Geen evolutie en ecolutie zonder revolutie!

Albert Einstein:

Twee dingen zijn oneindig: het universum en de menselijke domheid. Maar van het universum ben ik niet zeker.
Posts tonen met het label Churchill. Alle posts tonen
Posts tonen met het label Churchill. Alle posts tonen

vrijdag 17 mei 2019

John Bolton (VS nationaal 'veiligheidsadviseur'): het is een goede zaak om te liegen over oorlog.......

Caitlin Johnstone schreef een artikel op haar site waarin ze een uitspraak van Bolton aanhaalde, waarin hij openlijk stelde dat het goed is om te liegen over oorlog (en oorlogsmisdaden, iets dat oorlogsmisdadiger Bolton er uiteraard niet bij vertelde)

Johnstone kreeg van Whitney Webb een video uit 2010 waarin psychopaat Bolton deze en andere ongelofelijke uitspraken durfde te doen. Alsof het zijn zaak extra zou ondersteunen haalde Bolton een uitspraak aan van Winston Churchill (die in de 20er jaren van de vorige eeuw nog mosterdgas inzette tegen bedoeïenen in wat nu Irak is.....), de vertaling van deze uitspraak komt ongeveer neer op: de waarheid in een oorlog is zo belangrijk dat deze omringd moet worden door leugen lijfwachten..... (de Engelse versie die Bolton gebruikte vind je in het hieronder opgenomen artikel van Johnstone)

Om zijn uitspraak nog meer kracht bij te zetten stelde Bolton dat het noodzakelijk was om te liegen over D-day..... Alsof dit ook maar enigszins is te vergelijken met de illegale oorlogen die de VS sinds WOII voert, dit wel of niet in combinatie met een geheime economische oorlog, om zo een opstand te veroorzaken, waarmee een regime verandering zou kunnen worden doorgedrukt.....

Als het voorgaande niet lukt staat uiteraard het scenario van een VS invasie nog ter beschikking, ook al een beproefd recept van de VS. Naast geheime militaire CIA acties en het vermoorden van verdachten middels drones (waar meer dan 90% van de slachtoffers niet eens werd verdacht), heeft de VS sinds het eind van WOII meer dan 22,5 miljoen mensen vermoord (waarbij de VS deels ook de NAVO gebruikte, waarover dit land permanent het opperbevel voert...).....

Lees het ontluisterend verhaal van Johnstone en zegt het voort, we zijn meer dan overtijd als het gaat om het blind zijn bij het overgrote deel van de westerse bevolking voor de grootschalige terreur die de VS gebruikt tegen een fiks deel van de wereld........ Terreur ook uit onze naam, zo was Nederland betrokken bij de voorbereiding van de oorlog tegen Irak, die ons land ook nog eens politiek en militair steunde....... Terreur die mede met ons belastinggeld werd en wordt uitgeoefend..... 

Om over de enorme kosten die oorlogsvoering met zich meebrengen maar te zwijgen, kosten voor wederopbouw van het land dat door de VS in puin werd gelegd, kosten voor behandeling van oorlogsslachtoffers en de kosten die worden gemaakt voor vluchtelingen (waar de ellende voor deze mensen niet eens in geld is uit te drukken...), vluchtelingen die met vele duizenden al zijn verdronken in de Middellandse en Egeïsche Zee..... Kosten als de 6 miljard euro die de EU aan Turkije gaf om vluchtelingen af te schrikken, gevangen te zetten en tegen te houden als ze willen vluchten naar de EU, terwijl EU landen, zoals gezegd, mede hoofdverantwoordelijk zijn voor de reden waarom deze mensen hun moederland ontvluchtten......

De brutaliteit die oorlogshitsers als de topman van Washington Institute Of Near East Policy (WINEP), Patrick Clawson, ten toon spreiden is ongekend, zo pleitte deze smerige oorlogshitser openlijk voor een false flag operatie om zo een reden te creëren waarmee de VS Iran (zogenaamd legitiem) aan kan vallen (de link naar dat gebeuren vind je in het artikel van Johnstone). Met die strijdbijl heeft de VS al veel vaker gehakt, neem de reden voor deelname van de VS aan de Eerste en Tweede Wereldoorlog, of de oorlog van de VS tegen Noord-Vietnam......

Het artikel van Johnstone nam ik over van Anti-Media:

That Time John Bolton Said It’s Good to Lie About War

May 16, 2019 at 8:37 am
Written by Caitlin Johnstone

(CJ Opinion) — Journalist Whitney Webb recently tweeted a 2010 video clip I’d never seen before featuring US National Security Advisor John Bolton defending the use of deception in advancing military agendas, which highlights something we should all be paying attention to as Trump administration foreign policy becomes increasingly Boltonized.

On a December 2010 episode of Fox News’ Freedom Watch, Bolton and the show’s host Andrew Napolitano were debating about recent WikiLeaks publications, and naturally the subject of government secrecy came up.

Now I want to make the case for secrecy in government when it comes to the conduct of national security affairs, and possibly for deception where that’s appropriate,” Bolton said. “You know Winston Churchill said during World War Two that in wartime truth is so important it should be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies.”

Do you really believe that?” asked an incredulous Napolitano.

Absolutely,” Bolton replied.

You would lie in order to preserve the truth?”

If I had to say something I knew was false to protect American national security, I would do it,” Bolton answered.


I don’t think we’re often faced with that difficulty, but would I lie about where the D-Day invasion was going to take place to deceive the Germans, you’d better believe it,” Bolton continued.

Why do people in the government think that the laws of society or the rules don’t apply to
them?” Napolitano asked.

Because they are not dealing in the civil society we live in under the Constitution,” Bolton replied. “They are dealing in the anarchic environment internationally where different rules apply.”

But you took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and the Constitution mandates certain openness and certain fairness,” Napolitano protested. “You’re willing to do away with that in order to attain a temporary military goal?”

I think as Justice Jackson said in a famous decision, the Constitution is not a suicide pact,” Bolton said. “And I think defending the United States from foreign threats does require actions that in a normal business environment in the United States we would find unprofessional. I don’t make any apology for it.”

So that’s a thing. And it’s important for us to know it’s a thing because of the way things are heating up in Iran right now, since Bolton’s fingerprints are all over it.

Bolton has long been calling for war with Iran and in a paid speech in July 2017 told his
pro-egime change MEK terror cult audience that they would be celebrating the successful overthrow of the Iranian government together before 2019. Now we’re seeing threat alarms being elevated and fearmongering about Iranian missiles being circulated, with reports being leaked to the press of possible plans to send 120,000 US troops to the region.


This is an environment that is ripe for deceptions of all sorts, and, given what Bolton said on live television nearly a decade ago, we would all do very well to remain very, very skeptical of any and all news we hear about Iran going forward. If for example you hear that within this environment of escalated tensions and military posturing Iran or one of its “proxies” has attacked the United States in some way, your immediate response should be one of intense skepticism about what the mass media talking heads are telling you to believe.

Back in 2012 at a forum for the Washington Institute Of Near East Policy (WINEP) think tank, the group’s Director of Research Patrick Clawson openly talked about the possibility of using a false flag to provoke a war with Iran.

I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough, and it’s very hard for me to see how the United States president can get us to war with Iran,” Clawson began.

(Can I just pause here to note what a bizarre series of words that is? “Get us to war with Iran?”
Get us to the thing that every sane human being wants to avoid with every fiber of their being? You want to “get us to” there? This is not the kind of thing normal humans say. You only hear this kind of insanity in the DC swamp where creatures like John Bolton have their roots.)

Which leads me to conclude that if in fact compromise is not coming, that the traditional way that America gets to war is what would be best for US interests,” Clawson added. “Some people might think that Mr. Roosevelt wanted to get us into the war… you may recall we had to wait for Pearl Harbor. Some people might think that Mr. Wilson wanted to get us into World War One; you may recall we had to wait for the Lusitania episode. Some people might think that Mr. Johnson wanted to get us into Vietnam; you may recall we had to wait for the Gulf of Tonkin episode. We didn’t go to war with Spain until the USS Maine exploded. And may I point out that Mr. Lincoln did not feel that he could call out the Army until Fort Sumter was attacked, which is why he ordered the commander at Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing which the South Carolinians said would cause an attack.”

So if, in fact, the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war,” Clawson continued. “One can combine other means of pressure with sanctions. I mentioned that explosion on August 17th. We could step up the pressure. I mean look people, Iranian submarines periodically go down. Some day, one of them might not come up. Who would know why? We can do a variety of things, if we wish to increase the pressure (I’m not advocating that) but I’m just suggesting that this is not an either/or proposition — just sanctions have to succeed or other things. We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians.
We could get nastier at that.”

“We Know Where Your Kids Live” John Bolton threatened head of chemical weapons commission as part of effort launch war against Iraq https://theintercept.com/2018/03/29/john-bolton-trump-bush-bustani-kids-opcw/ 

“We Know Where Your Kids Live”: How John Bolton Once Threatened an International Official

“John Bolton is a bully,” said José Bustani, a retired Brazilian diplomat. “I don’t know how people can work for him.”
theintercept.com





So these are ideas that have been in circulation for many years. That gun is loaded and ready to fire.

Bolton trussed up his 2010 confession using an example that most people would agree with: that it was reasonable for the Allied forces to deliberately deceive the Nazis about the nature of the D-Day invasion. But we know John Bolton better than that by now.

This PNAC director and architect of the Iraq war once threatened to murder a foreign official’s children because his successful diplomatic efforts were putting a damper on the manufacturing of consent for the Iraq invasion. He wasn’t defending the use of deception in crucial military options used to halt tyrants trying to take over the world, he was defending the use of deception in the senseless wars of aggression that he has built his political career on advancing.

Take everything you hear about Iran with a planet-sized grain of salt, dear reader, and everything you hear about Venezuela too while we’re on the subject. There are skillful manipulators who are hell bent on toppling the governments of those nations, and they have absolutely no problem whatsoever with deceiving you in order to facilitate that. And they don’t believe the rules apply to them.

Support Caitlin’s work on Patreon or Paypal.


Opinion by Caitlin Johnstone / Republished with permission / Medium / Report a typo

zondag 11 maart 2018

VS agressie in Syrië voorzien van een vooropgezet plan.......

Hier een artikel dat op de hoop concepten bleef liggen, een artikel van Information Clearing House gepubliceerd op 23 februari jl.

In dit artikel een duidelijke uitleg over wat er nu gaande is in het door de VN als soeverein erkende Syrische bewind en de door haar ingeroepen hulp van Rusland, Iran en andere ondersteunende strijdgroepen.

Een artikel over de enorme anti-Syrische, anti-Russische en anti-Iraanse propaganda gebracht door de reguliere westerse (massa-) media, propaganda die herhaald wordt door het overgrote deel van de westerse politici......

Neem Turkije dat het Syrische bewind van terrorisme beschuldigde, daar dit bewind volkomen terecht probeerde en probeert de Turken, die illegaal Syrië zijn binnengevallen, uit haar land probeert te verdrijven..... Een illegale inval in een ander land is één van de zwaarste vormen van terreur en een oorlogsmisdaad van formaat! Turkije doet dit daar het stelt dat YPG terreurorganisatie is die een direct gevaar vormt voor de Turkse staat, echter deze groepering heeft tot nu toe niet één aanslag in Turkije gepleegd...........

Toch kan Turkije gewoon haar gang gaan, het westen onthoudt zich van commentaar, laat staan dat het ingrijpt door van Turkije te eisen zich terug te trekken uit Syrië en stemt daarmee in met deze grote oorlogsmisdaad, waarbij intussen een groot aantal mensen zijn vermoord door Turkije... Kijk daar hoor je de verontwaardigde westerse reguliere media niet over, terwijl de leugens in die media over Oost-Ghouta niet meer te tellen zijn (ofwel 'fake news' over dit stadsdeel).......

Dit is nog maar één voorbeeld, lees het volgende artikel ajb en geeft het door, een artikel waarin wordt aangegeven dat de agressie van de VS in Syrië van een vooraf opgezet plan is voorzien. (o.l.v. de VS, zijn o.a. Saoedi-Arabië, Turkije en Groot-Brittannie, al vanaf 2006 bezig geweest een opstand uit te lokken tegen het Syrische bewind, dit met de opzet een staatsgreep te bewerkstelligen tegen Assad)

US Aggression in Syria – an Imperialist Blueprint

Editorial

February 23, 2018 "Information Clearing House" -  Syria’s prolonged conflict and misery going into its eighth year is no accident. It is by design. American imperialist design.

First though, we note the increasing reprehensible absurdity in this conflict.

Turkey, which invaded Syria nearly a month ago in violation of Syria’s sovereignty, this week accused Damascus of “terrorism” after the Syrian government sent forces to defend the northern area near Afrin under assault from Turkey.

Meanwhile, US forces, again illegally occupying Syria in violation of international law, claim to be fighting terrorist militia. Yet more often than not, the Americans are affording protection to various terrorist groups. 

Then when Syrian state forces advance to clear the terror groups, the US claims it is acting in “self-defense” by massacring whole units of the Syrian army.

Further absurdity is due to France, which has been bombing Syria illegally along with the US and Britain, warning Iranian militia, who are legally present in Syria owing to Damascus’ approval, that they have to withdraw from the country.

As if the situation couldn’t get any more bizarre, Israel has carried out more than 100 air strikes on Syria, claiming that the aggression are “acts of self-defense”.

The Syrian government of President Assad is the sovereign authority of the country, as recognized by UN resolutions. It has the right to defend its nation and to reclaim areas which have been usurped by illegally armed groups. Virtually all of these insurgents are foreign-backed proxies who have been waging a war for regime change according to the designs of their foreign sponsors.

The only armed forces legally present in Syria are those of Russia, Iran and associated militia who have been requested legally by the Syrian government to assist in defending the state from a foreign-backed war.

It is within the sovereign right of the Syrian government to take back all areas, including the suburb of East Ghouta near the capital Damascus. The district has been held under siege by foreign-backed extremists going by the name of Jaysh al Islam who are affiliated with internationally proscribed terror groups Al Nusra Front and Islamic State.

The impetus to liberate East Ghouta has come about because the militants have been firing mortars at nearby Damascus with deadly results.

Not only are Western states violating international law by militarily hampering the Syrian army and its allies in rescuing the country from foreign insurgents, the Western governments and media are mounting a propaganda campaign in an attempt to tie the Syrian state forces’ hands behind their backs by distorting their legal duty as “barbarism”.

Out of the half million people who have died in the past seven years of war in Syria, it is estimated that nearly half of that total were members of the Syrian army.

Added to the Western calumnies over Syria are claims that Syrian state forces have been using chemical weapons on civilian populations. The evidence points in fact to the Western-backed so-called jihadists who have been stealthily using these weapons for false-flag propaganda stunts.

To understand the chaotic conflict in Syria, we must refer to the decades-old imperial designs that the US and its allies have had towards the country. The Americans and the British governments going back to Eisenhower and Churchill in the 1950s wanted to destabilize and subjugate the Arab republic – a former French colony.

In 1996, a new generation of imperialists in Washington led by Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser and other neoconservatives formulated the “Clean Break” strategy. The strategy in conjunction with Israel sought to destabilize and “roll back” Syria because of its alliance with Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.

More widely, the neoconservatives in Washington openly declared their aim of balkanizing the entire region in order to, in their calculation, make Israel more secure. Syria and Iraq were top priorities for US-imposed chaos.

Significantly, the Clean Break strategy designated Turkey as a key partner to the US and Israel for implementing this plan.

The same American neoconservative planners went on to occupy key positions at the Pentagon and State Department during President George W Bush administrations. There is every reason to believe their stratagem of organized chaos – as a way of exerting hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East – continues to be the guiding, albeit tacit, policy of the US government under President Trump.

Russia, Iran and Hezbollah largely helped Syria bring the war to a close at the end of last year with the widespread routing of foreign-backed insurgents. However, a subsequent peace process brokered by Russia, Iran and Turkey has lost momentum. The violence in Syria appears to re-igniting.

The increasingly overt military presence of US and Turkish forces, as well as Israeli incursions, is the clearest factor in the resurgence of conflict. More than ever, the US and its allies are operating on a brazen imperial design to dismember Syria and its territorial integrity.

This is nothing short of criminal aggression by Washington following a deliberate plan for regional domination. This imperialist intrigue should be called out for what is by the United Nations. But rather than upholding the UN Charter, the body’s senior figures are joining in the Western chorus of condemning Syria for defending its national rights.

The UN is appearing like the ineffectual League of Nations in the 1930s when it pandered to Nazi and fascist aggression. What the US and its allies are doing now in Syria is a repeat – fanning the flames of wider war in the Middle East.

Laws and sovereignty are being smashed at will and yet the Western media and UN are blind to the aggression. Indeed, they are turning reality on its head, by blaming victim-states for the aggression.

The straightforward bottom line is that the US, Turkey, Israel and other NATO powers must withdraw from Syria. Respect Syria’s sovereignty and desist from criminal intrigues for regime change. This is a minimum of abiding by international law.

If these protagonists persist in their criminal schemes, the region is heading for a conflagration sparing no-one.

This article was originally published by "Strategic Culture Foundation" -

Tags: Syria (op Strategic Culture Foundation)
============================

Zie ook: 'Oost-Ghouta >> 'gematigde rebellen' schieten op vluchtende burgers, aldus VN....... Aandacht in Nederlandse media nul komma nada....' (waar me het nog meeviel dat deze media niet hebben gemeld dat Syrische troepen op de vluchtelingen schoten, zoals in Oost-Aleppo gebeurde, waarover je rustig kan zeggen dat dit een false flag operatie was)



donderdag 30 maart 2017

Alexander Pechtold en zijn grote held: oorlogsmisdadiger Churchill........

Stan van Houcke bracht gisteren op zijn blog een artikel over Pechtold, beter gezegd over 'de held' die Pechtold vereert: massamoordenaar Churchill.

Churchill was een groot voorstander van de EU, al moet je daar wel bij opmerken, dat Churchill gezien zijn geschiedenis geen groot voorstander was van democratie. Dat past dan weer mooi bij de EU, waar de democratie ver te zoeken is en dat deelnemende landen als het zo uitkomt, volkomen uitperst en aan de ketting kan leggen, zie Griekenland....... Een dictatuur kan het niet 'beter' doen!

Zoals gezegd: Churchill was in feite een massamoordenaar, waar je zelfs WOII niet als bewijs voor nodig hebt..........

Van Houcke nam een artikel over van 'Crimes of Britain', waarin een opsomming is opgenomen, over de enorme misdaden die Churchill beging.

Oordeel zelf over 'de held' van de neoliberale hufter Pechtold:

Alexander Pechtold's Inspiratiebron


Wat inspireert Alexander Pechtold? 

Op de schouw in de werkkamer van Alexander Pechtold staan twee beeldjes van Winston Churchill. Deze Britse politicus wist na de Tweede Wereldoorlog één ding zeker: alleen met een verenigd Europa kon vrede en veiligheid gewaarborgd worden. 


Tegen de tijdgeest in stond hij op voor meer Europese samenwerking, en met die boodschap reisde hij het hele continent over. Hoe actueel! Hoe inspirerend! Daarover vertelt Pechtold in Optimist in de politiek én in deze video! #optimist


- See more at: http://www.hollandsdiep.nl/post/?N_ID=1627#sthash.49RrOutC.dpuf


MIJN HELD: Alexander Pechtold over Winston Churchill

D66-leider Alexander Pechtold is fan van Winston Churchill. Hij roemt Churchill - premier van Groot-Brittannië van 1940 tot 1945 - als belangrijkste pleitbezorger van het Europese eenwordingsideaal.


https://www.historischnieuwsblad.nl/nl/artikel/47193/mijn-held-alexander-pechtold-over-winston-churchill.html



The crimes of Winston Churchill




cskfn3lwcaa1x-j


England celebrates their genocides. The ‘Winston Churchill note’ has entered circulation. Honouring a man who swilled on champagne while 4 million men, women and children in Bengal starved due to his racist colonial policies.

The trial of Churchill:

Churchill was a genocidal maniac. He is fawned over in Britain and held up as a hero of the nation. He was voted ‘Greatest Briton’ of all time. Below is the real history of Churchill, the history of a white supremacist whose hatred for Indians led to four million starving to death, the man who loathed Irish people so much he conceived different ways to terrorise them, the racist thug who waged war on black people across Africa and in Britain. This is the trial of Winston Churchill, the enemy of all humanity.


CWC3JuRWcAEC7FS

THE TRIAL OF WINSTON CHURCHILL:

Afghanistan:


winston-churchill-soldier-396934



Churchill found his love for war during the time he spent in Afghanistan. While there he said “all who resist will be killed without quarter” because the Pashtuns need “recognise the superiority of race”. He believed the Pashtuns needed to be dealt with, he would reminisce in his writings about how he partook in the burning villages and peoples homes:
We proceeded systematically, village by village, and we destroyed the houses, filled up the wells, blew down the towers, cut down the great shady trees, burned the crops and broke the reservoirs in punitive devastation.” – Churchill on how the British carried on in Afghanistan, and he was only too happy to be part of it.
Churchill would also write of how “every tribesman caught was speared or cut down at once”. Proud of the terror he helped inflict on the people of Afghanistan Churchill was well on the road to becoming a genocidal maniac.

Greece:


demonstrators-in-Athens-w-012


The British Army under the guidance of Churchill perpetrated a massacre on the streets of Athens in the month of December 1944. 28 protesters were shot dead, a further 128 injured. The British demanded that all guerrilla groups should disarm on the 2nd December 1944. The following day 200,000 people took to the streets, and this is when the British Army under Churchill’s orders turned their guns on the people.

Churchill regarded ELAS (Greek People’s Liberation Army) and EAM (National Liberation Front) as “miserable banditti”, these were the very people who ran the Nazis out. His actions in the month of December were purely out of his hatred and paranoia for communism.

The British backed the right-wing government in Greece returned from exile after the very same partisans of the resistance that Churchill ordered the murder of had driven out the Nazi occupiers. Soviet forces were well received in Greece, this deeply worried Churchill.

He planned to restore the monarchy in Greece to combat any possible communist influence. The events in December were part of that strategy.

In 1945, Churchill sent Charles Wickham to Athens where he was in charge of training the Greek security police. Wickham learned his tricks of the trade in British occupied Ireland between 1922-1945 where he was a commander of the colonial RUC, responsible for countless terror.

In April 1945 Churchill said “the [Nazi] collaborators in Greece in many cases did the best they could to shelter the Greek population from German oppression” and went on to say “the Communists are the main foe”.

India:

2-wB1iCCm


I’d rather see them have a good civil war”. – Churchill wishing partition on India
Very few in Britain know about the genocide in Bengal let alone how Churchill engineered it. Churchill’s hatred for Indians led to four million starving to death during the Bengal ‘famine’ of 1943. “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion” he would say.

Bengal had a better than normal harvest during the British enforced famine. The British Army took millions of tons of rice from starving people to ship to the Middle East – where it wasn’t even needed. When the starving people of Bengal asked for food, Churchill said the ‘famine’ was their own fault “for breeding like rabbits”. The Viceroy of India said “Churchill’s attitude towards India and the famine is negligent, hostile and contemptuous”. Even right wing imperialist Leo Amery who was the British Secretary of State in India said he “didn’t see much difference between his [Churchill] outlook and Hitler’s”. Churchill refused all of the offers to send aid to Bengal, Canada offered 10,000 tons of rice, the U.S 100,000, he just point blank refused to allow it. Churchill was still swilling champaign while he caused four million men, women and children to starve to death in Bengal.

Throughout WW2 India was forced to ‘lend’ Britain money. Churchill moaned about “Indian money lenders” the whole time. The truth is Churchill never waged war against fascism.

He went to war with Germany to defend the British Empire, he said this about India during WW2 “are we to incur hundreds of millions of debt for defending India only to be kicked out by the Indians afterwards”.
In 1945 Churchill said “the Hindus were race protected by their mere pullulation from the doom that is due”. The Bengal famine wasn’t enough for Churchill’s blood lust, he wished his favourite war criminal Arthur Harris could have bombed them.

Iran:

iran

A prize from fairyland beyond our wildest dreams” – Churchill on Iran’s oil
When Britain seized Iran’s oil industry Churchill proclaimed it was “a prize from fairyland beyond our wildest dreams”. Churchill meddled in Iranian affairs for decades, he helped exclude Iranians from their natural resources and encouraged the looting when most lived in severe poverty.

In June 1914 Churchill proposed a bill in the House of Commons that would see the British government become the major shareholder of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The company would go on to refrain from paying Iran its share of the dividends before paying tax to the British exchequer. Essentially the British were illegally taxing the Iranian government.

When the nationalist government of Mohammad Mosaddegh threatened British ‘interests’ in Iran, Churchill was there, ready to protect them at any cost. Even if that meant desecrating democracy. He helped organise a coup against Mosaddegh in August 1953.  He told the CIA operations officer that helped carry out the plan “if i had been but a few years younger, I would have loved nothing better than to have served under your command in this great venture”.

Churchill arranged for the BBC to send coded messages to let the Shah of Iran know that they were overthrowing the democratically elected government. Instead of the BBC ending their Persian language news broadcast with “it is now midnight in London” they under Churchill’s orders said “it is now exactly midnight”.

Churchill went on to privately describe the coup as “the finest operation since the end of the war [WW2]”. Being a proud product of imperialism he had no issue ousting Mosaddegh so Britain could get back to sapping the riches of Iran.

Iraq:

Cairo_Conference_1921

I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against the uncivilized tribes… it would spread a lively terror.” – Churchill on the use of gas in the Middle East and India
Churchill was appointed ‘Secretary of State for the Colonies’ in 1921 and he formed the ‘Middle East Department’ which was responsible for Iraq. Determined to have his beloved

empire on the cheap he decided air power could replace ground troops. A strategy of bombing any resistance to British rule was now employed.

Several times in the 1920s various groups in the region now known as Iraq rose up against the British. The air force was then put into action, indiscriminately bombing civilian areas so to subdue the population.

Churchill was also an advocate for the use of mustard and poison gases. Whilst ‘Secretary for War and Air’ he advised that “the provision of some kind of asphyxiating bombs” should be used “for use in preliminary operations against turbulent tribes” in order to take control of Iraq.

When Iraqi tribes stood up for themselves, under the direction of Churchill the British unleashed terror on mud, stone and reed villages.

Churchill’s bombing of civilians in ‘Mesopotamia’ (Kurdistan and Iraq) was summed up by war criminal ‘Bomber Harris’:
The Arab and Kurd now know what real bombing means within 45 minutes a full-sized village can be practically wiped out, and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured, by four or five machines which offer them no real target, no opportunity for glory as warriors, no effective means of escape”. – Arthur ‘Bomber’ Harris

Ireland:

black-and-tans

We have always found the Irish a bit odd. They refuse to be English” – Churchill
In 1904 Churchill said “I remain of the opinion that a separate parliament for Ireland would be dangerous and impractical”. Churchill’s ancestry is linked to loyalism to Britain, he is a direct descendent of the ‘Marquis of Londonderry’ who helped put down the 1798 United Irishmen rising. He would live up to his families reputation when it came to suppressing revolutionary forces in Ireland.

The Black and Tans were the brainchild of Churchill, he sent the thugs to Ireland to terrorise at will. Attacking civilians and civilian property they done Churchill proud, rampaging across the country carrying out reprisals. He went on to describe them as “gallant and honourable officers”. It was also Churchill who conceived the idea of forming the Auxiliaries who carried out the Croke Park massacre, firing into the crowd at a Gaelic football match, killing 14. Of course this didn’t fulfill Churchill’s bloodlust to repress as people who he described as “odd” for their refusal “to be English”, he went on to advocate the use of air power in Ireland against Sinn Fein members in 1920. He suggested to his war advisers that aeroplanes should be dispatched with orders to use “machine-gun fire or bombs” to “scatter and stampede them”.

Churchill was an early advocate for the partitioning of Ireland. During the treaty negotiations he insisted on retaining navy bases in Ireland. In 1938 those bases were handed back to Ireland. However in 1939 Churchill proposed capturing Berehaven base by force. In 1941 Churchill supported a plan to introduce conscription in the North of Ireland.

Churchill went on to remark ”the bloody Irish, what have they ever done for our wars”, reducing Ireland’s merit to what it might provide by way of resources (people) for their imperialist land grabs.

Kenya:

29-British-Police-Corbis


Britain declared a state of emergency in Kenya in 1952 to protect its system of institutionalised racism that they established throughout their colonies so to exploit the indigenous population. Churchill being your archetypical British supremacist believed that Kenya’s fertile highlands should be only for white colonial settlers. He approved the forcible removal of the local population, which he termed “blackamoors”.

150,000 men, women and children were forced into concentration camps. Children’s schools were shut by the British who branded them “training grounds for rebellion”. Rape, castration, cigarettes, electric shocks and fire all used by the British to torture the Kenyan people under Churchill’s watch.

In 1954 in a British cabinet meeting Churchill and his men discussed the forced labour of Kenyan POWs and how to circumvent the constraints of two treaties they were breaching:
This course [detention without trial and forced labour] had been recommended despite the fact that it was thought to involve a technical breach of the Forced Labour Convention of 1930 and the Convention on Human Rights adopted by the Council of Europe”
The Cowan Plan advocated the use of force and sometimes death against Kenyan POWs who refused to work. Churchill schemed to allow this to continue.

Caroline Elkins book gives a glimpse into the extent that the crimes in Kenya were known in both official and unofficial circles in Britain and how Churchill brushed off the terror the colonial British forces inflicted on the native population. He even ‘punished’ Edwina Mountbatten for mentioning it, “Edwina Mountbatten was conversing about the emergency with India’s prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, and the then colonial secretary, Oliver Lyttleton. When Lyttleton commented on the “terrible savagery” of Mau Mau… Churchill retaliated, refusing to allow Lord Mountbatten to take his wife with him on an official visit to Turkey”.

Palestine:


church-jer21s

I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger.”

In 2012 Churchill was honoured with a statue in Jerusalem for his assistance to Zionism.
He regarded the Arab population Palestine to be a “lower manifestation”. And that the “dog in a manger has the final right to the manger”, by this he meant the Arabs of Palestine.

In 1920 Churchill declared “if, as may well happen, there should be created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under the protection of the British Crown which might comprise three or four millions of Jews, an event will have occurred in the history of the world which would from every point of view be beneficial”.

A year later in Jerusalem he told Palestinian leaders that “it is manifestly right that the Jews, who are scattered all over the world, should have a national centre and a National Home where some of them may be reunited. And where else could that be but in this land of Palestine, with which for more than 3,000 years they have been intimately and profoundly associated?”.

At the Palestine Royal Commission (Peel) of 1937, Churchill stated that he believed in intention of the Balfour Declaration was to make Palestine an “overwhelmingly Jewish state”.

He went on to also express to the Peel Commission that he does “not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place”.

Four years later he wrote of his desire for a ‘Jewish state’to be established after the second war world. The establishment of the colonial settler state however was done on the watch of the British Labour Party under Attlee, who were always there to back their Tory counterparts when it came to British foreign policy.

Saudi Arabia:

CXAHpiHW8AEo0bq

My admiration for him [Ibn Saud] was deep, because of his unfailing loyalty to us.” – Churchill

Prior to 1922 the British were paying Ibn Saud a subsidy of £60,000 a year. Churchill, then Colonial Secretary, raised it to £100,000.

He knew of the dangers of wahhabism, but was content to use the House of Saud’s twisted ideology for benefit of British imperialism. Just as the British had done a few years earlier when they teamed up with Al-Saud and their wahhabism to wage an internal war in the Ottoman Empire. He described Ibn Saud’s wahhabis as “intolerant, well-armed and bloodthirsty’. Of course, as long as they were on the side of the British, Winston was happy.

Churchill went on to write that his “admiration for him [Ibn Saud] was deep, because of his unfailing loyalty to us”.




Churchill meeting with Ibn Saud whom he showered with money and gifts. Britain foisted Wahhabism on the region. He gifted Ibn Saud a special Rolls-Royce in the mid 1940s.

South Africa:

winston-churchill-1-january-1915-getty-3281413

Thousands were sent to British run concentration camps during the Boer wars. Churchill summed up his time in South Africa by saying “it was great fun galloping about”.
Churchill wrote that his only “irritation” during the Boer war was “that Kaffirs should be allowed to fire on white men”.

It was Churchill who planted the seed to strip voting rights from black people in South Africa. In June 1906, Churchill argued that Afrikaners should be allowed a self-rule which would mean black people would be excluded from voting.

He went on to state to Parliament that “we must be bound by the interpretation which the other party places on it and it is undoubted that the Boers would regard it as a breach of that treaty if the franchise were in the first instance extended to any persons who are not white”.

Other mentions:


churchill_decides_to_fight_on

BRITISH GUIANA’: 

Churchill ordered the overthrowing of the democratically elected leader of ‘British Guiana’. He dispatched troops and warships and suspended their constitution all to put a stop to the governments nationalisation plan.

CHINA:

I think we shall have to take the Chinese in hand and regulate them” – Churchill His hope from this was for “Ayran stock to triumph”…

ERICH VON MANSTIEN:

Churchill donated funds for this Nazi war criminals defence when he was on trial after WW2.

IMMIGRATION TO BRITAIN: 

Churchill suggested the motto “Keep England White” when debating the adoption of new laws limiting immigration from the Caribbean.

MUSSOLINI: 

Churchill extolled Mussolini – “If I were Italian, I am sure I would have been with you entirely from the beginning” and “what a man [Mussolini] ! I have lost my heart!… Fascism has rendered a service to the entire world”.

ON HIS OWN PEOPLE: 

Churchill suggested “100,000 degenerate Britons should be forcibly sterilised/others put in labour camps to halt decline of British race”. He also went on to suggest that “for tramps and wastrels there ought to be proper labour colonies where they could be sent”.

SUDAN:

Churchill bragged that he personally shot at least three “savages” whilst there.

ROBERT EMMET (IRISH REPUBLICAN LEADER): 

Churchill plagiarised his famous “we shall fight on the beaches” from Emmet’s speech from the dock.

RUSSIA:

He urged the US to “wipe” out the Kremlin with an atomic bomb hoping it would “handle the balance of Russia”.

WORLD WAR 1:

I love this war. I know it’s smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment”.

WORLD WAR 2: 

Churchill’s cabinet during WW2 obsessed about British people viewing black GIs favorably.


=====================================

Overigens heeft Churchill in het gebied dat nu Irak wordt genoemd, begin 20er jaren van de vorige eeuw inderdaad een paar keer mosterdgas laten gebruiken tegen opstandige stammen.......

Wat betreft de dictatoriale EU: NEXIT NU!

Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht aantreft, dit geldt niet voor de labels: A. Harris en RUC.