia sotto controllo della Nato) e il casus belli inventato della strage di Racak come ha dimostrato il documento dei medici legali impegnati dall’Onu, hanno fatto il resto per attivare la guerra a tutti costi.
Il fatto è che quella guerra di raid aerei un obiettivo l’aveva: il 17 febbraio del 2008 infatti è stata proclamata l’indipendenza unilaterale del Kosovo, sponsorizzata da Bush e riconosciuta subito da molti paesi atlantici – non da tutti, Spagna, Grecia, Romania, Slovacchia e Cipro Nord hanno detto no. E non è riconosciuta dal Consiglio di sicurezza dell’Onu. Ora è caos istituzionale, c’è la nuova missione Eulex ad imporre l’indipendenza ai pochi serbi rimasti, resta la Kfor-Nato con meno ruolo. Ma l’Onu con Ban Ki-Moon che lo ha annunciato a fine ottobre, insiste a rimanere sulla base della Risoluzione 1244» con cui finì la guerra, entrò la Nato ma riconoscendo la sovranità di Belgrado sul Kosovo.
Venerdì al vertice governativo Italia e Serbia di Roma, il presidente serbo Boris Tadic ha ribadito: «La Serbia non farà mai un passo indietro nel rivendicare la propria integrità territoriale. Lotteremo con tutti i mezzi giuridici». Fiducioso che la massima Corte dell’Aja dica sì – la scadenza è ora, a dicembre – al ricorso serbo contro l’indipendenza unilaterale del Kosovo.

Kabul, 21 novembre – La NATO ha assunto oggi il comando delle operazioni di addestramento della polizia e dell’esercito afghani, per consolidare l’impegno per la costruzione di un’efficiente forza di sicurezza nazionale, precondizione fondamentale per il ritiro delle truppe straniere.
I vertici militari hanno annunciato oggi durante una cerimonia a Kabul che l’attuale missione USA di addestramento, ufficialmente denominata CSTC-A e finora responsabile della maggior parte delle attività di training, si fonderà con la nuova “NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan” (NTM-A), sotto comando unico NATO.
Il vice comandante della nuova missione NATO, general maggiore Michael Ward, ha detto di ritenere che la decisione incoraggerà l’invio di altro personale NATO addetto agli addestramenti in Afghanistan, contribuendo a rendere più rapida l’espansione delle forze locali.
(…)
Attualmente sono circa 95mila i soldati afghani, e 93mila i poliziotti.
Nella sua valutazione sulla guerra, il comandante USA in Afghanistan, il generale Stanley McChrystal, ha raccomandato che le forze locali siano portate a un totale di 400mila tra soldati e agenti.
Ward ha detto che l’obiettivo immediato è di portare l’esercito a 134mila soldati e la polizia a 96800 agenti entro l’ottobre 2010.
(Reuters)

In virtù dell’impegno militare italiano, e data l’expertise universalmente riconosciuta e apprezzata dei Carabinieri nell’addestramento delle forze di polizia “robusta”, l’Italia ha meritato, nella distribuzione dei posti di comando della NTM-A, un ruolo di primo piano vedendosi assegnato il posto di responsabile della formazione della polizia afgana (CTAG-P), che sarà affidato al Colonnello Carmelo Burgio.
A partire da ottobre 2009, 16 unità dell’Arma opereranno nello staff di NTM-A e 20 unità addizionali si affiancheranno ai 40 Carabinieri formatori già impiegati nella base di Adraskan. L’Italia istituirà inoltre tre POMLTs, cui saranno complessivamente destinate 60 unità: il primo, operativo da novembre, sarà responsabile dell’assistenza, per un massimo di dieci mesi, di un reparto della polizia distrettuale afgana, scelto in una lista dei distretti appartenenti alle province di Farah ed Herat. Si prevede inoltre, su iniziativa italiana, la creazione di un polo addestrativo a Kabul, in cui saranno dispiegate addizionali 60 unità dell’Arma.
(Fonte Ministero degli Affari Esteri)

Christopher Coker of the London School of Economics and Political Science (I always want to render the “and Political Science” in parentheticals, for some reason) has an interesting review of two new books in the Times Literary Supplement: Patrick Hennessey’s The Junior Officers’ Reading Club: Killing Time and Fighting Wars and James Fergusson’s A Million Bullets. It’s a short review, but it’s a more accurate, and apt, characterization of the two authors’ subjects (Iraq and Afghanistan) than I’ve read anywhere else. This blurb on NATO struck a chord:

Traditionally soldiers have read books to orientate themselves, either to make sense of their personal experience of war or to have a greater understanding of the larger picture, “what it’s all about”. Churchill tells us he was spurred on to study by catching himself using a good many words, the meaning of which he could not define properly. What would he make of war today? As Matthew Parris pointed out in The Times, the NATO mission in Afghanistan is a semantic nightmare: “agent for change”; “assymmetric means of operation”; “capacity building”; “conditionality demand reduction”; “injectors of risk”; “kinetic situation”; “licit livelihood”; “light footprint”; “partnering and mentoring”; “reconciliation and reintegration”; “rolling out a touchdown approach”; “upskilling”. Today’s soldiers (or “stability enablers” as NATO prefers to call them) are lost in jargon. It represents both a lack of real conviction in policing the frontier, an embarrassment about war itself, and a confusion about the operational purpose, which always seems to be changing. Afghanistan is a tactically, not strategically, driven war as objectives and goals are recalibrated (usually downwards) according to success or failure in the field.

Read the rest here.

Eine solche Meldung würde wohl nicht nur in Polen etwas Beunruhigung auslösen? Ein potentieller Gegner hätte seine Distanz verkürzt auf Vorwarn-Zeiten, die eine Reaktion fast unmöglich machen würden. Sicher ginge auch ein Rauschen durch den deutschen Zeitungs-Blätterwald. Aber diese Hypothese steht “Gott sei Dank” nicht wirklich zur Debatte, es ist nämlich genau umgekehrt! Es ist der Westen, präzise es sind die NATO und die USA, die sich konsequent an die russischen Grenzen heranschieben. Verstehen auch wir, dass dies die Russen nicht eben beruhigt? Zusammen mit den US-Lakaien in Kiew, haben die USA eine veritable Klammer aufgebaut, bereit Moskau militärisch zu umfassen. Wenn man nicht die Absicht hat, Russland militärisch zu drohen, zu bedrohen, dann macht solch ein Verhalten keinen Sinn. Wenn dies aber die Absicht der USA ist, dann sollte die NATO dies schleunigst thematisieren, denn sonst hängen wir mit drin. Wir Deutsche müssen wirklich nicht ein drittes Mal in hundert Jahren gegen die Russen antreten! Russland spielt für uns als Rohstoff-Lieferant und Absatz-Markt inzwischen eine Rolle, die wir uns nicht so einfach von der NATO zerstören lassen sollten, oder? Wahrscheinlich wäre unser aller Kanzlerin in der Lage uns zu erklären, warum es das Beste für unser Land wäre, gegen unsere eigenen Interessen zu handeln? Auch die EU muss sich fragen lassen, ob es eigentlich normal ist, dass die USA auf Basis bilateraler Verträge in die EU hinein regieren und die Sicherheit der gesamten EU gefährden können? Die Stationierung von US- und NATO-Streitkräften sollte auf EU-Ebene einheitlich geregelt werden. Ausnahmen davon sollte es nicht geben, auch nicht im Falle Deutschlands.

Integrarea în structurile euroatlantice reprezintă dezideratul politic şi social al momentului, în România. Va fi acest pas o instituţionalizare de succes sau va determina o reactualizare a tradiţionalei metafore a “formelor fără fond”?

Studiul propus de autor asupra valorilor cadrelor militare, ca grup socioprofesional direct implicat în procesul de integrare, ne oferă un răspuns optimist la această întrebare.

Potrivit analizei sale, “sistemul de valori al cadrelor militare este în mod dominant, orientat către deschidere, modernitate şi schimbare”, fiind compatibil cu proiectul de restructurare a forţelor armate şi astfel, constituind “o resursă importantă a procesului de înnoire atât a organizaţiei militare cât şi a societăţii româneşti”.

Autorul demonstrează că “fondul militarilor români va constitui un factor favorizant” şi o resursă instituţională de luat în seamă în procesul de integrare a armatei române “în cadrul formelor euroatlantice”. tot articolul

by Anders
Published: Nov. 21, 2009 – Euro-med.dk

Summary: So far, the one-world government protagonists managed to cover up their plot by simply saying “Pth! Conspiracy theory,” although their groups have long been professing their quest to rule the world (world governance). Now in the EU Parliament, Italian MEP, Mario Borghezio, pointed out the farce which preceded the occupation of the office as the EU’s first permanent president: Rompuy first had to be examined by the Bilderbergers to have their seal of approval. So had the U.S. presidential candidates, Obama and Clinton, in 2008. Already in 1987, Senator Jesse Helms in the US Senate pointed to the great power exerted by named secret societies – including Bilderberg – to promote their New World Order, world governance, which Mr Barroso, Gordon Brown, Sarkozy, and now the new EU President Rompuy, too etc.. are talking so much about.
Daniel Estulin is probably the only uninvited person to attend a Bilderberg meeting, in 2005. He calls the Bilderbegers and their partne organizations (later) the world’s shadow government that threatens to make serfs of us, displace the nation state and plunder the planet for their own benefit. They will create an international identity and a universal set of “values”, perform sophisticated mind control, enforce their particular values by means of a world army, namely NATO, and create perpetual war, until everything is pax bilderbergica. They will reward their henchmen and destroy opponents. Their power is based on their control of the world´s money.

Naïvists have been thinking for a long time they could conceal the crimes of the world elite by just saying “Pth! Conspiracy theory!!!” every time they heard words like Bilderberg or other previously secret groups like the Trilateral Commission, The Club of Rome, the Council on Foreign Relations and the UN as the tools of superilluminist Rockefeller who founded it from scratch. No one of the establishment or MSM would ever mention them – and not at all the Bilderbergers. 
Nevertheless,  EU Commission President, José Barroso is a multiple Bilderberger also speaking in the US Council on Foreign Relations – video. Several of the heads of state in the European Council are also Bilderbergers. But now, something interesting has taken place which completely takes the wind out of the sails of the orthodox naïvists and accomplices of the New World Order.

EUObserver 16. Nov. 2009: Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy, the first permanent President of the EU,
laid out his views on future EU financing at a dinner of the secretive Bilderberg group last week. The event took place at Val Duchesse, a former priory on the outskirts of Brussels, on Thursday (12 November), with guests including Belgian industrialist and Bilderberg chairman Etienne Davignon, former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger and luminaries from the worlds of international politics and business, according to Belgian broadsheet De Tijd. The Belgian leader is reported to have said in a speech that: “New resources will be necessary for the financing of the welfare state. Green tax instruments are a possibility, but they are ambiguous: This type of tax will eventually be extinguished. But the possibilities of financial levies at European level must be seriously examined and for the first time the large countries in the union are open to that.” Comment: This is typical: No leader – unless he has been recognized by Bilderberg. And he was, because he will promote “global management” in Copenhagen. See the role of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference here.

The influence of Bilderberg in the EU Infowars November 15, 2009.
Italian MEP, Mario Borghezio , dropped a bomb shell at the EU this week.  “Concerning the nominations (Of EU President and High Representative) I believe we need to apply the principles of transparency, so often mentioned here in our institutions. Is it possible that no one has noticed that these persons visit the meetings of the Bilderberg and the Trilateral Commission. We need to establish clearly whether these are the candidates of their own countries’ political forces, or whether they are simply the candidates of these occult groups that meet behind closed door to decide matters over the heads of the people.” The candidates in question are Jan Peter Balkenende, David Miliband, and Herman Van Rompuy.

Dutch Prime Minister Balkenende attended the Bilderberg meeting 2008.  David Miliband, the current Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of Britain, is an EU operative pushing “environmental reform” and the globalist climate change agenda. Miliband went to Oxford and was a Kennedy Scholar at MIT, a scholarship with intimate ties to Anglo-American elitism. His father, Ralph Miliband, was a noted Marxist intellectual.
Herman Van Rompuy is the current Prime Minister of Belgium and a member of the King’s Crown Council. Van Rompuy also pushes the globalist “green” agenda. Van Rompuy “showed his hand” at a Bilderberg meeting when he “told the elite club that the European government leaders are increasingly becoming proponents of Europe tapping off green income,” in short fleecing the plebs under cover of the climate change ruse. 
In fact, thanks to Bilderberg sleuths Jim Tucker and Daniel Estulin, much of what the Bilderbergers have in mind for us has leaked out.

Bilderbergers 2008 and here Here is what US Senator, CFR-member Jesse Helms said from the floor of  the Senate on Dec. 15, 1987: “Mr. President, a careful examination of what is happening behind the scenes reveals that all of these interests are working in concert with the masters of the Kremlin in order to create what some refer to as a new world order. Private organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relation, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Trilateral Commission, the Dartmouth Conference, the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, the Atlantic Institute, and the Bilderberger Group serve to disseminate and to coordinate the plans for this so-called new world order in powerful business, financial, academic, and official circles….”

What is the Bilderberg Club?
The Bilderberg group is an elite club of aristocrats, politicians and businessmen dating back to 1954, which likes to meet away from the public eye. I have previously described its origin on this blog. And I have previously described how one of the the brains in this worldwide Bilderberg conspiration practice , Rothschild, is the mastermind behind the CO2–scam and how he has managed to create the running economic crisis.

Daniel Estulin attended the Bilderberg meeting 2005.  Global Research 1 June 2009 has a recension of Daniel Estulin´s book “The True Story of the Bilderberg Group,”  He states that in 1954, “the most powerful men in the world met for the first time” at Hotel Bilderberg, in Oosterbeek, Netherlands, “debated the future of the world,” and decided to meet annually in secret. They called themselves the Bilderberg Group with a membership representing a who’s who of world power elites, mostly from America, Canada, and Western Europe with familiar names like David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel, Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, Lloyd Blankfein, George Soros, Donald Rumsfeld, Rupert Murdoch, other heads of state, influential senators, congressmen and parliamentarians, Pentagon and NATO brass, members of European royalty, selected media figures, and invited others – some quietly by some accounts like Barack Obama and many of his top officials.

Always well represented are top figures from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), IMF, World Bank, Trilateral Commission, EU, and powerful central bankers from the Federal Reserve, the ECB’s Jean-Claude Trichet, and Bank of England’s Mervyn King. For over half a century, no agenda or discussion topics became public nor is any press coverage allowed. The few invited fourth estate attendees and their bosses are sworn to secrecy. Nonetheless, Estulin undertook “an investigative journey” that became his life’s work. He states: “Slowly, one by one, I have penetrated the layers of secrecy surrounding the Bilderberg Group, but I could not have done this withot help of ‘conscientious objectors’ from inside, as well as outside, the Group’s membership.” As a result, he keeps their names confidential. 

Whatever its early mission, the Group is now “a shadow world government….threaten(ing) to take away our right to direct our own destinies (by creating) a disturbing reality” very much harming the public’s welfare. In short, Bilderbergers want to supplant individual nation-state sovereignty with an all-powerful global government, corporate controlled, and check-mated by militarized enforcement.

Early in its history, Bilderbergers decided to ….loot the planet, achieve fabulous wealth and power, and crush all challengers to keep it.

Along with military dominance, controlling the world’s money is crucial for with it comes absolute control,  as the powerful 19th century Rothschild family understood. As the patriarch Amschel Rothschild once said: “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws.”
Membership consists of annual attendees (around 80 of the world’s most powerful) and others only invited occasionally because of their knowledge or involvement in relevant topics. Those most valued are asked back, and some first-timers are chosen for their possible later usefulness.

Arkansas governor Bill Clinton, for example, who attended in 1991. “There, David Rockefeller told (him) why the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)….was a Bilderberg priority and that the group needed him to support it. The next year, Clinton was elected president,” and on January 1, 1994 NAFTA took effect. Numerous other examples are similar, including who gets chosen for powerful government, military and other key positions.  Clinton admits his participation – seemingly unwell – video.

Bilderberg  Objectives
The Group’s grand design is for “a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace, policed by one world army, and financially regulated by one ‘World (Central) Bank’ using one global currency.” Their “wish list” includes:
— “one international identity (observing) one set of universal values;”
— centralized control of world populations by “mind control – and here;” in other words, controlling world public opinion;
— a New World Order with no middle class, only “rulers and servants (serfs),” and, of course, no democracy;
— “a zero-growth society” without prosperity or progress, only greater wealth and power for the rulers;
– manufactured crises and perpetual wars;
– absolute control of education to program the public mind and train those chosen for various roles;
— “centralized control of all foreign and domestic policies;” one size fits all globally;
— using the UN as a de facto world government imposing a UN tax on “world citizens;”
— expanding NAFTA and WTO globally;
— making NATO a world military;
— imposing a universal legal system; and
— a global “welfare state where obedient slaves will be rewarded and non-conformists targeted for extermination.”

(To be continued: Bilderberg partners)

Source: http://euro-med.dk/?p=11850

Related:

The Bilderberg Group and the project of European unification

The End of the Nation States of Europe

What are Bilderberg Conferences all about?

Bilderberg-chairman: ‘Bilderberg helped create the Euro’

Intimidation, Bribery, Lies, Concealment and Breaches of Constitutions for Irish Yes to Lisbon Treaty to Position EU´s War Chief

Bilderberg Van Rompuy the New EU President (With Video)

Siamo in attesa di conferme, ma a quanto ci fanno sapere dall’Iraq è in arrivo una “chicca”.
La Repubblica delle Banane starebbe investendo da quelle parti 200 milioni di dollari per l’approntamento di una base militare, questa volta tutta “tricolore”, apparentemente slegata da necessità di sicurezza per il personale dell’ENI nei campi estrazione di Zubair e Nassiriya.
Ma passiamo ad altro, saltiamo dei parallelismi, e torniamo al Qurinale. Al Consiglio Supremo di Difesa dell’11 Novembre.
Le “novità“ scaturite dal summit (si fa per dire) organizzato e presieduto da Giorgio Napolitano con Silvio Berlusconi nella veste di “vicepresidente“, hanno preso forma e sostanza nella settimana successiva, a partire dal 17, un giorno che porta ancora più sfiga del mese dei morti.
Tagli agli organici e “privatizzazione“ delle FF.AA., esclusi provvedimenti che peraltro stanno clamorosamente venendo alla luce in queste ore.
“Novità“ apparentemente slegate ma che fanno parte, di fatto, di un unico indirizzo politico e militare di respiro “strategico“ accuratamente nascosto tra le righe del comunicato ufficiale della Segreteria Generale del Quirinale già dal giorno 9.
Il 17 Novembre, La Russa Ignazio è in “Israele“ a rendere omaggio (ancora una volta a spese degli italiani) allo Yad Vashem, accompagnato dall’ambasciatore Mattiolo e dal suo consigliere personale per gli “affari internazionali“ on. Ruben (!), del PdL.
Incontrerà Il Primo Ministro Netanyahu e il Ministro della Difesa Barak, sottolineando l’importanza della visita per… “ampliare i rapporti di collaborazione tra due Paesi amici e far acquisire all’Italia la tecnologia anti-Ied per evitare altri lutti alle forze armate italiane in Afghanistan“. Una dichiarazioncina che la dice tutta sulla calibrata perfidia dell’azzeccagarbugli atlantista.
Lo stesso giorno atterra all’aereoporto Ben Gurion, proveniente dal Comando Generale della NATO di Bruxelles, l’ammiraglio Giampaolo Di Paola, di cui ci siamo già occupati per la Task Force 45, per una visita di due giorni su invito del Capo di Stato Maggiore Ashkenazy e successivo incontro con il Ministro della Difesa Barak e alti ufficiali dello S.M. per… “esaminare le forme di un ulteriore approfondimento nella cooperazione militare e di difesa tra Israele e la NATO”. L’ammiraglio visiterà la base aerea di Palmachin e l’Unità Yahalom.
Su Ria Novosti, il 18, il corrispondente Ylia Kramnik dà conto dell’intervista rilasciata 24 ore prima a Londra da Franco Frattini al “Times” dove il (nostro?) Ministro degli Esteri dice, papale papale, quanto segue: “La NATO sta discutendo attivamente la possibilità di istituire un esercito comune europeo per lungo tempo “(!) .
Il Titolare della Farnesina andrà un po’ più in là sostenendo che “la nuova Europa che uscirà il 19 Novembre dal Trattato di Lisbona al vertice UE sarà sostenuta dal forte appoggio dell’Italia che spinge per la creazione di un nuovo esercito europeo come centro di un potere globale di intervento nelle aree di crisi “.
Dichiarazioni che trovano una collimazione perfetta con l’’odg discusso nel Consiglio Supremo di Difesa l’11 Novembre al Quirinale.
(…)

Da Banderuole, complottardi e lacché NATO: tutti uniti appassionatamente, di Giancarlo Chetoni
[grassetto nostro]