Last modification 54 there is
The links between the Islamists and the “integral nationalists” of kyiv
The links between the Islamists and the “integral nationalists” of kyivVoltairenet - March 28, 2024
The Moscow attack recalls the links between the Islamists and the “integral nationalists” of kyiv
It matters little whether the attack on the audience at the Crocus City Hall concert in Moscow was prepared by ISIS with or without the Ukrainians: these people are used to working together.
This has been going on for three quarters of a century, but is still not integrated into the collective consciousness: the “integral nationalists” today in power in Kiev work in concert with the Muslim Brotherhood and their militias, under the supervision of the services Anglo-Saxon secrets. Their basic function is to fight against the Russians.
On March 22, 2024, a commando of four fighters attacked the audience of a rock concert at Crocus City Hall in Krasnogorsk (a northeastern suburb of Moscow), killing 140 people and injuring 115 others. Then he set the building on fire.
The terrorist commando was arrested by the Russians while trying to cross the Ukrainian border and was waiting for them on the other side. They were identified as Tajiks. They admitted to having been recruited via the internet to kill for money. They assured that they had not had contact with their employer. However, a business card with the name Dmytro Yarosh was found on them. Yarosh having been founder of the Pravy Sektor militia, number 2 on the Ukrainian Security Council, then advisor to the head of the armed forces, the Russian authorities immediately accused Ukraine. Yarosh has denied his country's involvement. Seven accomplices were also arrested.
Russian counterterrorism police tortured terrorists and filmed their brutality. Public television showed these images and commented on them. Russian culture is both European and Asian. The Russian people feel no empathy for criminals.
Daesh claimed responsibility for the attack, cutting short accusations of a Russian false flag operation. These terrorists were not fanatics, but professionals. They did not set themselves on fire in public, but fled, like those who attacked Paris and Saint-Denis, killing 130 people, in 2015, notably at the Bataclan rock concert. They therefore did not act out of hatred of Russia, but as part of a military operation whose strategic implications were thought out in advance.
According to US National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson, Islamic State terrorists are solely responsible for this attack. Many commentators have denounced a priori any amalgamation between the Islamic organization and supporters of the kyiv government. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has accused Russia of reflexively attacking Ukraine. However, Russian President Vladimir Putin has maintained his accusations exclusively against kyiv, ignoring Daesh.
Since 2014 and the overthrow of the elected Ukrainian president, we have regularly highlighted the links between integral nationalists and Islamists, and particularly the role of Dmytro Yarosh. The facts speak for themselves. We do not know whether or not the Ukrainians organized this attack, but it is clear that they knew the attackers very well: Ukrainian integral nationalists and jihadists have been fighting together for three-quarters of a century.
• Before World War II, the Muslim Brotherhood formed ties with the Nazis against the British. No wonder, all the anti-colonialist movements of the time (including the Indian MK Gandhi) naturally turned to the side of the Axis in search of an ally. In general, they distanced themselves from it as soon as they had verified their racism on the spot. However, the Brotherhood benefited from subsidies from the Third Reich over the years and retained these links throughout the war. When, at the Liberation, the British and American secret services recovered many Nazi leaders and recycled them into their “cold war” against the Soviets, they also recovered the governance of the Muslim Brotherhood. It was therefore quite natural that the CIA had Gerhard von Mende, the Nazi specialist on Islam in the Soviet Union, work together with Saïd Ramadan, the son-in-law of the founder of the brotherhood. The latter having been responsible for a program on Pakistani public radio, the CIA placed him in Munich at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. There he hosted a program for Soviet Muslims and met there Stepan Bandera, leader of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), and his right-hand man, Yaroslav Stetsko, the former Nazi Ukrainian Prime Minister. It was precisely the "Banderists" (described as "Ukrainonazis" by the Kremlin, but calling themselves "integral nationalists") who carried out the coup d'état ("EuroMaidan") of 2014 against the elected Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych .
• In the 1970s, the Saudi billionaire Osama Bin Laden participated in the meetings of the World Anti-Communist League of Chiang Kai-Shek and… Yaroslav Stetsko [5]. Osama bin Laden was a member of the Brotherhood and had been trained by the brother of Sayyid Qutb, the Brotherhood strategist and jihad theorist. It was in this context that he was chosen by the United States to become the leader of the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets.
Last modification 54 there is
Donald Trump reopens the September 11, 2001 attacks file
Voltairenet - 27 Jan 2024
During an electoral rally in Laconia (New Hampshire), the US presidential candidate, Donald Trump, recalled that there had never been a foreign attack on September 11, 2001, as he 'had said the same day on the New York One television channel.
He recalled that this bloody scene had caused not only 3 victims in the United States, but above all served as a pretext for the massacre of millions of innocent people in the broader Middle East.
Thierry Meyssan was the first in the world to explain, on Voltairenet.org, that the official narration of the events of September 11 had no connection with reality. Then he published a world bestseller, The Terrible Imposture, to analyze the consequences of this lie: first the installation of a system of mass surveillance in the United States and throughout the West (confirmed by Edward Snowden), then the extension of imperialism to the wider Middle East (confirmed by Julian Assange). In 2005, Thierry Meyssan organized a conference in Brussels with 150 personalities from around the world to develop a response to the Straussians and other neo-conservatives. One of Donald Trump's lawyers (who had not yet entered politics) participated.
Since then, two official interventions have contradicted Bush's version of events:
The FBI has determined that US Attorney General Theodore Olson's testimony that he spoke with his wife aboard Flight AA 77 before it crashed into the Pentagon was false.
An officer with the Office of Military Commissions, Daniel Canestraro, testified that two of the alleged hijackers were CIA agents.
Last modification 54 there is
History: The French military staff refuses to cover the massacre in Gaza
History: The French military staff refuses to cover the massacre in GazaThe Media in 4-4-2 - Jan 17, 2024
History: The French military staff refuses to cover the massacre in Gaza by Israel by participating in an operation in Yemen.
While Yemen has shaken the foundations of international trade in the Red Sea through targeted attacks on Israeli ships, those escalating into Israel, and even on ships of nations supporting the massacre in Gaza. However, a historic event that went completely unnoticed took place before our eyes.
This in-depth analysis by Thierry Meyssan, carried out during an interview, takes stock of the situation in Gaza and explores the surprising reaction of the general staff of the French Ministry of the Armed Forces which officially became anti-Zionist.
The historic refusal of the general staff
Astonishment and disapproval shook French military circles when the general staff of the Ministry of the Armed Forces categorically refused to participate in the “Guardian of Prosperity” operation against Yemen. This action, legally permitted by a post-Algerian War clause, raises important questions. This refusal is simply presented as an exercise of military rights without being questioned.
“Never before has the French military staff refused to participate in an operation. It is a decisive moment that reveals a deep disagreement with current foreign policy. »
Last modification 54 there is
How Netanyahu falsifies the news
Voltairenet - Nov 22, 2023
We think we are correctly informed in the West about what is happening in Gaza. It is not so. The images we see are selected. The comments we hear do not allow us to understand them. They deliberately mislead us.
Any dissenting opinion is censored.
Like all wars, the one between the State of Israel and the Palestinian population is the subject of a media battle. The Palestinian Resistance does not need to tell the story of the injustice it is fighting against: you just have to look to see. It rather aims to magnify one or another of its components. Israel must, on the other hand, convince of its good faith, which after three quarters of a century of violation of international law is not an easy task.
Before the attack
Since the attack by the Palestinian Resistance on October 7, 2023, Israel has deployed all its services to make us believe that this attack is an operation by Hamas jihadists; and that he knew nothing about his preparation.
However, this attack was carried out by all Palestinian factions, with the exception of Fatah. Hamas defined itself until recently as the “Palestinian Branch of the Muslim Brotherhood”, as indicated on all its documents. In this capacity, he fought against the secularists of Yasser Arafat's Fatah and George Habache's PFLP, then against those of President Bashar al-Assad's Syrian Arab Republic. All, in his eyes, were only “enemies of God”. Hamas was financed by Israel and, in Syria, its fighters were supervised by Mossad and NATO officers. However, after the failure of the Brotherhood in Egypt and their defeat in Syria, Hamas was divided between a part loyal to the Muslim Brotherhood, led by Khaled Meshaal and still pursuing the establishment of a global Caliphate, and another which refocused on the liberation of Palestine. This second trend, initiated by Iran, reconnected with Syria until its leader, Khalil Hayya, was received in Damascus by President Bashar el-Assad. She also reconnected with the Lebanese Hezbollah, to the point of participating, in Beirut, in meetings with it and other components of the Palestinian Resistance.
[...]
Last modification 54 there is
Thierry Meyssan: What international order?
Voltairenet - Nov 10, 2023
We reproduce the text of Thierry Meyssan's intervention in Magdeburg (Germany), during the conference organized by Compact magazine, “Friendship with Russia”, on November 4, 2023.
He explains what constitutes, according to him, the fundamental difference between the two conceptions of the world order which clash today from Donbass to Gaza: that of the Western bloc and that to which the rest of the world refers. It is not a question of knowing whether this order should be dominated by one power (unipolar) or by a group of powers (multipolar), but whether or not it should be respectful of the sovereignty of each. The author draws on the history of international law, as Tsar Nicholas II and Nobel Peace Prize winner Léon Bourgeois conceived it.
We have seen NATO's crimes, but why affirm our friendship with Russia? Is there not a risk of seeing it behave tomorrow like NATO today? Are we not going to substitute one slavery for another?
To answer this question, I would draw on my successive experience as advisor to five heads of state. Russian diplomats everywhere told me: you are on the wrong track: you are committing to putting out a fire here, while another has started elsewhere. The problem is deeper and broader.
I would therefore like to describe to you the difference between a world order based on rules and one based on international law. It is not a linear story, but a battle between two worldviews; a fight that it is up to us to continue.
In the 1815th century, the Treaties of Westphalia established the principle of state sovereignty. Everyone is equal to others and no one can interfere in the internal affairs of others. It is these Treaties which have governed, for centuries, both relations between the current Länder and those between European States. They were reaffirmed by the Congress of Vienna in XNUMX, during the defeat of Napoleon I.
On the eve of the First World War, Tsar Nicholas II convened two International Peace Conferences (1899 and 1907), in The Hague, in order to "search for the most effective means of ensuring to all peoples the benefits of real and lasting peace. He prepared them with Pope Benedict XV on the basis of canon law and not on the law of the strongest. 27 states signed the final work, after two months of deliberations. The president of the French Radical [Republican] Party, Léon Bourgeois, presented his thoughts on the reciprocal dependence of States and on the interest they have in uniting despite their rivalries.
Under the leadership of Léon Bourgeois, the Conference created an international court of arbitration responsible for resolving conflicts by legal means rather than by war. According to Bourgeois, states will only agree to disarm when they have other security guarantees. The final text establishes the notion of “the duty of States to avoid war”… by resorting to arbitration.
Under the leadership of a minister of the Tsar, Frédéric Fromhold de Martens, the Conference agreed that, during an armed conflict, the populations and the belligerents must remain under the protection of the principles which result from "the customs established between civilized nations, the laws of humanity and the demands of public conscience. In short, the signatories agreed to no longer behave like barbarians.
This system only works between civilized states that honor their signature and are accountable to their public opinion. It failed, in 1914, because the States had lost their sovereignty by concluding Defense treaties requiring them to enter into war automatically in certain circumstances which they could not assess themselves.
Léon Bourgeois' ideas gained ground, but encountered opposition, including that of his rival within the Radical Party, Georges Clemenceau. The latter did not believe that public opinion could prevent wars. The Anglo-Saxons, the President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, and the British Prime Minister, Lloyd George, did not believe it either. The three men substituted the Force of the Victors for International Law, which was still in its infancy at the end of the First World War. They shared the world and the remains of the Austro-Hungarian, German, and Ottoman empires. They placed full responsibility for the massacres on Germany alone, denying their own. They imposed disarmament without guarantees. To prevent the emergence of a rival to the British Empire in Europe, the Anglo-Saxons began to pit Germany against the USSR and obtained silence from France by assuring it that it could plunder the II° Reich defeated. In a way, as the first President of the Federal Republic, Theodor Heuss, said, they organized the conditions for the development of Nazism.
As they had agreed among themselves, the three men reshaped the world in their image (Wilson's 14 points, the Sykes-Picot agreements, the Balfour declaration). They created the Jewish home of Palestine, dissected Africa and Asia and tried to reduce Turkey to its bare minimum. They organized all the current disorders in the Middle East.
However, it was on the basis of the ideas of the late Nicholas II and Léon Bourgeois that the League of Nations (SDN) was established after the First World War, without the participation of the United States which thus officially refused any idea of international law. However, the League of Nations also failed. Not because the United States refused to be part of it, as is said. It was their right. But firstly because it was incapable of re-establishing strict equality between the States, the United Kingdom being opposed to considering colonized peoples equal. Then because it did not have a common army. And finally because the Nazis massacred their opponents, destroyed German public opinion, violated the Berlin signature and did not hesitate to behave like barbarians.
As early as the Atlantic Charter in 1942, the new US President Franklin Roosevelt and the new British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, set the common objective of establishing a world government at the end of the conflict. The Anglo-Saxons, who imagined themselves able to govern the world, did not however agree among themselves on how to go about it. Washington did not want London to interfere in its affairs in Latin America, while London did not intend to share the hegemony of the Empire on which “the sun never set”. The Anglo-Saxons signed a number of treaties during the War with the Allied governments, notably those in exile, which they hosted in London.
Moreover, the Anglo-Saxons did not succeed in defeating the Third Reich; it was the Soviets who overthrew it and took Berlin. Joseph Stalin, the first secretary of the CPSU, was opposed to the idea of a world government, especially Anglo-Saxon. He just wanted an organization that could prevent future conflicts. In any case, it was Russian conceptions which gave birth to the system: that of the United Nations Charter, during the San Francisco conference.
In the spirit of the Hague Conferences, all UN member states are equal. The Organization includes an internal tribunal, the International Court of Justice, responsible for resolving conflicts that arise between its members. However, given previous experiences, the five victorious powers have a permanent seat on the Security Council with a veto. Given that there was no trust between them (the Anglo-Saxons had considered continuing the war with the remaining German troops against the USSR) and that it was unknown how the General Assembly would behave, the various victors wanted to ensure that the UN did not turn against them (the United States had committed terrible war crimes by launching two atomic bombs against civilians, while Japan… was preparing its surrender to the Soviets). But the great powers did not understand the veto in the same way at all. For some, it was a right to censor the decisions of others, for others, it was the obligation to make decisions unanimously by the winners.
Except that from the start, the Anglo-Saxons did not play the game: an Israeli state proclaimed itself (May 14, 1948) before its borders had been agreed, then the special envoy of the secretary General of the United Nations who was to ensure the creation of a Palestinian state, Count Folke Bernadotte, was assassinated by Jewish supremacists, under the command of Yitzhak Shamir. Furthermore, the Security Council seat allocated to China, in the context of the ending Chinese civil war, was given to Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang and not to Beijing. The Anglo-Saxons proclaimed the independence of their Korean zone of occupation under the name "Republic of Korea" (August 15, 1948), created NATO (April 4, 1949), then proclaimed the independence of their zone of occupation. German occupation under the name of “Federal Germany” (May 23, 1949).
Considering that it had been fooled, the USSR slammed the door (“empty seat” policy). The Georgian Joseph Stalin wrongly believed that the veto was not a right of censorship, but a condition of unanimity of the winners. He thought he would block the organization by boycotting it.
The Anglo-Saxons interpreted the text of the Charter that they had drawn up and took advantage of the absence of the Soviets to place “blue helmets” on the heads of their soldiers and waged war on the North Koreans (June 25, 1950) in the “name of the international community” (sic). Ultimately, on August 1, 1950, the Soviets returned to the UN, after 6 and a half months of absence.
If the North Atlantic Treaty is legal, NATO's internal regulations violate the United Nations Charter. He placed the allied armies under the command of the Anglo-Saxons. Its commander-in-chief, the SACEUR, must be a United States officer. According to its first Secretary General, Lord Ismay, the real objective of the Alliance is neither to preserve peace nor to fight against the Soviets, but to "Keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans under supervision. In short, it is the armed wing of the world government that Roosevelt and Churchill wanted to create. It is in pursuit of this goal that President Joe Biden ordered the sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipeline which linked Russia to Germany.
At the Liberation, MI6 and the OPC (i.e. the future CIA) secretly installed a stay-behind network in Germany. They placed thousands of Nazi officials there whom they helped to escape justice. Klaus Barbie, who tortured French Resistance coordinator Jean Moulin, became the first commander of this shadow army. Then this network was incorporated within NATO where it was largely reduced. It was then used by the Anglo-Saxons to interfere in the political life of their supposed allies, in reality their vassals.
Former collaborators of Joseph Goebbels created the Volksbund für Frieden und Freiheit. They persecuted German communists with the help of the United States. Later NATO stay-behind agents were able to manipulate the far left to make it detestable. This is for example the case of the Bader gang. But as these men were arrested, the stay-behind came to assassinate them in prison, before they were tried and spoke. In 1992, Denmark spied on Chancellor Angela Merkel on the instructions of NATO, as in 2022, Norway, another NATO member, helped the United States to sabotage Nord Stream...
Let's return to International Law, gradually things returned to order until the Ukrainian Leonid Brezhnev did, in Central Europe, in 1968 during the Prague Spring, what the Anglo-Saxons did everywhere else: he banned States allied with the USSR to choose an economic model other than the breast.
It was with the dissolution of the USSR that things started to get worse. US Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz developed a doctrine according to which, to remain masters of the world, the United States must do everything to prevent the emergence of a new rival, starting with the European Union. . It was in application of this idea that Secretary of State James Baker imposed the enlargement of the European Union to all the former States of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR. By developing in this way, the Union deprived itself of the possibility of becoming a political entity. It is still in application of this doctrine that the Treaty of Maastricht placed the EU under the protection of NATO. And it is still in application of this doctrine that Germany and France pay and arm Ukraine.
Then came the Czech-US professor Josef Korbel. He proposed to the Anglo-Saxons to dominate the world by rewriting international treaties. According to him, it was enough to substitute Anglo-Saxon law, based on custom, for the rationality of Roman law. In this way, all the Treaties would give the advantage in the long term to the dominant powers: the United States and the United Kingdom, linked by a “special relationship”, in the words of Winston Churchill. Professor Korbel's daughter, the democrat Madeleine Albright, became ambassador to the UN, then secretary of state. Then, when the White House passed into Republican hands, Professor Korbel's adopted daughter, Condoleeza Rice, succeeded him as National Security Advisor, then Secretary of State. For two decades, the two “sisters” patiently rewrote the main international texts, allegedly to modernize them, in fact to change their spirit.
Today, international institutions operate according to rules decreed by the Anglo-Saxons, based on previous violations of international law. This right is not written in any code, since it is an interpretation of custom by the dominant power. Every day we substitute unjust rules for international law and we violate our own signature.
Last modification 54 there is
The Zelensky lie is coming to an end
Voltairenet - Sep 27, 2023
President Volodymyr Zelensky's trip to the United States has cleared up the last ambiguities about him. Everyone was wondering about their strategy. He does not seem to be trying to defend his own people, because he mobilizes all his men and sends them to die on the front without hope of victory.
From now on he appears not to hesitate to lie, to cheat, and to try by all means to expel certain States from intergovernmental organizations.
How can we not draw a parallel with Stepan Bandera who massacred his own compatriots by the thousands in the last days of the Second World War, that is to say when the defeat of the Reich was in no doubt?
The time for unconditional support is over. Like all their Western counterparts, American parliamentarians have realized that:
- ammunition is lacking and the Western arms industry cannot compete, either in the short or medium term, with that of Russia;
- the rebellion of the owner of the Wagner Group, Yevgeny Prigozhin, against the Kremlin failed;
- the Ukrainian counter-offensive is extremely deadly, more than a thousand deaths per day for two weeks, without achieving any significant success.
Many would therefore like to negotiate a way out of the crisis or, at least, stop spending astronomical sums for nothing. Republicans have written to the Biden administration to request an accurate accounting of how funds already provided have been used. While waiting for a response, they will not vote another dollar. The Pentagon is therefore devising ways to divert equipment and continue the US commitment alongside Ukraine. It hides behind the possible blocking of the federal state budget in the event of a fundamental disagreement between the Capitol and the White House.
Last modification 54 there is
Account of the assassination attempts against Thierry Meyssan
The Media in 4-4-2 - August 11, 2023
The West has tried to silence, by all the means at its disposal, those of its citizens who have revealed its true policy since September 11, 2001 and have risen up against it.
Thierry Meyssan recounts the various assassination attempts he escaped. Reality exceeds fiction…
In 2002, I published L'Effroyable imposture, a work of political science which denounced the official version of the attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, and anticipated the new US policy: generalized surveillance of citizens and domination of the Middle East. Expanded East. After an article in the New York Times which was surprised at my impact in France, the US Department of Defense instructed the Israeli Mossad to eliminate me.
Chirac offers protection against the Mossad
President Jacques Chirac, who had asked his own intelligence services to verify my thesis, then took up my defense. During a telephone conversation with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, he informed him that any action against me, not only in France, but throughout the territory of the European Union, would be interpreted as a hostile act against France. He also instructed one of his collaborators to watch over me and to inform the non-European states that would invite me of their responsibility to ensure my safety. Indeed, in all the countries where I was invited, I was provided with an armed escort.
Sarkozy obeys the CI
However, in 2007, President Chirac was replaced by Nicolas Sarkozy. According to the senior civil servant whom Jacques Chirac had put in charge of my security, the new president accepted Washington's request to order the DGSE to eliminate me. Thus warned, I packed my suitcase without waiting and went into exile. Two days later, I arrived in Damascus where I was granted state protection.
Last modification 54 there is
Global warming and the confrontation of the West against rest of the world
Voltairenet - June 10, 2023
The theory of the anthropogenic cause of global warming will soon be at the center of the confrontation between the West and Russia.
While no one disputes that some parts of the world are warming up, there is currently no alternative explanation for this phenomenon. But renowned scientists will present another at COP-28 in Dubai. They happen to be members of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
The theory that global warming is observable across the planet and is caused by human activity was popularized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); a United Nations commission.
I have no expertise in climate matters and I do not allow myself to judge whether this theory is true or false, but I am an expert in international politics and I can assess the work of this United Nations commission.
About ten years ago, I wrote that, as its name suggests, the IPCC is absolutely not a scholarly academy, but an intergovernmental group. Its conclusions are therefore not the fruit of a scientific approach, but of a political debate.
The IPCC was created on the initiative of the British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, in order to support his fight against miners' unions. Unsurprisingly, he concluded that using coal is bad for the environment, while nuclear is desirable. This is not a scientific theorem, but a political position.
Furthermore, I pointed out that the creation of greenhouse gas emission rights is not an intergovernmental initiative, but an idea of the Joyce Foundation, implemented by the Climate Exchange Ldt. Each state drafts its own legislation in this regard. He receives a certain quantity of emission rights which he distributes as he sees fit to companies. Those who use them only partially can resell the unused rights on a specialized stock exchange in Chicago.
The statutes of this Fellowship were written by a lawyer from the then unknown Joyce Foundation, a certain Barack Obama (future President of the United States). The call for investors for the launch of this Stock Exchange was organized by Al Gore (future vice-president of the United States), and by David Blood (former director of the Goldman Sachs bank). You can consider these people as bona fide environmental activists or high-flying crooks, it's a matter of perspective.
Over time, this political device has taken on a scientific veneer and good intentions so that it has become difficult to question it. However, there is an alternative scientific theory to explain global warming. It was stated by the Croatian geophysicist Milutin Milanković during the interwar period.
The Earth's orbit varies according to three natural cycles: its eccentricity, its obliquity and the precession of the equinoxes. Each of these variations follows a perfectly calculable cycle, between 20 and 000 years. These three variations combined influence the Earth's insolation and therefore its climate. This theory was confirmed in 100 by the study of ice cores during the drilling of Vostok (Antarctica). But it does not explain everything.
Last modification 54 there is
Imran Khan and the independence of Pakistan
Voltairenet - May 16, 2023
Pakistan has never been independent. It has always remained a toy in the hands of the UK and the US.
During the Western war against the Afghan communist regime, it became a rear base for the mujahideen and Bin Laden's Arab fighters. However, for a decade, a cricket champion like no other has been trying to free him, make peace with India and create social services: Imran Khan.
The Pakistani population is rising up against its army and against its political personnel. Everywhere, demonstrations are forming to support the former Prime Minister, Imran Khan, just released, but subject to a hundred legal proceedings.
Who is Imran Khan?
Imran Khan comes from an illustrious Pashtun family. He descends through his father from an Indian general and governor of Punjab, and through his mother from a Sufi master who invented the Pashto alphabet. He studied in Lahore, then in England at Oxford. He speaks Saraiki, Urdu, Pashto and English. He is a cricketer, the most important sport in Pakistan. He was captain of the national team in 1992 and managed to win the world cup. During the years 1992-96, he devoted himself exclusively to philanthropic activities, opening with the money of his family a hospital for cancer patients and a university. In 1996, he entered politics and created the Pakistan Justice Movement (PTI). He obtained a seat in the National Assembly in 2018, but was the only elected member of his training.
Imran Khan is not a politician like the others. He recognizes himself in the approach of Mohamed Iqbal (1877-1938), the spiritual father of Pakistan. He intended to break with the religious immobilism of Islam and undertake an effort of interpretation, but he remained prisoner of a community and legal vision of Islam. Imran Kahn only found his way by discovering the Iranian philosopher and sociologist Ali Shariati, a friend of Jean-Paul Sartre and Frantz Fanon. Unknown in the West, Shariati proposed to his students to evaluate the precepts of Islam by applying them and to keep only those that they found useful. He himself engaged in a reinterpretation of Islam which fascinated young Iranians. He rose up against the regime of Shah Reza Pahlevi and supported Ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeini, then in exile and considered a heretic by all Iranian clerics. He was assassinated by the shah's secret police, the sawak, in England in 1977, just before Khomeini's return to his country. So it was he who instigated the Iranian revolution, but he never experienced it.
Last modification 54 there is
Thierry Meyssan: The man who shook the world with his controversial theories
Thierry Meyssan: The man who shook the world with his controversial theoriesStudio One – Apr 30, 2023
Thierry Meyssan answered questions from Studio One. This interview mixes political and personal questions.
Thierry Meyssan is a controversial writer, journalist and political analyst, known for his conspiracy theories and his criticism of American and Western foreign policies.
During this interview Thierry Meyssan discusses topics such as geopolitics, international politics, history, war, terrorism and international relations. It sheds light on world events ranging from the war in the former Yugoslavia to the conflict between Ukraine and Russia.
Last modification 54 there is
Türkiye facing the American Empire
Voltairenet - Apr 27, 2023
Three weeks before the Turkish presidential election, the debate is changing.
From for or against the Islamism of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, he becomes for or against the alliance with the United States. The outgoing president is in the process of regaining points in the polls which predicted him losers. From an Islamist, he became a nationalist. It is not known at the moment if this will be enough to allow him to win, but we must expect, if he wins, that he will withdraw Türkiye from NATO.
The polls show President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan losing to the leader of the united opposition, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, in the Turkish presidential election on May 14, 2023. This possible internal reversal is leading the outgoing president to radicalize his position in international matters. Until now, it appeared to be halfway between the United States on one side and Russia and China on the other. From now on, his political party presents him as the savior of Turkish independence in the face of the dark actions of Washington. By contrast, he presents his competitor as a Yankees henchman, which he probably isn't at this point.
The United States is thus paying the price for the attempted assassination of the Turkish president, and particularly the one that led to the failed coup of July 15, 2016, after Ankara decided to build a gas pipeline with Moscow and even bought it from him. weapons. In addition, Washington is blamed, rightly or wrongly, no one knows, for having caused the recent earthquake which cost the lives of tens of thousands of Turks. Public opinion therefore shares a strong anti-American feeling in a country that has given a lot to the United States since the Korean War (the Turkish army won there and fought a decisive battle, saving the United States from disaster) and much suffered from them with the Kurdish drama (the CIA took control of the PKK and encouraged its terrorist actions, thus holding “a gun to the head” of Ankara).
US Ambassador Jeffrey Flake ostensibly took the liberty of visiting candidate Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu. Flake is an old-school Republican, a friend of John McCain, like him from Arizona, where they were one of two senators. He howled against Donald Trump's entryism and left the party to get closer to Joe Biden who appointed him ambassador. By showing himself with Kılıçdaroğlu, he thought he was doing well and doing good. Mistake: he gave food for thought to Erdoğan who hastened to declare: “Joe Biden's ambassador is visiting Kemal. Shame on you, think with your head. You are an ambassador. Your interlocutor is the president. How will you stand after that and ask for a meeting with the president? Our doors are closed for him, he can no longer enter. For what ? He needs to know his place”.
On a similar note, Interior Minister and Vice President of the Presidential Party, Süleyman Soylu, publicly condemned the US Ambassador during the earthquake, telling him to take his "dirty hands away from Turkey". ". All Turks noticed that the Westerners had withdrawn their ambassadors from the country in the two days before the disaster, as if they knew about it before it happened, and that they were slow to send relief. Soylu added: “Every US ambassador wonders how he can harm Turkey. It was one of Turkey's greatest misfortunes in years. They gather other ambassadors and try to give them advice. They do the same in Europe so that the US embassies govern Europe”.
The Turks, who are very nationalistic, agree. But the minister is nonetheless still a mafia and an Islamist, publicly denounced by another sponsor, Sedat Peker, now on the run. He revealed in a series of videos posted on the Internet that Süleyman Soylu and the son of Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım used Al-Qaeda soldiers to overthrow the 2016 putschists. He delivered weapons to them via a private military company, SADAT. They were the ones who defeated the insurgent soldiers on the Bosphorus Bridge.
Last modification 54 there is
Thierry Meyssan: All empires are mortal, the “American empire” too
Voltairenet - Apr 24, 2023
Last week, I wondered about the reality of the rivalry between the United States and China. Perhaps the “Thucydides trap” is just a smokescreen that masks the impending disintegration of the “American empire”.
In this article, I summarize his career that Westerners have not understood, and I invite you to think about what may happen when he disappears.
The USSR collapsed on itself, not from the war in Afghanistan (1979-89), but from the Chernobyl disaster (April 26, 1986). The Soviets suddenly realized that the state no longer controlled anything. Members of the Warsaw Pact, which Leonid Brezhnev had made vassals, revolted. Churches, Communist Youth and Gays in East Germany brought down the Berlin Wall [1]. Not only did the USSR not react, but it abandoned its allies outside Europe, notably Cuba. Party First Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev transformed himself from reformer to liquidator. The USSR broke up, creating many new independent states. Then it was the descent into hell. A few “New Russians” appropriated public property and waged machine-gun warfare in the streets of Moscow and St. Petersburg. Production collapsed. It became difficult to find food in many Russian regions. Life expectancy fell sharply by fifteen years. The fall was so brutal that no one would have thought that the country would recover quickly.
Simultaneously, the United States imagines what it could do without a rival. President George H. Bush Sr., speaking before the assembled Congress on September 11, 1990, launched the idea of a “New World Order”. He just staged a war in the Gulf that almost every state in the world is joining. Even before the dissolution of the USSR, the United States became the superpower that no one disputes [2]. The Straussian Paul Wolfowitz develops a doctrine aimed at preventing the emergence of a new competitor, which would take the place of the Soviet Union. He points without hesitation to the political project of François Mitterrand and Helmut Köhl, the European Union, as the enemy to be defeated. This was flawed from the outset with the obligation to have all the States of the Warsaw Pact and the former USSR adhere to it until its institutions became impracticable and the inclusion in the Maastricht Treaty of defense of the EU by Washington.
The Pentagon is so sure of no longer having an adversary equal to it that it demobilizes 1 million men once Iraq has been crushed. The research and development units of the armies are dissolved. President Bush Senior believes that this war is the last and that an era of prosperity is beginning.
