From Vietnam To Syria: The Big Lie Has Killed Millions.

By Jerry Alatalo

United States President Lyndon Johnson lied through his teeth to the world on August 4, 1964. Johnson was not only criminally responsible for initiating the Vietnam War based on a “false flag” deception – the Gulf of Tonkin incident – but was a major force behind the murder of President John F. Kennedy.

Estimates of Vietnamese deaths range from 2-4 million, and 59,000 Americans perished in the many years of horrific war after Johnson’s Big Lie.

Among Johnson’s other crimes related to “false flag” operations designed for instigating war, he colluded with Israeli officials in the U.S.S. Liberty attack (Summer 1967), where Israeli forces received orders to destroy the vessel and kill all U.S. personnel on board. It was the conspirators’ plan that Egypt would be falsely blamed, necessitating U.S. military involvement, and would have worked but for a Liberty naval officer’s ability to configure a crude communications setup (the Israeli attack knocked out all communications equipment) allowing transmission of a message for help, defeating the conspiracy.

(One of the survivors of the U.S.S. Liberty attack of 1967 commented here on a past post dedicated to the historic scandal that “…Johnson wanted us all dead.”)

Johnson – had the U.S.-Israeli false flag operation been successful and all U.S. personnel been killed – had prepared plans to drop a nuclear weapon on Egypt’s largest city Cairo, making it the 3rd use of nuclear weapons on a population in world history after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

These are just a few examples of Lyndon Johnson’s profoundly criminal, heinous actions, others of which may never see the light of day, and are important to remember when attempting to measure the level of danger humanity faces today.

(Thank you to TheLBJLibrary at YouTube)

***

ne could describe the United Nations Security Council as a form of world courtroom in the sense that members sitting around the table are effectively presenting their views in a lawyer-like fashion. Perhaps, like in a typical court setting, United Nations Security Council meetings need an international panel of respected, retired men and women judges to preside over proceedings.

Given that all members of the Security Council are certainly aware of history and horrendously consequential false flags like the Gulf of Tonkin, Colin Powell’s telling of the Big Lie in 2003, etc., the lack of any time devoted to members wishing to ask questions of other members is detrimental to any efforts at arriving at the truth about the most serious situations on Earth.

What is noticeable, and worrying, about the statements by U.N. representatives of U.S., U.K. and France in meetings after the Idlib chemical attack of April 4 is their total silence on the possibility that terrorists may have carried out the attack in a false flag operation, despite their knowledge of history. Their silence on that possibility goes as far as not even acknowledging such historically verified events have occurred in the past, while at the same time not responding specifically to those making the legitimate assertions.

U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley was second-to-last to deliver a statement, followed by Syria’s Ambassador Bashar al Jaafari speaking to close the meeting. At the end of her statement, Ms. Haley directed her words to Mr. al Jaafari. Remember that in previous meetings convened to discuss the Idlib chemical attack, Ms. Haley warned the United States was willing, prepared and able to act alone, and that – after Donald Trump ordered the launch of Tomahawk missiles into Syrian territory – she again warned the U.S. was willing to do more.

In that light, people should consider the seriousness of the current state of world affairs. The greatest chance for preventing what could become a catastrophic military escalation in Syria lies in an international demand for Donald Trump to provide any and all evidence he says proves Syrian forces carried out the Idlib chemical weapon attack. Ms. Haley said:

“To Assad and the Syrian government – you have no friends in the world after your horrific actions. The United States is watching your actions very carefully. The days of your arrogance and disregard of humanity are over. Your excuses will no longer be heard. I suggest you look at this vote very carefully, and heed its warning.”

It is impossible to conclude otherwise but that Ms. Haley, in this April 2017 meeting of the United Nations Security Council, issued a direct, unambiguous, explicit threat of war against Syria.

***

The Syrian representative’s statement following being threatened with war, unfortunately, will most likely never be seen or discussed on any Western corporate media platform or inside governmental bodies. If that weren’t unfortunate enough, the important detailed relevant facts he presented will never become responded to by the U.N. representatives from America, the United Kingdom, and France. The question becomes: “If the truth cannot be sought and discussed at the United Nations Security Council, where on Earth can it be?”

The resolution authored by U.N. officials of the P-5 (Permanent Security Council states, holding veto power) U.S., U.K. and France contained language they knew would become vetoed by the P-5 Russian Federation (P-5 China abstained), because it would legitimize the attack by the U.S. of Syrian territory, violating the United Nations Charter and international law.

Either U.S. President Donald Trump responds to increasing demands from around the Earth to make public any and all of his evidence – or humanity is witnessing another massively destructive, criminal, and morally reprehensible Big Lie.

Time for humanity to act is of the essence.

(Thank you to The Syria Mission to the United Nations at YouTube)

Bolivia’s Llorenty At U.N.: Syria Strike ‘Extremely Serious Violation Of International Law.’

By Jerry Alatalo

olivian Sacha Sergio Llorenty gave perhaps the most powerful statement of all at the 7919th meeting of the United Nations Security Council, convened to discuss the situation in Syria after the United States unilaterally launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Syrian territory.

Mr. Llorenty was the first U.N. representative to deliver their statement, and began by reminding fellow members of the Security Council of relevant articles in the U.N. Charter. He spoke about the U.S. missile attacks as being a serious threat to international peace and security:

“Why?… Because over the last 70 years mankind has been establishing, building a structure, not just an institutional structure, but also a legal structure. They have established an instrument of international law to precisely prevent a situation in which the most powerful attack the weakest with impunity, and to ensure a balance in the world. And of course, to avoid serious violations of international peace and security.”

At this point Mr. Llorenty held up a copy of the United Nations Charter, and said:

“We have agreed that this charter – the United Nations Charter – must be respected, and this charter prohibits unilateral actions. Any action must be authorized by the Security Council in accordance with the Charter. Allow me to read a couple of articles so we can remember this.”

“Article 24 says that in order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.”

“We (Security Council) represent the 193 member states of the organization, and through them we represent the people of the world. And, we have agreed that unilateral actions violate international law. Now, as we were discussing yesterday draft resolutions, while we were striving to come up with alternatives and come up with consensus in the Security Council, the United States not only unilaterally attacked, but, while we were just discussing here and demanding the need for an independent investigation, an impartial investigation, complete investigation into these attacks, the United States has become that investigator… Has become the prosecutor… Has become the judge, has become the jury.”

“So, where is the investigation which would allow us to establish in an objective manner who is responsible for the (chemical) attacks? This is an extremely, extremely serious violation of international law.”

***

Mr. Llorenty then reminded fellow members sitting at the meeting that such unilateral military action isn’t anything new, and has been undertaken by not just solely the United States but other U.N. member states in the past. He noted the 2003 presence of then U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell at the United Nations shortly before the start of the Iraq War, and how Mr. Powell lied to the Security Council about Iraq’s leader Saddam Hussein’s possession of weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. Llorenty reminded the council that Latin Americans have been subject to U.S. Central Intelligence Agency financed overthrows of constitutional governments in that region, and described the training of torture methods to military soldiers associated with post-overthrow government officials.

***

“When we condemn unequivocally chemical attacks, we say that the Security Council must not be used as an echo chamber for interventionism. The Security Council should not be used as a pawn which can be sacrificed on a chessboard – the chessboard of war.”

“This Security Council of the United Nations is the final hope that we have to guarantee international peace and security, based upon principles, on norms and international rule of law.”

“Madame President, Also I’d like to point out that it’s absolutely vital, as you have convened this meeting in a very transparent way, that we demonstrate the concern that unfortunately there are first class members of the Security Council and second class members of the Security Council. The permanent members, which not only have the right to the veto, but they also control the procedures, they control the decision-making. And the other ten, we may be involved if we are consulted or if we are convened occasionally, not just to… not just to underwrite some positions of others. This is not multilateralism.”

“Bolivia would like to reiterate its robust, its robust condemnation of the use of chemical weapons or the use of chemical precursors in weapons to conduct criminal acts, irrespective of their motivation, whenever it may be, wherever it may be, and by whomsoever it may be committed. And we reiterate that we demand when these cases take place there should be independent, impartial, and conclusive investigations.”

“Unfortunately, the attacks yesterday have given a mortal attack on the Joint Investigative Mechanism, and, against the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) so that they can undertake an investigation to find out exactly what did take place a couple of days ago in Syria.”

“The persons responsible must be prosecuted and punished under the law, and the same with any violations of international law, and which threaten international security.”

“Thank you, Madame President.”

***

Sacha Sergio Llorenty of Bolivia  delivered a powerful statement at the 7919th meeting of the United Nations Security Council. What made it remarkable, and historic, was Mr. Llorenty’s fearlessness in speaking truths unfortunately rarely seen at the United Nations, and in the process raised the organization’s level of integrity and bar of excellence. Perhaps when situations become extraordinarily dangerous, some individuals respond with extraordinary truthfulness to reveal the root cause of the dangers, so to effectively neutralize any and all potential threats. May all such individuals on Earth step forward now.

(Thank you to Permanent Mission of Bolivia to the United Nations at YouTube)

Featured

Stand For The Truth: Healing The World Of 9/11.

n August of 2016, a former employee of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) began looking into the reports his agency had released years earlier on the collapse of the World Trade Center. What he found shook him to the core.

In this poignant half-hour interview, Peter Michael Ketcham tells his story of discovering that the organization where he had worked for 14 years had deliberately suppressed the truth about the most pivotal event of the 21st century.

Through his willingness to look openly at what he failed to see in front of him for 15 years, Mr. Ketcham inspires us to believe that we can all muster the courage to confront the truth — and, in so doing, finally heal the wounds of 9/11.

(Thank you to ae911truth at YouTube)

Bashar al-Assad Interview Exposes “White Helmets”.

By Jerry Alatalo

ill “The White Helmets” Academy Award scandal soon become the #1 news, front page headline story worldwide? Could wide exposure of that scandal help turn the tide toward bringing the horrific Syrian conflict, finally, to an end?

Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad granted an interview recently to a journalist from the Chinese Phoenix television channel. His response when asked to comment on Netflix’ film about the “White Helmets” winning the Oscar at the Academy Awards for Short Documentary should (if real news reporting exists) become worldwide headline news.

“First of all, we should congratulate Al Nusra for having the first Oscar – an unprecedented event for the West to give Al Qaeda an Oscar… This is unbelievable. The White Helmet story is very simple. It’s a facelift of Al Nusra is Syria, just to change their ugly face into a more humanitarian face. That’s it. You have many videos on the net, and of course images, broadcasted by the White Helmets that condemn the White Helmets as terrorist groups, where you can see the same person wearing the white helmet and celebrating the dead body of Syrian soldiers.”

“So, it’s a story just to try to prevent the Syrian Army, during the liberation of Aleppo, from more… from making pressure and attacking and liberating the districts within the city that’s been occupied by these terrorists – to say that the Syrian Army and the Russians are attacking the civilians, and the innocents, and the humanitarian people.”

While the scandal surrounding an Academy Award being bestowed upon a film about a war propaganda group called “The White Helmets” certainly merits global front page news, war and violence continues in Syria after six years of devastating conflict. The new administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has sent Marine Corps soldiers and other “boots on the ground” to Syria, with the purported mission of taking control from terrorist group ISIS of their self-proclaimed “capitol city” of Raqqa in the northeastern region of the country.

Very serious concerns have arisen in the minds of experts, analysts and others about the sending of American soldiers to Syria. Foremost of those concerns is the potential for American soldiers and Russian and/or Syrian forces, either intentionally or by accident or error, to become involved in military exchanges which could escalate into a full-on major war.

The United States and Russia are major nuclear weapons powers, making it simple to understand why men and women around the Earth are greatly worried about escalating military conflict in Syria – about more war, which as history has recorded brings enormous negative consequences for humanity.

Bashar al-Assad stated: “We are very eager to achieve a solution.” His view of ending the long conflict has two fundamental pillars: 1) fighting terrorists and 2) making dialogue, in particular he emphasized conducting talks which are among Syrians only. Assad explained the reason his government participated in recent talks with groups representing nations and factions outside of Syria: the conflict has gone on for so long they are willing to take a chance on any opportunity to end it.

When asked about new U.S. President Donald Trump, Assad said that Trump’s rhetoric about defeating ISIS as one of his top priorities was hopeful, but then noted:

“We haven’t seen anything concrete yet regarding this rhetoric, because we’ve been seeing now certain different kinds of attacks, military attacks, military raids against ISIS which is local kind of phrase; you cannot deal with terrorism on a local basis, it should be comprehensive – it cannot be partial or temporary. It should not be from the air, it should be in cooperation with the ground troops. That’s why the Russians succeeded since they supported the Syrian Army in pushing ISIS to shrink, not to extend as it used to be before that.”

“We have hopes that this administration in the United States is going to implement what we’ve heard… Take into consideration that about ISIS doesn’t mean talking about the whole terrorism. ISIS is one of the products. Al Nusra is another product. You have so many groups in Syria, that they are not ISIS – they are Al Qaeda; they have the same background of Wahhabi extremist ideology.”

The Chinese journalist then asked, “You and Donald Trump actually share the same priority which is to counter terrorism, and both of you hate fake news. Do you see any room for cooperation?”

“In theory – yes. But practically, not yet. Because there’s no link between Syria and the United States on the formal level; even their raids against ISIS I just mentioned, which are only few raids, happened without the cooperation or consultation with the Syrian Army or the Syrian government, which is illegal, as we always say. So, theoretically we share those goals… but not yet.”

It is important to note that Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad has thus far had no personal contact with U.S. President Donald Trump.

After asked about the high-level meeting between military leaders of Russia, Turkey and the United States, Bashar al-Assad noted that Turkish leader Erdogan “…is Muslim Brotherhood” and has been supporting ISIS by using the Turkish border for years, that hopes have been raised with the new Trump administration, and that Russians are hoping Erdogan and Trump will agree on joining Russia and Syria to defeat terrorism. That said, Assad stressed that any foreign military forces on Syrian territory without permission from the Syrian government are, using his term, “invaders”.

“We are very close to Raqqa now.”

Interviewer: “How many days do you think this war is going to last?”

“We presume – that we don’t have foreign interventions – it will take a few months. It’s not very complicated internally. The complexity of this war is foreign interventions. This is the problem. So, now in the face of that intervention, the good thing that we gained during the war is the unity of the society. At the very beginning, many.. the vision for many Syrians wasn’t very clear about what’s happening.”

“…What we gained is this; this is our strongest foundation to end that war. We always have [unrecognizable] that ‘this year is going to be the last year..’, but at the end this is war – you can’t expect it. You can’t expect what’s going to happen precisely.”

“Have you thought of leaving this country for the safety of your family?”

“Never. After six years… I mean, the most difficult times past, it was in 2012 and 2013. Those times we never thought about it; how can I think about it now? It’s not an option. Whenever you have any kind of reluctance, you will lose – you lose not with your enemies, you will lose with your supporters. I mean the people you work with, the fighters, the Army… They will feel if you’re not determined to defend your country. We never had any fear, neither me or any member of my family.” 

Pray for peace in Syria, the Middle East, and everywhere on Earth.

(Thank you to PresidencySy at YouTube)