Wereldoorlog III: is deze nog te ontwijken?

Alle tekenen wijzen naar een komend groot conflict >> het samenspannen van de VS en haar (andere) slaafse westerse landen tegen Rusland, Syrië en Iran, plus natuurlijk China en Noord-Korea, gesteund middels een enorme propaganda van de westerse media, zorgt ervoor dat er niet veel nodig is of we zitten middenin WOIII...... Wat betreft China en Noord-Korea: daar zijn nog geen officiële NAVO oefeningen gehouden, al zijn de spanningen er daar niet minder om.... (hoewel Australië, Nieuw-Zeeland en de Filipijnen natuurlijk ook een soort NAVO bondgenoot zijn*) Neem de alweer grote militaire oefening van Zuid-Korea en de VS langs de grenzen en territoriale wateren van Noord-Korea...... Tijdens de Spelen kon de wereld even ademhalen en toenadering tussen de 2 Korea's was even een feit.....

De Spelen zijn nog niet afgelopen of de VS kondigt aan dat de grote jaarlijkse militaire oefening 'gewoon' doorgaat..... Blijkbaar heeft de VS Moon Jae-in, de Zuid-Koreaanse president en de Zuid-Koreaanse regering dusdanig onder druk gezet dat men toestemde in het laten doorgaan van die oefeningen, militaire oefeningen die de Noord-Koreanen al decennia lang steken, maar waar vooral de VS niet van af wil zien........ Tja, zeg nu zelf, 'wat is belangrijker', een voor de winsten en macht van het militair-industrieel complex en de macht van de VS te houden grootschalige militaire oefening, of vrede?? Vrede is (blijkbaar) voor dombo's......

Niet alleen de agressie tegen landen als Syrië, Rusland, Iran, China en Noord-Korea wijzen in de richting van WOIII, maar met de wisselingen aan de top van de Trump administratie, kan het bijna niet anders of we stevenen af op een grootschalige oorlog....... De ene psychopathische houwdegen van die administratie na de andere wordt op straat gezet, waarvoor in de plaats psychopaten worden ingezet die nog een fikse portie kwaadaardiger zijn......... De VS heeft zelfs gesteld dat een aanval met conventionele wapens (dus niet met kernwapens) op bevriende landen niet wordt uitgesloten, een aanval gericht op de bevolking en infrastructuur van die bevriende landen.........

Darius Shahtahmasebi noemt het niet in het volgende artikel, maar er ligt ook nog eens een enorme Himalaya aan VS schulden, het is dat de munt van de VS een internationaal betaalmiddel is en bijvoorbeeld de olieprijs in dollars wordt uitgedrukt, anders zou het er wel eens heel anders uit kunnen zien voor de VS en haar onafzienbare schuldenlast......

Vreemd trouwens dat een land als China zulke enorme voorraden dollars heeft, als dit land deze op de markt dumpt, kan de VS financieel inpakken..... Dan blijft de vraag over wat goed is voor een land met enorme schulden? Juist, oorlog!! Vandaar ook dat de geldpersen in de VS overuren maken..... Het zou me trouwens niet verbazen als China de dollar niet eens durft te dumpen als betaalmiddel (valuta om mee te investeren)....... Gezien deze zaak zijn de agressieve woorden van Trump over een importheffing op Chinees staal en aluminium nog vreemder........ Blijkbaar wil hij daarmee zeggen schijt te hebben aan China en haar enorme dollarvoorraad.........

Het vorige voorbeeld is nog meer van belang, immers China en Rusland hebben al een paar keer gesproken over een ander internationaal betaalmiddel dan de dollar. Khadaffi wou de olie dollar inruilen voor de gouden dinar, een munt waarvan de tegenwaarde altijd in goud aanwezig zou zijn, één van de redenen voor de illegale oorlog van de VS en haar oorlogshond NAVO tegen Libië........ (de enorme goudvoorraad van Libië is tijdens de illegale oorlog van de VS en andere NAVO lidstaten tegen dit land 'verdwenen....')

Zo bezien is WOIII eigenlijk niet meer te ontwijken.......

A World War Might Sound Crazy, but It Could Be America’s Last Act of Desperation

March 19, 2018 at 12:10 pm

Written by Darius Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) — Though some have been warning about the catastrophic potential for a third global conflict for years, it wasn’t until recently that these warnings became more mainstream. The calamitous nature of the violence in Syria — which has one nuclear power defending a government that has been the target of a regime change operation led by the world’s superpower — combined with 2017’s threats of “fire and fury” against another state intently pursuing a nuclear weapons supply of its own, has pushed the issue of a third world war directly into the public discourse.

While certain hotspots throughout the Middle East, Asia, and Eastern Europe (i.e. Ukraine) have seen some notable escalations in the last few years, a direct conflict between Russia and the United States is still yet to emerge. That’s because the idea of a third world war in today’s world is completely insane. If the two countries that currently possess the world’s greatest supplies of nuclear weapons go to war, there may not be a world left for the victors to inhabit after the war is done, thereby making it an unthinkable proposal.

Then again, the U.S. did just recently bomb a significant number of Russian-linked forces in Syria, reportedly killing scores of them. The targets of these air strikes were also predominantly Iranian-backed militias (just in case there weren’t enough state actors already involved in this ongoing conflict).

Speaking of Iran, Donald Trump recently fired Rex Tillerson as secretary of state and immediately appointed CIA director Mike Pompeo to replace him. Pompeo is a notable anti-Iran hawk who will almost certainly go further than Tillerson was ever prepared to go with regard to the Iranian nuclear accord, a deal Pompeo believes is “disastrous.”

There are also reports now emerging that Donald Trump is planning to oust his national security advisor, General H.R. McMaster. McMaster originally replaced anti-Iran war hawk Michael Flynn, but apparently, McMaster’s non-stop allegations against Iran were not enough to please Trump. McMaster was not on board with Trump’s attempt to completely derail the Iranian nuclear deal.

One should bear in mind that when Donald Trump made the decision to strike the Syrian government in April of last year in what amounted to one of the year’s most important and over-publicized geopolitical events, it was McMaster who drew up the strike plan options and presented them to Trump to choose from. If this is a man not hawkish enough for Trump’s administration, his looming removal from the administration is a worrying sign of what’s to come.

Donald Trump’s Nuclear Posture Review entails that, as Katrina vanden Heuvel noted in an article published in the Washington Post:

“The United States reserves the right to unleash nuclear weapons first in ‘extreme circumstances’ to defend the ‘vital interests’ not only of the United States but also of its ‘allies and partners’ — a total of some 30 countries. ‘Extreme circumstances,’ the review states explicitly, include ‘significant non-nuclear attacks,’ including conventional attacks on ‘allied or partner civilian population or infrastructure.’ The United States also maintains a ‘portion of its nuclear forces’ on daily alert, with the option of launching those forces ‘promptly.’ [emphasis added]

Considering that a former analyst for the Council on Foreign Relations, Micah Zenko, just warned that Pentagon officials are actively searching for a “big war” against Russia and China, the trajectory we are currently on starts to make a lot more sense.

In other parts of the world, we are witnessing a new era of hostilities towards Russia. The debacle taking place in the U.K. right now, which has seen allegations of a Russian chemical attack on British soil, has prompted the U.K., U.S., France, and Germany to band together and condemn Russia for something that hasn’t even been conclusively investigated yet.

After years of constantly being painted as the enemy, Russia just declared via Twitter that a “Cold War II” has begun, and who can blame them?

A third world war might sound crazy, but it is only crazy if we fail to understand the desperation that continues to plague the men in suits who pull the strings guiding American foreign policy. Consider that the Syrian government, with Russian and Iranian backing, has managed to stabilize significant parts of the country despite all odds so that refugees can return home safely. It should be clear that the best way to solve the Syrian crisis is to discontinue America’s regime change policy in Syria and allow the people of Syria to normalize their own lives without Washington’s interference. Yet, after seven years of brutal violence, the U.S. still refuses to admit defeat in Syria. If anything, the U.S. has now officially set its sights on directly combatting Iranian influence in the country, raising the potential for significant escalations.

Maybe, just maybe, the U.S. is that desperate. Apparently, the U.S. has to remain in Syria out of necessity. It cannot afford to sit on the sidelines as Russia re-emerges as the major power broker in the region, eating up all the major contracts coming out of Syria (together with Iran) as it looks to poach American allies left, right, and center.

Additionally, Russia recently warned the U.S. that it will not tolerate Washington’s aggressive attacks on the Syrian government and will respond with strikes of their own should the U.S. military threaten Russian personnel. One should expect that eventually, there will be a point where Russia will no longer allow these attacks to go unanswered.

As America’s power and influence wane, the time will come for both Russia and China to make their mark on the global stage. Just on a side note, it should come as no surprise that Trump’s nominated ambassador to Australia, Adm. Harry Harris, is a known anti-China war hawk who recently warned Congress to prepare for a war with China.

Why should we need to prepare for a war with China? Who talks and thinks like that? A nation on a slow and inevitable decline that cannot refuse to admit defeat in almost any battle theater since World War II, that’s who.

Realistically, nobody wants a third world war, but as the U.S. increasingly thrashes to maintain its control of the global financial markets, its network of over 1,000 bases worldwide, and its status as the world’s global policemen, a third world war may be Washington’s only hope at staying afloat as the world’s top power.

Read more by Darius Shahtahmasebi:

• Watch: Colonel Says Israel Is Dragging the United States Into World War III
• Putin Will Destroy the World With Nuclear Weapons If Russia Is Bombed First
• The Second Cold War Has Begun — and We Only Have Ourselves to Blame
• After 7 Years of the US Meddling in Syria, What Have We Learned?
• The Real Reason Israel and Lebanon Are on the Verge of War

Op-ed / Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

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

* Australië, Nieuw-Zeeland, de Filipijnen, Thailand en Zuid-Korea zijn zogenaamde MNNA's (van: 'Major non-NATO Ally). Deze landen werken op militair gebied nauw samen met de VS (en gegarandeerd met andere NAVO lidstaten), ook wat betreft bewapening en training. (zie wat dat betreft ook de bemoeienis van de VS met de strijd tegen IS op de Filipijnen en de militaire oefeningen met Zuid-Korea langs de grens en de territoriale wateren van Noord-Korea). Voorts heeft de VS militaire bases in die landen, samen met die in westerse landen, kan je spreken van een omsingeling van Rusland en China met militaire bases van de VS......

Zie ook: 'John Bolton, nationaal veiligheidsadviseur, alsof de duivel zelf is benoemd........'

        en: 'NEOCONS ARE BACK WITH A BIG WAR BUDGET AND BIG WAR PLANS' (een column van Ron Paul, overgenomen van Stan van Houcke)

        en: 'Noord-Korea en de VS: de planning van de VS om Rusland en China aan te vallen met kernraketten........'

        en: 'John Bolton, nationaal veiligheidsadviseur, alsof de duivel zelf is benoemd........'

        en: 'VS nu definitief op oorlogspad tegen China.....'

Op 27 maart 2017 kop verbeterd, daar ik dom genoeg Wereld Oorlog had neergeschreven.

Poetin verwacht aanval op Rusland en geeft alvast de reactie van Rusland daarop weer: de wereld zal vernietigd worden......

In een 2 uur durende documentaire die in Rusland werd uitgezonden, heeft Putin gezegd dat Rusland de wereld zal vernietigen als Rusland wordt aangevallen met kernwapens......

De reactie in Washington laat zich raden, men ziet dit als bewijs voor 'de ongebreidelde agressie' van Rusland....... Sterker nog: de persvoorlichter van het Witte Huis, Sara Huckabee Sanders, stelt dat Rusland de laatste 10 jaar 'destabiliserende wapens' heeft ontwikkeld en daarmee verdragen heeft geschonden......... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! 

Let wel, Sanders is een vertegenwoordiger van 'een land' dat een 'raketschild' heeft geplaatst aan de grens met Rusland, een raketschild waarvan de raketten in een mum van tijd kunnen worden veranderd in aanvalsraketten met kernkoppen...... Door VS invloed in de NAVO, is deze uiterst agressieve organisatie nu opgeschoven tot de grenzen van Rusland, volledig in tegengesteld aan de gesloten verdragen met voormalig Sovjet president Gorbatsjov....... Dezelfde VS die Rusland en China heeft omsingeld met een groot aantal militaire bases...... Dit nog naast de grootschalige terreur die de VS in het Midden-Oosten uitoefent...... 

Vergeet niet dat de VS alleen deze eeuw al verantwoordelijk is voor meer dan 2 miljoen moorden: -in door de VS begonnen illegale oorlogen, - in door de VS georganiseerde opstanden (CIA), -in door de VS geregisseerde staatsgrepen (CIA), -geheime militaire acties (o.l.v. de CIA) en -bij een enorm aantal standrechtelijke executies middels drones, executies van verdachten, waarbij meer dan 90% van de slachtoffers niet eens verdacht was!! 

Kortom  de VS doet niet anders dan de wereld destabiliseren, heeft zich voorts in feite nooit aan verdragen over wapenbeheersing gehouden en is zelf al meer dan een decennia bezig met de ontwikkeling van nieuwe wapens en kernwapens, waar bij die kernwapens opgemerkt moet worden dat de VS nu beschikt over kernwapens, die het tijdens een oorlog kan en wil gebruiken op 'het slagveld.........' 

Putin zegt dat hij zal ingrijpen na een aanval met kernwapens op Rusland, terwijl de VS en Groot-Brittannië hebben aangegeven een eerste aanval met kernwapens niet uit te sluiten, dus niet nadat ze zelf zijn aangevallen zoals Putin over Rusland stelt........ Over destabilisatie gesproken......

Putin Will Destroy the World With Nuclear Weapons If Russia Is Bombed First

March 12, 2018 at 4:43 pm

Written by Darius Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) — Russian President Vladimir Putin has allegedly said he will destroy the world with nuclear weapons, but only if Russia is hit with a nuclear strike first.

In a two-hour video documentary released in Russia, Putin reportedly warned he would give the order to launch Russia’s nuclear weapons if Russia was attacked with nuclear strikes first.

“This is called reciprocal strike. If there is this decision to destroy Russia then we have a legal right to respond,” Putin told the host of World Order 2018, as quoted by Yahoo News.

“This would be a global catastrophe for humanity but I, as a citizen of Russia and the head of the Russian state would like to ask you this – what do we need a world for if there is no Russia in it?” he also added, possibly the most chilling statement of his entire political career.

Putin also allegedly admitted to giving the order for a civilian plane to be downed in 2014.

In January of this year, a leaked draft of the Pentagon’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) revealed that the U.S. was aware of Russia’s development of an underwater nuclear drone capable of carrying a 100 megaton nuclear warhead.

Just weeks ago, Putin’s annual state of the nation speech involved the topic of Russia’s nuclear weapons. The Russian president wanted the world to take note of Russia’s nuclear-powered cruise missiles that can reach the American mainland, as well as its sophisticated nukes that can evade missile defense systems.

Not only that, but Putin also showed a video of nuclear missiles striking Florida.

“No one was listening,” the Russian President warned. “Now you will listen.”

“All [that] you wanted to impede with your policies already happened,” he also added. “You have failed to contain Russia.”

Unsurprisingly, Putin’s American counterparts did not receive his comments well.

“President Putin has confirmed what the United States government has known all along, which Russia has denied — Russia has been developing destabilizing weapon systems for over a decade, in direct violations of its treaty obligations,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said at the time.

Unfortunately, Washington’s simplistic approach to this dilemma continues to ignore its own nuclear weapons advancements, as well as the role it has directly played in pushing the Russian President to responding with such tough rhetoric, including the zero media attention paid to the years spent years trying to contain Russia within a host of NATO allies. Washington’s foreign policy has essentially put an extensive base of American troops and missiles alongside Russia’s border despite countless assurances at the end of the Cold War that NATO would expand into eastern Europe not “one inch.”

The media has also chosen to ignore Putin’s incessant warnings over the years, particularly the part that involved noting that the U.S. was heading down a dangerous road with its Cold War-style anti-Russian policies and that Russia was preparing a response of its own.

“Today Russia has reached significant achievements in this field. We have modernized our missile systems and successfully developed new generations. Not to mention missile defense systems…” Putin stated nearly two years ago.

“We must provide security not only for ourselves. It’s important to provide strategic balance in the world, which guarantees peace on the planet.”

For those of us who have been documenting these developments, the warnings have always been out in the open. For the anti-Russian corporate media and status quo-enforcing politicians, Putin is a madman who wants to blow up the entire world — even while the U.S. and its NATO allies continue a dangerous policy of their own that could lead to Russia feeling far too threatened for comfort.

Read more by Darius Shahtahmasebi:

• Watch: Colonel Says Israel Is Dragging the United States Into World War III
• Revealed: Israel’s Disturbing Policy of Assassinating Scientists
• What the Media Isn’t Telling You About America’s True Intentions in Syria
• May 14th Could Be the Most Catastrophic Day to Rock the Middle East in Years
• The Real Reason Israel and Lebanon Are on the Verge of War

Op-ed / Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

========================
Zie ook: 'Rusland zegt superieure kernwapens te hebben, nu komen de 'deskundigen' wel met de waarheid over het Russisch defensie budget.......'

In de kop schrijf ik Putin met 'oe', dit vanwege de schrijfwijze die men in Nederland hanteert, heb nooit begrepen waarom men zijn naam zo schrijft, alsof de Nederlander het niet begrijpt als je Putin gewoon schrijft met een 'u', zoals dit internationaal gebeurt, je dit uitspreekt als Poetin. (alsof we imbecielen zijn... hoewel..?)

Trumps buitenlandbeleid heeft de wereld naar de rand van WOIII gebracht.......

Volkomen terecht waarschuwt Darius Shahtahmasebi de wereld voor het gevaar van het 'buitenlandbeleid' dat de Trump administratie voert.

Met veel voorbeelden geeft Shahtahmasebi aan dat de VS ons op de rand van Wereldoorlog III heeft gebracht en er niet veel voor nodig is om deze oorlog daadwerkelijk te laten losbarsten......

Waar blijven de demonstraties tegen het terreurbeleid van de VS, die ons steeds dichter bij WOIII brengen???

Verdere woorden overbodig, lees en oordeel zelf:

How Donald Trump’s Policies Have Brought Us to the Brink of World War 3

February 20, 2018 at 11:55 

Written by Darius Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) — On February 7, 2018, the U.S.-led coalition in Syria conducted air and artillery strikes against what were believed to be pro-government forces in response to an “unprovoked attack” launched by these pro-regime troops. Not long after, reports began emerging that significant numbers of Russian personnel were included in the over 100 dead and wounded. While Russia denied this at first, eventually, the accepted version of events on both sides was that there were some Russian nationals who did lose their lives in Syria. These Russians are arguably mercenaries and contractors, not official troops.

This is not the first time the U.S.-led coalition has struck pro-government forces in Syria. Aside from Donald Trump’s grandiose strike on a Syrian airbase in April of last year, U.S. forces also conducted multiple strikes against Syrian and Iranian-backed forces as these factions began to encircle the American military’s presence at a base in al-Tanf.

Donald Trump has famously relaxed the Obama-era restrictions on calling in airstrikes, meaning commanders on the battlefield can call in airstrikes at their disposal without any oversight. Previously, an airstrike could not be launched on a whim and was required to go through certain protocols before it could be delivered. Now, even associated forces can call in American airstrikes on the battlefield. The most infamous example of this is when Iraqi commanders called in a U.S. strike that ended up killing well over 200 civilians in a single bombardment.

Barely a week after Trump’s Syria strike in April, the U.S. military dropped a $450,000 bomb in Afghanistan dubbed the “Mother of all bombs” (MOAB). It soon transpired that the decision to drop the bomb was not made by Trump himself as commander-in-chief but by Gen. John Nicholson, commander of the U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

It’s time to ask yourself: Are you comfortable with commanders on the battlefield calling in airstrikes even if those airstrikes could potentially kill personnel on the ground belonging to another nuclear power?

Last Tuesday, Wisconsin Democrat Mark Pocan told the Nation that “Congress has never authorized force against Syrian, Turkish, Yemeni Houthi, Russian, Iranian, or North Korean forces. Yet reportedly, a secret administration memo may claim the legal justification to do just that: attack Syrian, North Korean, and other forces without any congressional authorization.” [emphasis added]

According to Lawfare, a lawsuit required the government to reveal a list of documents relating to the April Syria strike, but not the actual documents themselves. The court-ordered directions forced the government to reveal that the seven-page secret memo Pocan was referring to was drafted up by administration lawyers on April 6, 2017, just before Trump’s infamous strike. The government’s declarations revealed that only a few of the words on one of the memo’s pages are classified, and they are related to facts, not legalities. Still, the administration refuses to disclose the memo to the public, claiming the document is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

“I am also concerned that this legal justification may now become precedent for additional executive unilateral military action, including this week’s U.S. airstrikes in Syria against pro-Assad forces or even an extremely risky ‘bloody nose’ strike against North Korea,” Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va) said last week.

In early February, the Pentagon released its much anticipated 2018 Nuclear Posture Review. From the Washington Post’s Katrina vanden Heuvel’s assessment:

“The review reaffirms the United States is ready to use nuclear weapons first in an alarmingly wide range of scenarios. It remains ‘the policy of the United States to retain some ambiguity regarding the precise circumstances’ that might lead to a nuclear response. The United States reserves the right to unleash nuclear weapons first in ‘extreme circumstances’ to defend the ‘vital interests’ not only of the United States but also of its ‘allies and partners’ — a total of some 30 countries. ‘Extreme circumstances,’ the review states explicitly, include ‘significant non-nuclear attacks,’ including conventional attacks on ‘allied or partner civilian population or infrastructure.’ The United States also maintains a ‘portion of its nuclear forces’ on daily alert, with the option of launching those forces ‘promptly.’ [emphasis added]

The U.S. has an active stockpile of at least 4,000 nuclear weapons, rivaled only by Russia. According to the Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), a “limited” regional exchange of nuclear weapons could force one billion people to the point of starvation, and a week-long “regional” encounter could kill far more than died during World War II.

As Albert Einstein famously said, “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

Heuvel correctly summarized the current nuclear strategy:

“In sum, the United States is building a new generation of nuclear weapons and delivery systems, will deploy more usable nuclear weapons in ‘forward’ areas, remains committed to possible ‘first use’ of nuclear weapons even against non-nuclear attacks in defense of 30 countries, retains missiles on active alert ready to launch, is skeptical of the possibility of any progress in arms control and is hostile to the global movement to make nuclear weapons illegal. All this as tensions with Russia and China rise, relations with North Korea remain literally explosive, and the nuclear deal with Iran stays under constant assault from the president.”

One thing we do know is that the U.S. is openly considering nuclear strikes in response to cyber-attacks, which could be conducted by anyone from lone-wolf hackers to Iran, North Korea, Russia, or China. We also know that the Trump administration has been weighing a “limited” strike on North Korea for some time now, even as North and South Korea pursue a peaceful dialogue of their own. Even now, the U.S. continues to position nuclear-capable B-52 and B-2 bombers around the Korean peninsula. The B-2 is the most advanced bomber in the United States air force, capable of dropping the military department’s biggest bomb, which weighs in at around 14,000 kilograms.

This is a recipe for disaster. Donald Trump isn’t bringing the troops home and focusing on “making America great again.” According to the Department of Defense, American troop deployments to the Middle East had increased 33 percent by the end of last year.

It’s time for both sides of the political coin to confront their delusions and face reality. Donald Trump is by far the most hawkish, trigger-happy president to have ever been sworn into office, which is no easy feat considering his predecessors. His policies are leading the United States down a dangerous path that could see a miscalculated strike on Syria, Russia, Iran, North Korea, or even China — whether by mistake or by design. Considering that strikes have already been underway in Syria against the Syrian government and its allies, including Russia, these policies are likely to lead to something far more explosive down the line.

Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

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

PS: heb een bericht over de situatie in het Syrische Ghouta in voorbereiding. Ghouta waar de enorme westerse hysterie en hypocrisie in de reguliere media weer eens heeft toegeslagen, dit gesteund door het grootste deel van de westerse politici, terwijl men weet dat de moordenaars, verkrachters en martelbeulen van Al Qaida, al-Nusra (in feite 'Al Qaida Syrië') en als het even kan de White Helmets tekeer gaan tegen de bevolking....... Waar is de kritiek op terreurgroep Al Qaida gebleven?? Alle berichten over 'de slachting' in Ghouta komen dan ook van die terreurgroepen en van Al Qaida's White Helmets, met door hen geregisseerde video's en hoorspelen....... Bij deze (op 25 februari 2018): 'Oost-Ghouta, wat je niet wordt verteld'