“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
“Thou shalt not kill.”
“And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”
Thank you, Geoffrey O’Neill.
The U.S. has bombed, invaded, assassinated leaders, overthrown governments, and killed millions since WW2
October 8, 2018
By Geoffrey O’Neill (Special to Truth and Shadows)
If most of us knew the real motives for the use of American military force around the world, we would never put up with it. And that’s why they don’t tell us.
The U.S. has been at war for 224 out of 242 years since the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, an astounding 93 per cent of the time. And since World War 2 in particular, every instance of American aggression – by bombing, covert subversion, or invasion – has been justified to the public using a lie or other form of deception.
Every last one.
The U.S. was the first country ever to use atomic weapons on civilian targets, which they did against Japan in 1945. This was accompanied by a massive propaganda campaign to justify this unconscionable act. President Harry Truman followed this by signing the National Security Act, which created the CIA and gave birth to what many today refer to as the Deep State.
Between 1947 and 1997, the CIA intervened in no fewer than 31 countries, overthrowing governments, assassinating leaders, and installing military dictatorships (usually right wing) friendly to American corporations. To keep the public unaware of this criminal behavior the agency launched Operation Mockingbird, a program designed to recruit and install journalists in major media outlets. The CIA’s goal was to insure that its crimes would be shielded from public scrutiny. Mockingbird served the CIA well then, and it continues to do so today.
Americans, largely unaware of CIA crimes, are reminded daily they are the good guys and that America is always willing to step up to the plate and fight for what is right. Far too many still believe in American righteousness thanks to Pentagon propaganda and a complicit media.
But if we are the “good guys,” how can anyone explain away the brutal savagery of elected and unelected war planners who show utter contempt for human life outside the borders of the United States? The victims most often targeted are poor, have a different skin color, and do not have the military might to repel American attacks.
Here are some of the most egregious examples of violent aggression by the United States in recent decades along with how lies and deceptions were used to gain the public’s support for them:
hile running for U.S. president on the Libertarian Party ticket in 2016, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson suffered wide public embarrassment and criticism for answering a question on national television about Aleppo, Syria with: “What’s Aleppo?”
Aleppo is Syria’s 2nd largest city, and at the moment of Governor Johnson’s political blunder its citizenry was heavily involved in fighting for survival against a variety of ruthless-killer terrorists.
Did Donald Trump display a “Gary Johnson moment” a week ago during his press conference at the United Nations in New York City? If he did, or did not … it seems Reuters was one of the few world media organizations to even report on Trump’s very puzzling, questions-raising Idlib statements.
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump suggested on Wednesday he had never heard of the rebel-held Syrian region of Idlib under threat from Syrian government and Russian forces until a supporter brought it up at a recent rally about a month ago.
….Speaking at a news conference in New York, Trump took credit for convincing Russia, Iran and Syria to hold off on the attack after he warned them in a Sept. 4 Twitter post that they would be making a “grave humanitarian mistake to take part in this potential human tragedy.”
“Syria’s a mess and I was responsible (for stopping the offensive) and I hope it stays that way,” he said. “When I put out on social media a few weeks ago about Idlib province, I said, ‘Don’t do it’.”
Trump went on to explain that he had just learned about the situation in Idlib after a woman in the crowd at a rally brought it up.
“I was at a meeting with lots of supporters and a woman stood up and she said there is a province in Syria with 3 million people right now. The Iranians, Russians and Syrians are surrounding that province and they are going to kill my sister and kill millions of people in order to get rid of 25,000 or 30,000 terrorists.
“I said that’s not going to happen. I didn’t hear of Idlib province. I came back and picked up the Failing New York Times and opened it up … not the front page, but there was a very big story and I said wow that’s the same story the woman told me and I found hard to believe and I said how, why would anyone do that?”
Trump said the story had indicated the offensive could start the next day and so he wrote his Twitter post and gave orders to his team, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and White House national security adviser John Bolton, to “not let it happen.”
“That doesn’t mean they can’t be selective, but don’t kill millions of people, and it stopped. Nobody is going to give me credit but that’s OK because the people know, but I’ve had more Syrians thank me for that. … This was about four weeks ago I put that out,” Trump said.
It is uncertain whether Trump’s statements as reported by Reuters indicate he had never heard of Idlib … or he was unaware that Syrian military forces, with help from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, were about to take the city back from terrorists.
If this was the 1st time Trump became aware of Idlib, then he distressingly repeats the embarrassing experience of Gary Johnson in 2016 when Johnson asked “What’s Aleppo?”. That seems an absolute impossibility for the man who’s been president of the United States for some 20 months.
On the other hand, and nearly equally as concerning if the case, Trump might know about Idlib, but have been actually unaware that Syrians and their allies were intending to retake the city of Idlib with its population of approximately 3 million from terrorists.
For the President of the United States to have become informed of a major anti-terrorist military situation in Syria from a supporter at one of his rallies, which then was confirmed by Trump by reading the New York Times, has one asking the obvious: “What kind of National Security, State Department and Defense Department advice is the leader of the free world receiving?”
This seems as impossible as the theory he’s repeating the embarrassment of Gary Johnson and Aleppo.
Is there another explanation, such as Trump’s sharing a story about Idlib which is completely fictional … and if so, why? Could Trump be telling what really happened, and his advisers are keeping him completely out of the loop? Is Trump trying to give the public the impression his advisers are intentionally keeping him in the dark, as part of some covert psychological operation?
Given the propensity of Trump to go on Twitter and convey oft-controversial messages about hugely consequential matters concerning international relations, – especially situations of war and peace … literal life and death, this event is enormously disturbing in light of its potential negative outcomes if left unresolved.
Whatever the explanation for his “Idlib moment”, from any perspective there is a clear, unbelievably important, profoundly dangerous problem of communications inside the administration of Donald Trump.
ather Dave Smith of Australia was one of the men and woman from around the Earth who received invitations to speak at the recent New Horizons Conference in Iran – the 6th Annual convening of the event in May 2018.
Among the group of others who participated were (from the U.S.): Alison Weir (author, founder of If Americans Knew), retired Central Intelligence Agency counter-intelligence expert Philip Giraldi, former State Department official Michael Maloof, military psychological operations expert and author of “Shell Game” (Swiss banks terrorist financing) Scott Bennett, and attorney/author Michael Springmann (Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry).
Father Dave Smith’s talk focused on the erroneous theological foundations of Christian Zionism, the distinctive branch of the faith finding 50-70 million adherents in the United States alone. The Christian block is very influential (negatively, if what Father Dave Smith suggests is correct) when it comes to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere around the Earth, particularly with regard to Israel-Palestine.
If one accepts the central thrust of Father Dave Smith’s thesis, the most worrisome aspect of Christian Zionists’ erroneous beliefs set is holding the idea that being a Christian requires giving full support to Israel – and accepting the “prophecy” that the return of Jesus Christ is dependent on Israel’s militarily conquering its neighbors or enemies. In other words, Christian Zionists are to believe (and do believe) that wars fought by Israel, including those fought by the United States for or joined with Israel, are absolute/solid “signs” – ignorant of the potential huge losses of human lives, the injuries, dislocation and destruction associated with military violence – of the imminent return of Jesus Christ.
This theologically incorrect stance is actually the one held firmly by millions of U.S. Christian Zionists (readers might have family members or friends in the religious category) – in fact to the point where many are joyously anticipating the “Armageddon” of Revelations in the Bible or major war in the Middle East, which supposedly then triggers the prophecy-fulfilling supernatural spiritual event of Christ’s return, the 2nd Coming, and/or “The Rapture”.
Americans might find it important to know that former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and now Secretary of State under Donald Trump – Mike Pompeo – believes in “The Rapture”. Moreover, Father Dave Smith wonders out loud in his talk whether Donald Trump’s National Security Advisor John Bolton is a Christian Zionist. The selection of Bolton by Trump did not require the approval/vote or confirmation of the U.S. Congress.
The Rapture has come into the consciousness of America’s estimated 50-70 million Christian Zionists through the reading of the controversial (many Christian leaders criticize and consider it sheer blasphemy) Scofield Bible, published in 1909 and including extensive end notes or interpretive commentary by editor Scofield, which portray biblical scriptures/verses in an extremely Israel-centric light.
Perhaps some men or women journalists can ask Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Bolton if their bibles are the Scofield version. It might be very important to know the answer, and especially so, given the current highly tense global situation.
A few hours of research into the Scofield Bible, its historical facts and the theological controversy surrounding it are enough for one to lean strongly in the direction that millions of Americans who’ve used/read solely the Scofield publication have been sadly fooled about Israel vis-à-vis Christianity. In many instances people professing themselves as Christians have used the Scofield Bible alone … solely that book without exception, for decades and/or generations.
Among America’s more well-known Christian Zionists are Pat Robertson (who ran for president as a Republican, and once publicly called for the political, literal assassination of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez), John Hagee and Robert Jeffress (who both spoke in Israel at the U.S. Embassy dedication ceremony, after Donald Trump moved it from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem), Jerry Falwell, Benny Hinn, Hal Lindsey, and many others.
Father Dave Smith spoke toward the end of his talk:
“Hence, biblical prophecies … they’re never designed to help shape foreign policy; any more than they’re designed to just satisfy our curiosity about the future. They’re designed to call us back to the commandments. Once we recognize this, I think we can see the fundamental flaw in the logic of Christian Zionism. They claim the biblical prophecies point to the triumph of the modern-state Israel over its neighbors.
“Even if they could be right, that some prophet had predicted this, it wouldn’t mean that either the prophet or the scriptures as a whole endorsed the event, nor would it mean that people should support it, any more than Jeremiah’s dire warnings were intended to garner support for the destruction of Jerusalem. In the Hebrew bible, when the prophet gives dire predictions about the future, his hope is that his warnings will cause his hearers to come back into a relationship of obedience to God – resulting in the prophecy proving false.
“See, the tragedy of Christian Zionism … Is it gets the whole process back to front, urging us to follow the prophecy even if it means breaking the laws of God, breaking the commandments. Prophecy has never been normative. The commandments are normative. The commandments tell us how we have to behave towards God and towards our neighbors. It’s the commandments with which we can base our foreign policy on, – a biblically based foreign policy, which would require of course a focusing on justice.
“As a Sydney Anglican priest I’m privileged to be part of a church tradition that has never been greatly influenced by Zionism. Indeed, I believe that at the Sydney Anglican Synod of 1948, some people did indeed stand up suggesting the creation of Israel was the fulfillment of biblical prophecy.
“It was the principal of our theological seminary who corrected them, saying: ‘No, no … It’s the fulfillment of the 8th commandment – Thou shalt not steal’. And this is the great tragedy of Christian Zionism … That under the guide of faithfulness to biblical prophecy it indeed justified stealing, and murder, and any number of other crimes that are clearly contrary to the commandments of God.
“A genuinely biblical approach to the situation in Israel-Palestine must begin, I believe, not with prophecy, but with the unambiguous command to do justice. A justice that respects the rights of Palestinian people to their land, to life and to liberty.”
“A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.”
– DAVID HUME (1711-1776) Scottish philosopher
he government of Iran has been urged to act quickly to appeal a U.S. court judgment of complicity in the events of 9/11. The urgent invitation was offered by researchers and activists who assert they hold the evidence for overturning the decision. In what most informed observers perceive as a completely irrational, nefarious and politically provocative legal move – and in a process Iran ignored and never engaged with, Iran was eventually “ordered” to pay $6 billion to surviving family members of 9/11 victims. The deadline for Iran’s appeal – should their government decide to challenge the U.S. court system – is only hours away on Wednesday May 30.
Were the Iranians to appeal the decision, long-time determined men and women activists would be feeling added encouragement – after the petition for a Grand Jury was officially served on April 10 in New York City by the Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry – that their wish for a new investigation of 9/11 will become reality. The U.S. Attorney in New York has the obligation by law to act upon the petition by the Lawyers Committee, and, should the petition be denied, the Lawyers Committee has the right of pursuing additional legal (mandamus) action making it impossible for the government to block the initiative’s moving forward – effectively forcing the U.S. Attorney to act.
Were Iran to choose the appeal process and accept the extremely strong body of research, facts and evidence of the (currently) over 40 men and women who signed the letter urging Iran to appeal, one could foresee a situation where the global spotlight on 9/11 shines at an unprecedented level since September 11, 2001. One might describe such a development as the lighting of a fuse which leads to the blowing up of the greatest military false flag deception of the 21st century, quite possibly the most decisive and consequential in world history.
While millions around the Earth wish for Iran to appeal and accept the help of researchers, academics, military experts and investigative journalists in challenging the official U.S. government narrative as put forward in the “9/11 Commission Report”, the idea of measuring the magnitude of the decision reveals that instances of such historical importance and enormity are very rare – thus making a correct assessment close to impossible.
One thing is certain. An Iranian appeal would represent and fully entail, among others, the following descriptive terms: