The first predecessor of the EU was established in 1957 – the EEC, or Common Market. Then it gradually grew, reaching its present maximum of 28, but already loosing a member country with Great Britain leaving. Let us try to consider whether this could be a new trend, or just something which could be attributed to specifics of the English (the Scots say they will become a state and return to the EU). The official reason seems to be – simplified – the EU being too centralized and bureaucratic, causing the individual states difficulties in dealing with some problems.
The last “large growth period” came after 2004 – the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. This was enabled by those countries having changed their political and economic system and also by these countries and Russia having dropped the Warsaw Pact, which happened under the condition that NATO would not expand further east, formally accepted by the Western world. So, this last extension started in a period when the world looked “most peaceful” since World War II.
This however did not last long, as on entering the EU the former Warsaw Pact countries were gradually pushed into NATO, this being a breach of the above agreement. Also, in 1999 NATO countries bombed Yugoslavia and in 2003 attacked Iraq, these both wars implying breach of the NATO Treaty, both the preamble and Article 1. So, the peaceful period was quickly squashed by the extension of NATO, plus US/UK wars, with EU cooperating like a diligent pupil. But, these three moments signaled a more serious turn: EU (plus NATO) breached a peace-ensuring agreement, and NATO (2 strongest members, both non-EU as UK is leaving) breached its own treaty twice (causing deaths in millions) – and nothing happened, or so we all pretend, “unified” under the EU. This brings us to the next question: what is EU? By what is written above it is a union of European countries which presumably acts in the interest of the European member countries and their people. But, sweeping away the most peaceful period, and instead within a short time bringing EU countries into an imminent danger of the WW III is really an unbelievable “achievement”, and quite evidently is not in line with the interests of the EU citizens and countries. The same is true about the wars having cost lives of millions and having created international terrorism and migration of unprecedented dimensions. So, who is in charge here in the EU and who do those representatives listen to?
Let us start at present and go back through three stages of international situation: 3. Syria, 2. Iraq, 1. 9/11 and Afghanistan. Within the stages I will move with the time.
Stage Syria was evidently enabled by the US occupation of Iraq. An article in The Guardian – https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/-sp-isis-the-inside-story – leaves no doubt in stating that ISIS was created by the US purposefully using the US military prison camp Bucca in Iraq. The scheme was that either ISIS will bring down the government of Syria, or the US will do so “coming to help against ISIS (and the legal government)”. It was also used against members of Iraqi government, particularly Mr. Maliki, see Mr. Obama’s interview for NYT in August of 2014 here: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/09/opinion/president-obama-thomas-l-friedman-iraq-and-world-affairs.html . The relevant passage goes like this: “The reason”, the president added, “that we did not just start taking a bunch of airstrikes all across Iraq as soon as ISIL came in was because that would have taken the pressure off of [Prime Minister Nuri Kamal] al-Maliki.”
Then, for some years while ISIS, in cooperation with the so called moderate opposition in Syria, both set-up, equipped and trained by the US, were mass murdering the citizens of Syria, the official media, including those of the EU, were relatively quiet. The US were not interfering much (except providing weapons, training and intelligence, organizing at two levels – Pentagon and CIA), letting the war in a latent stage probably purposefully, see the so called INTELGATE scandal. They started to worry about the human rights of Syrian civilians after the Russians stepped in and the whole war started to move – in the wrong direction for the US (and EU??). Later the US – Obama/Kerry – reached an agreement with Russians, not reckoning that Pentagon can decide, and act, otherwise – bombing the Syrian army. So, since no one is likely to carry on cooperation with a side where the president can be overruled by a general – a so called banana republic? – further cooperation was without the US (see http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-the-military-excluded-the-white-house-from-international-syria-negotiations/5564161?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles ).
Another quote, more recent, concerning ISIS (calling it DAESH), this time from Mr. Kerry to the members of US paid Syrian opposition: „And we know that this was growing, we were watching, we saw that DAESH was growing in strength, and we thought Assad was threatened“ Kerry told the Syrians. „(We) thought, however,“ he continued. „we could probably manage that Assad might then negotiate. But instead of negotiating he got Putin to support him.“ video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4phB-_pXDM&feature=youtu.be&t=25m52s , also see www.moonofalabama.org . Information on a declassified CIA document of 1986 planning “dramatic political change” in Syria can be found here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-cias-blueprint-for-syrian-regime-collapse-new-declassified-cia-memo/5574950 .
Just a notice – this phase is also marked by a useful invention of the US propaganda – an “armed civilian” category – which enabled the propaganda to call all killed terrorists “civilians” – this only shows the kind of Gӧbbels workshop the US “media” have set up. I really wonder what Mr. Trump is going to do about that workshop. The EU has to this day not admitted that the terrible migration crisis is caused by the US wars and held on with just criticizing the Russians on the basis of human rights crisis. The EU has contributed to the crisis only indirectly, by stubbornly ignoring the facts and accepting the US lies, which in fact is quite a lot, and thus the EU bears a lot of responsibility. (The opinion of the president of Syria on EU “help” read here http://www.globalresearch.ca/president-al-assad-how-can-we-stop-the-flow-of-terrorists-toward-syria/5573831 .) The question which I move on is “why? – who makes those decisions?” Read what the Syrian president thinks about that – in the above mentioned interview with a Belgian reporter on February 7th, 2017, question 9:
Reporter: Do you think Belgian can play a role in Syria?
President Assad: Let me talk about the European political position in general. Many in this region believe that the European do not exist politically. They only follow their master the American. So the question should be about the American, and the European will follow and will implement what the American want. They don’t exist as (an) independent state, and Belgian is part of the EU.
Stage Iraq was started by the attack of Iraq by the US and the UK under the pretext that Iraq has a store of WMDs, or, later modified that Iraq leads talks on the purchase of Uranium from an unnamed African country – a media game using lies by US and UK, deforming even the statements of their own secret services. This stage needn’t be especially commented, as the output of the Chilcot inquiry already exists and is available. An article containing a link to the report is here: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/06/europe/uk-iraq-inquiry-chilcot-report/ . The pre-war scheming was later extended into ex-post scheming and included murder of the WMD expert Dr. Kelly (whose opinion was that Iraq could not produce any WMD with the machinery found), which was not included in the Chilcot inquiry. I do not remember any hard criticism from the EU of the US and UK for attacking and destroying Iraq for nothing, as it turned out afterwards. But I do remember that Mr. Wolfowitz encouraged the attack by saying something like “Iraq was sitting on oil wells and the cost of reconstruction could be covered by that”; – human lives – the basic human rights – were evidently not a matter worthy of consideration. And I also remember some “diligent pupils” of the US propaganda from the EU supporting the attacks explicitly. So, again we have the EU behaving not in the interests of their citizens and nations, but instead behaving subserviently towards the US – in fact putting the interests of certain private US persons above the interests of EU citizens. Why? Who makes such decisions? What are the processes – they must be changed!
Stage 9/11 and Afghanistan was officially started by the WTC attacks. The US official position is that the US was attacked from Afghanistan by a few people from the caves of Tora-Bora. However this theory – with what we know today – is evidently wrong and constitutes the biggest lie in the human history. I will give a short summary here why the official theory is wrong.
Organizational:
A: The US use an air defense system called NORAD. The rules under which civilian planes were operated at the time were as follows:
-
there is an armed flight marshal on every airplane (the terrorists only had knives!)
- when an airplane interrupts communication with the ATC or/and even switches off the identification, a fighter plane takes off to check and can eventually shoot the plane down if it threatens inhabited areas. The fighter planes are under decentralized command, absolutely operational, reaction is immediate.
Under these rules the attacks could never succeed. So, what happened – three of the four planes, which took off and broke all communication, managed to fulfill their “missions” – how? The answer is “surprising” – about three months prior to the attacks the above rules were changed in the following way:
- there were no flight marshals any more
- the command of the fighter planes was centralized and Mr Rumsfeld was put in charge, in his absence only the president could give command. Mr Rumsfeld ordered some kind of NORAD maneuvers for the September 11th and then was not accessible. Three of the planes fulfilled their missions without any interference. Rather an obliging change of rules.
B: FBI was following some of those who appeared afterwards on the hijacker list and asked CIA for permission to arrest them (sometime in August). Their requests were ignored. This was later called “a mistake, or negligence” – an example of the meaning of the English word understatement.
Technical:
C: FBI named the attacks by code-word PENTTBOM – see the FBI web -, abbreviation of Pentagon Twin Towers Bombing – evidently to FBI experts it was clear at the first sight that the fall of the buildings was caused by explosives. They were evidently instructed later not to follow that line.
D: Steel buildings of that type cannot crumble to pieces showing zero resistance to what is falling from above. Even those hit by planes remained standing until blown up, look at it on the web. Each “layer of the building” in some way disintegrated just before it was hit by what came from above – a model controlled demolition. Basic proofs were ignored or bypassed during the investigation. NIST ignored some results from FEMA, and completely ignored multiple analysis of the WTC dust, one of them done by US Geological Survey. Analysis (at least 2) even found traces of molten molybdenum whose melting temperature is over 2600 degrees Centigrade; all analyses, about 9 of them, pointed to use of nano thermite explosives. Moreover, WTC 7 was not hit by any plane, and we have another building of the same type for comparison – the hotel in Dubai, which caught fire on January 1st 2016 – with about two thirds of the building on fire (unlike in case of WTC 7 a corner of two floors), and the building remained standing, fire was extinguished after about 20 hours. Moreover, the fall of WTC 7, as we saw on TV, was announced 23 minutes before the building fell (BBC reporter) – there must have been a scenario.
Sequential:
E: On October 7th the US Army attacked Afghanistan. Since the WTC attack was a surprise attack (otherwise the US would not have allowed it to happen), organizing and performing such an attack at Afghanistan in such a time is unbelievable. Or maybe the WTC attack was not such a surprise as we think?
F: During about two weeks before the WTC attacks thousands of put options on the shares of the individual airlines, whose planes were (would be at the time) used in the attacks, were sold. This is recorded and can be checked (also see e. g. http://hereinreality.com/insidertrading.html#.VssMjI-cGP8 or http://911review.org/Wget/tomflocco.com/INSIDER_TRADING.html , there even existed a software system for monitoring unusual tradings called PROMIS). But this also means that a lot of people – some kind of insiders – knew such details before the WTC and Pentagon attacks, not just that attacks would come, would be performed by planes, but even planes of which airlines would be used! That of course means that everything about the attacks was known beforehand. Most of the trades were done via the financial institution Deutsche Bank – A.B.Brown. Till 1997 the chairman of this institution was a Mr. Krongard, who in 1998 became a CIA executive director. This induces an automatic question – CIA knew all the details , why have they not prevented the attacks? Recently I read an attempt to explain that the transactions were put into the system after the attacks, antedated. I consider this a very lame attempt, moreover stating that there exists a group of privileged people in the US (with connection to CIA) who can put in antedated transactions at stock exchanges – that would really be explosive.
Conclusion: Whoever was sitting in the planes does not matter as much as the US want us to believe – those planes have not caused the fall of the buildings. The buildings were wired and fitted with explosives by insiders. Moreover, although the Osama bin Laden group was established by the Saudis, while they were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, they were also financed by the CIA, so they were practically CIA employees, see also http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881 (just for information, the Bin Laden and Bush families were business partners, in Carlyle Group, Texas). And finally – they had nothing in common with Afghanistan, either as a country, or a state, or the people; attacking Afghanistan has had no logic, except fulfillment of a plan prepared long ago. NORAD changes were purposeful to enable the attacks. Many pilots have shared the opinion that the planes were flown by remote control – which would mean that the hijackers were just dummies to point towards Afghanistan. Architects, engineers, pilots, and other groups, including the bereaved, require a re-investigation. The circumstances which we know today clearly point towards inside participation, presumably the CIA. Which of course means that all the above wars were created purposefully by the US MIC.
EU position regarding the above: EU representatives for some reasons, which I cannot understand, pretend to believe the official US version of all the above wars. Nodding to all the lies mentioned above – concerning three US attacks, three destroyed countries and more that 2 million dead, many million destroyed lives, unprecedented mass migration – by this alibist position EU both becomes guilty and enters the club of top liars.
EU position in general: This relates to general way of operation concerning e.g. agreements like TTIP or CETA. The practically clandestine mode of operation in the “military” matters discussed above evidently extends to all matters which are really important. The people are fully informed only about trivialities, some of which are presented as very important, in order to distract our attention from the really important ones. The EU pretends that we should primarily care about corruption in our respective countries and makes use of the Transparency International for pressing us. But the individual corruption cases should be dealt with in order of the sum involved: we suspend dealing with them until first the EU deals with the above described war corruption, disclosing the sum earned by the European weapons producers. The cost of the US wars, according to Boston University report of September 2016, is 4,79 trillion USD and counting (US trillion is 1 followed by 12 zeros) – see http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2016/Costs%20of%20War%20through%202016%20FINAL%20final%20v2.pdf – does any of the very important corruption cases move anywhere near? The present manipulative EU mode of operation is rather too close to the mode of the so-called dictator, or communist, systems. Moreover, it must be dropped also in relation to military matters, as these belong to the really important ones, and our experience shows we cannot believe the decision-makers, and since these decisions are contrary to the interests of the EU citizens, really big changes are necessary. Not all EU citizens and nations are ready to live with this too long, and the growing number of people turning towards extremist parties should be seen as an early warning. They probably consider all the “established” political parties as accomplices to this enormous and systematic corruption and these lies, with no signs of a change.
Celá debata | RSS tejto debaty