Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Postby American Dream » Mon Mar 28, 2016 1:37 pm

Racist midfielder could face jail for refugees abuse

25 MAR 2016
BY RORY CASSIDY


JUNIOR footballer Steven Kerr, 31, may face jail after he was arrested for racist abuse during clashes between pro and anti-refugee groups in Ayrshire.

Image
Non-league midfielder Steven Kerr

A FOOTBALLER could face jail for hurling racist abuse at a demo over Syrian refugees being housed in Scotland.

Steven Kerr was arrested after clashes between pro and anti-refugee groups in Monkton, Ayrshire.

The 31-year-old midfielder – who is known as “Kerso” and has played for Ayrshire Junior sides Craigmark, Lugar, Ardrossan and Whitletts Victoria – was detained at the rally on Sunday, November 15.

It came just hours after the Paris attacks which left 130 people dead and following Prime Minister David Cameron’s pledge that Britain would receive 1000 of the most vulnerable Syrian refugees before Christmas.

Tempers flared in Monkton’s Main Street when members of the Scottish Defence League and pro-refugee demonstrators clashed over refugees being granted emergency accommodation at a local hotel.

Delivery driver Kerr – a member of the Ayr Protestant Boys’ Flute Band – was arrested and charged with behaving in a threatening or abusive manner.

He was due to go on trial at Ayr Sheriff Court this week but struck a deal with prosecutors which saw him admit to shouting a single racist remark during the incident.

Sheriff Carole Cunningham deferred sentence for reports.

Kerr will be back in the dock next month.



http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/foot ... face-jail/
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Mar 28, 2016 1:59 pm

Will the US Own Up to Its Role in Europe's Refugee Crisis?
Sunday, 27 March 2016 00:00
By Ryan Harvey, Truthout | News Analysis

A small, crowded boat arrives at an isolated beach on a small Greek island. Inside, 49 people prepare to unload their few possessions. On the beach, lit only by a half-moon and a few headlamps, volunteers from around the world wait to assess if there are any medical emergencies.

Soon after landing, vans and cars line up to begin transporting the group of mostly young people from Afghanistan to a support facility established by local villagers and international volunteers, where tea has been prepared and dry clothes have been made ready for distribution.

The boat has sailed across the Aegean Sea from Turkey, where 3 million other refugees have gathered hoping to find temporary work to pay for the multi-thousand-dollar trip through various illegal human smuggling networks into the few northern European countries that have offered them safe haven.

The conditions they have fled from have been created, in large part, by US political, economic and military actions across the Middle East.

Scenes like this repeat every night in places like Langada and Skala Skamnias, on the Greek island of Lesbos. Last year, over 1 million people made the journey from Turkey to the Greek islands, the vast majority fleeing violence in Syria and Afghanistan. And while the solidarity networks that have emerged from this crisis are most present in Lesbos, the "Red Island" of Greece and the busiest landing point for such refugees, similar initiatives have been established in Chios, Kos, Samos and many smaller islands.

Across the continent, refugees and European activists have mobilized protests together.
The effort in Greece is not limited to the islands. At the crowded Piraeus port in Athens, volunteer doctors work tirelessly to support the thousands who are stranded there, sleeping in tents, on sidewalks and in ship terminals. Further inside the city, anarchists have squatted a number of buildings, one at the Polytechnic University, to house refugees. Across Athens, volunteers cook food all day for public food distributions in the many parks that have become temporary homes for the 45,000 people who are currently stuck in the country, unable to proceed north.

Across the rest of the continent, refugees and European activists have mobilized protests together, blockading trains in London, occupying public squares in the Netherlands, occupying buildings in Hamburg, going on hunger strikes outside of refugee camps and storming the English Channel tunnel.

One of the central issues facing refugees here is the increasingly militarized borders of Europe, in both European Union (EU) and non-European Union states. In recent months, Austria, Serbia, Hungary and Macedonia have made moves to block many refugees from crossing their borders. At Calais, on the northern tip of France, thousands have been stranded for years in a self-built tent city, where they try daily to make the crossing to England. In Nijmegen, on the Dutch border with Germany, 3,000 refugees live in a massive campsite of containers and tents, supported by a small community of local activists.

The crisis in Europe has come to a head at Idomeni, on the Greek-Macedonian border, where thousands have been stranded with little-to-no support structures. In mid-March, a large crowd smashed through the border as tear gas filled the air. This week, as conditions in the makeshift camps have deteriorated, thousands crossed a dangerous river to break through the border en masse. Three refugees died in the process.

Though camps across Greece are now filled to capacity, a far larger crisis looms in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, where the vast majority of the refugees have ended up.

The recent series of European border closings spurred a political crisis in early March, when the EU announced that the "Balkan route" would be closed off entirely. That policy shift, stalled for a few weeks due to political tensions between Cyprus, Turkey, Spain and Greece, went into effect on March 19.

According to this bizarre agreement, every refugee -- the EU's preferred term is "irregular migrant" -- picked up at sea will be deported back to Turkey. For each Syrian deported, another Syrian will be allowed to enter Europe from Turkey. So, in order for a Syrian refugee to enter Europe, another Syrian first has to give $1,500 to a smuggler, risk their life at sea, get arrested and, finally, get deported back to Turkey.

The EU itself admits that this agreement is not ideal; in fact, it may create dangerous new smuggling routes. The most obvious one is an Albania-Italy route across the Adriatic Sea, as the Albanian mafia is already involved in the smuggling networks that operate between Turkey and Germany. Another risk is that the far more dangerous crossing from Libya to Italy, which claimed the lives of five times as many people last year as the Turkey to Greece crossing (nearly 3,000), may see an increase in activity.

US Involvement in Creating the Crisis

Until last summer, the refugee crisis in Europe was quietly and intentionally hidden from most Americans' view. It took 3,771 deaths in the Mediterranean last year - and a photograph of a lifeless, drowned Kurdish child named Aylan Kurdi - for coverage to hit the American press. By that time, 3,000 people were arriving every day to Lesbos, and many thousands more to the other Greek islands.

The irony of our ignorance should be obvious: the United States stands at the center of the situations pushing these refugees out of their homes, over mountains, around border crossings, through Turkish prison cells and onto crowded, dangerous boats. From Libya to southern Afghanistan, US interventions and occupations have led to further destabilization, violence and, in almost all cases, civil wars.

A longer trail of complicity stretches back to the four decades of economic and military support that the United States has given to the Arab dictatorships challenged in the 2011 Arab Spring, and to similar support given in that same time period to a number of insurgencies that dovetailed with US foreign policy objectives. One such group, the insurgency of the Afghan Mujahideen, fought a decade-long guerrilla war against Soviet occupation in the 1980s.

From Libya to southern Afghanistan, US interventions and occupations have led to further destabilization and violence.
Those who came to fight in Afghanistan from abroad, many of whom received US military and economic support either from Congress or the CIA, hatched a postwar strategy of insurgency across the Arab and Muslim world, which resulted in a civil war in Algeria that took 120,000 lives. Meanwhile, other smaller rebellions caused significant fighting across the Maghreb, in northern Pakistan, Yemen, Chechnya, Albania and beyond.

The group now known to the world as ISIS was created in this period by a Jordanian Mujahideen veteran named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Originally launched in Jordan, the all-but-failed organization was given a second lease on life in post-invasion Iraq, where a destabilized and fractured society made fertile soil for the hyper-sectarian ideology of Zarqawi, who helped turn anger at the US occupation into a civil war against Shiites.

The sectarian state originally put in power in Iraq by the United States escalated divisions in the country, helping fuel the other side of the 2005-2006 civil war while pushing a large, disenfranchised Sunni population further toward the open arms of groups like ISIS. A focus of the US "surge" in 2007 was working with Sunni militias to turn against this tide, but that strategy only lasted until the Iraqi state took control of the Sahwa program (Awakening Councils, or Sons of Iraq) as US troops withdrew and quickly dismantled them.

Against a backdrop of electricity shortages, water contamination and continued political destabilization, ISIS, which had by then entered into the north of Syria to take advantage of the civil war there, re-entered the picture with its dramatic capturing of Fallujah, Ramadi and other key points in Iraq's Anbar Province.

ISIS may be the most menacing face of Syria's civil war, but the multifaceted war includes a range of other groups, most notable the Assad regime itself, but also groups like the al-Qaeda-linked Jabhat al-Nusra and the Free Syrian Army, a "moderate" group originally formed by deserters from the regime's military. And while a civil society-based revolutionary movement continues to defend the small spaces it has been able to hold, a pipeline of US, Gulf and European money providing various factions with weapons that have helped prolong the bloodshed has helped shatter the hopes and dreams of those who first took to the streets in 2011. Though the US Congress recently canceled the public program backing such rebels, the much larger CIA program remains in operation.

Alongside the US funding, US allies like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have pumped weapons, logistical equipment and soldiers into Syria to support various factions fighting in the civil war, mainly those linked with the Supreme Military Council of Syria, which includes the Free Syrian Army and other anti-ISIS, anti-Assad groups. These groups, as well as the Kurdish peshmerga (from Iraq but often fighting in Syrian Kurdistan) and the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG), are often supported by bombings by the US, France, the UK, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Canada and Turkey.

On the other side of that war, Russia and Iran have sustained financial and political support to the four-decade-old Assad regime, helping defend its authoritarian police state from an array of forces fighting against it. In October 2015, Russian air support joined in the fight to secure Russia a seat at the negotiation table and to bolster Assad's position in power. Though Russia announced in mid-March that it would begin withdrawing forces as a long-needed cease-fire takes effect, fighting targeting Islamist groups unaffected by the cease-fire continues in Aleppo, Syria's largest city and its financial center.

The Refugee Crisis

Beyond the common narrative of Arab war and repression is the other Middle East: the one that occupied Tahrir Square and Pearl Roundabout and took to the streets of Sidi Bouzid, Daraa and Sanaa demanding social justice, freedom and the end of dictatorships largely supported economically, politically and militarily by the United States. That Middle East turned upside down the US demand for "regime change" that was made infamous in Iraq, initiating a wave of protest and revolution that swept Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali (in Tunisia), Hosni Mubarak (in Egypt) and Ali Abdullah Saleh (in Yemen) from power as it inspired the world to take action against injustice and poverty.

Since then, popular protests have exploded in almost every corner of the world, drawing comparisons to the revolutionary period of 1968. It's hard to analyze this wave of uprisings and protest without crediting the revolutions in the Arab world as the first spark that caught.

Those who inspired the world now face a severe wave of repression, with Syria as one of the most shocking examples. Over 11 percent of the population has been killed or injured since the start of the revolt, and over 20 percent have fled the country. Syria has become the single largest source of refugees in the world. The second largest? Afghanistan.

Beyond the common narrative of Arab war and repression is the other Middle East: the one that occupied Tahrir Square.
The Arab allies of the United States, fully involved in the war, have taken in an astoundingly small number of refugees from Syria, with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in last place, with zero. The United States, with its massive economy and "huddled masses yearning to breathe free" rhetoric, pledged last year to take in a mere 10,000 refugees for fiscal year 2016 - that's .015 percent. So far, that number has only reached 955.

Considering the extent to which US money has been spent killing people and destroying infrastructure in these countries -- for each of the 1,700 Syrian refugees accepted into the country last year, the United States spent an estimated $375,000 financing and arming various factions in the civil war -- it's far beyond an oversight that the United States' borders are almost impossible for refugees from the region to enter. Even those who worked as interpreters for US soldiers in Iraq regularly make the dangerous crossing to Greece, unsupported by the governments they risked their lives to assist.

The reality is that the United States is politically unwilling to help. Its wars of political and economic self-interest have always centered on a US perception of success and have always utilized a rhetoric of liberation to achieve long-sought foreign policy objectives. It has left those whose lives have been turned upside down across the Middle East -- the people it claimed to be liberating when it invaded their homes -- to fend for themselves in Europe or drown in the picturesque waters of the Mediterranean Sea.

The message is clear: "Your liberation only matters when we need to justify our wars."

Building a Solidarity Movement

Given this reality, we have an obligation to build a movement of solidarity with those fleeing these countries, as well as with those who have stayed home to continue pushing for radical social change across the Middle East. It is not enough to simply build awareness.

When similar revolutions, interventions and civil wars ripped Central America apart in the 1970s and 1980s, the Sanctuary Movement and groups like the Committee in Solidary with the People of El Salvador (CISPES) sprang to life, identifying ways that people in the United States could participate in the effort to defend the tens of thousands of social movement activists that were slaughtered there. Groups like Witness for Peace sent thousands of people to Nicaragua to learn about the realities there and to challenge US support for the Contras.

Over a million refugees from those wars came to the United States, often supported by a criminalized, coordinated network of congregations and activists who helped them find safe places to live.

A few years earlier, at the end of the war in Vietnam, US veterans and others from that antiwar movement began a project to address the massive suffering caused by the US invasion and by the ongoing tally of cancers and toxin-caused disabilities that resulted from the use of the poison defoliant Agent Orange.

Some of those groups, like CISPES, Witness for Peace and Vietnam Veterans Against the War, still operate these networks, recognizing that the long work of solidarity must continue far beyond the end of a war. Today, we are in a similar position as these groups were when they launched such important initiatives, and thankfully, we have some models from which to build in response to the massive human crisis in the Middle East.

So what do we do? We know from the European model that direct assistance for refugees is essential. Americans can participate in and help support these efforts economically. There are numerous organizations in Greece, Macedonia, Turkey and Lebanon that accept volunteers and donations, such as the CK Team (which I worked with in Lesbos in February), Doctors Without Borders (which operates in Syria and across the Greek islands) and both Proactiva and Sea-Watch (which operate rescue boats and provide emergency lifesaving support on the sea).

We can also directly support the small number of refugees from these countries who have been allowed into the United States, as groups in St. Louis and Baltimore have been doing. Nationally, a new initiative called Bring Them Here is organizing people to demand that more Syrian refugees be allowed entry into the United States.

In terms of solidarity with social movements in the Arab world, we have a long way to go, but some groundwork has been done. MENA, a London-based group focusing on building solidarity with workers in the Middle East, is a great resource for news, views and ideas for action. MENA also maintains the Egypt Solidarity Initiative, which focuses on solidarity with political prisoners and those facing state repression in post-revolution, post-coup Egypt.

Activists like Leila Al-Shami have been tirelessly promoting the ideals of, and news about, the popular revolutionary movement in Syria that has been pushing to oust Assad since 2011. This spring she will be touring the United States and sharing stories and perspectives from her new book Burning Country: Syrians in Revolution and War. Her blog Tahrir-ICN has been an important resource over the last few years with news, opinions and translated statements from revolutionary and anarchist groups across the Arab world.

A few years ago, Iraq Veterans Against the War, in partnership with the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions, the Organization for Women's Freedom in Iraq, War Resisters League and the Civilian-Soldier Alliance, launched The Right to Heal Campaign, demanding that "the human rights impacts of the war in Iraq be assessed and that concrete action be taken towards rehabilitation and reparations for those impacted by the lasting effects of the war."

Iraqi-American activist Ali Issa has recently published a book, Against All Odds: Voices of Popular Struggle in Iraq, and is doing numerous speaking events around the United States to talk about social movements in Iraq and how to support them.

In New York, Baltimore, Kansas City and elsewhere in the United States, groups have come together in solidarity with the revolutionary movement in Rojava, the Kurdish north of Syria. These groups have also embraced many of the principles of Rojava's revolutionary movement, including participatory democracy, feminism, ecological sustainability and secular pluralism.

These links should provide a starting point, but the conversation must spread far beyond small circles of activists. For those of us who consider ourselves human rights advocates or revolutionaries, the level of struggle we are willing to engage in to fight for justice for our counterparts in and from the Middle East must increase. We must begin thinking broadly and strategically about how to build a stronger, larger solidarity movement.

We owe it to the Arab world -- and to the people of Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries where covert and overt US militarism has caused so much suffering -- to do more. In the face of a massive backlash, we must stand with the brave revolutionaries of the Middle East.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Mar 28, 2016 2:05 pm

Finalising Cruelty: The EU-Turkey Agreement on Refugees
by Binoy Kampmark / March 26th, 2016

It seemed a foregone conclusion, but here it was, a ghastly cuddling show between Turkish officials and Donald Tusk, President of the European Council. Both political forces had united behind a refugee containment system that is compromised from start to finish, one designed to frustrate and ultimately terminate the desire to flee lands in conflict.

The Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, will be finding much to muse in the arrangement, not least of all because of his boastful remark last November that he could flood Greece and Bulgaria with refugees. In stating that, the Turkish leader was very clear that he wanted some arrangement in place on how to deal with the refugee crisis in his country. There would be more cash – and incentives. The sense of blackmail in this measure has been palpable from the start.

The exchange of humans (“one-in and one-out”), which effectively monetises a humanitarian situation by convincing the Turkish authorities to accept the unaccepted human cargo from the Aegean, is again another brutal measure undertaken in the name of false logic. Such measures are designed to plug holes in the leaking edifice of regional security, one ever exacerbated by foreign interventions and power plays.

Good lashings of false generosity have been spun by public relations apologists. All sides to this seedy arrangement have suggested that they are doing asylum seekers and refugees favours while targeting the business of traffickers.

News agencies have picked up on the main line pushed by the EU and Turkey: that the deal has brought a halt to human trafficking on the Aegean. Bravo, they are saying. Things are working. Agence France-Presse (March 25, 2015) went through descriptions by a certain fisherman, Hasan Balci, as he played cards in a café in Bademli, noting how prior to the “EU agreement there were hundreds of refugees crossing the sea here. But now there are none.”

In a matter of days, the desperate human presence has vanished. Locals at Çeşme to the south and opposite the island of Chios, and Küçükkuyu further north, opposite the known island transit point of Lesbos, have noted the trend.

All of this has the haunting tone of bogus humanitarianism, a middle class squeamishness that finds refuge in denying refuge using the image of the drowning and the unscrupulous operation of people smugglers as helpful alibis.

What this latently ignores is the obvious point that the smugglers are making money from validly availed rights in international refugee law. States, however, have taken it upon themselves to make sure that such rights are frustrated and only pursued in a strict and decent fashion. Even safer land routes have been closed of, starting with Greece itself, which was pressured to erect razor wire fencing to stifle movement of people from Turkey in 2012.

Marianna Fotaki of the University of Warwick accurately stated that the denial of the right to asylum on reaching the EU was against international law. “And refusing protection to unarmed people fleeing war and persecution by sending them back to Turkey, a country under threat of a civil war, is unconscionable.”

To prove Fotaki’s point, a day after the EU-Turkish deal was struck, a suicide bomber killed at least five people, including himself and four foreigners, in a busy portion of Istanbul. Since October, Turkey has become accustomed to the large-scale terror strike, which have cost almost 200 lives. This has also taken place as Turkey wages its own, ever aggressive war against Kurdish separatists, some of which are also engaged in fighting the Syrian regime.

Even now, the baying critics in untouched Britain insist that more should be done. The trade in people is deemed squalid and suitably immoral to warrant righteous condemnation. Yvo Fitzherbert, penning regular screeds against the asylum tide for The Spectator, suggests that the people-smugglers of Istanbul are hardly making much of the EU-Turkish deal. “Greece is an hour away, and the Turkish coastguards do nothing to deter migrants from making the crossing.”

Fitzherbert is right on the blind eye being turned by Ankara to the smuggling industry itself. (A similarly large blind eye is being turned to the ongoing oil trade between Turkish entrepreneurs and Islamic State.) This will go on, thriving as do so many other means of trade through Asia Minor. The desperate demand is there. According to a cynical former opposition politician, Aykan Erdemir, “Human smugglers will outsmart the Turkish authorities just a they have outsmarted EU authorities.”

Greece certainly lacks the means to process such arrivals, relying, instead, on the power of propaganda to discourage those inspired to make the journey. The idea of herding in orderly fashion thousands of refugees back to Turkey is not merely a gruesome prospect, but a difficult one to imagine.

Such persistent meanness continues to be the guiding principle in EU policy towards the refugee crisis. At the regional level, the failure of individual states and the EU proper to genuinely enact a mechanism by which refugees are assessed and resettled has become enshrined dogma. The costs of this venture will prove telling in time.

In the meantime, the good will of EU citizens, when manifested, will continue to demonstrate the vast gulf between institutional paralysis in Brussels and the community insistence that humanitarianism prevail. They will not be thanked for that.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Apr 04, 2016 1:30 pm

IMF Internal Meeting Predicts Greek 'Disaster', Threatens to Leave Troika
Read the PDF or HTML transcript of the IMF internal meeting.
by Julian Assange
Today, 2nd April 2016, WikiLeaks publishes the records of a 19 March 2016 teleconference between the top two IMF officials in charge of managing the Greek debt crisis - Poul Thomsen, the head of the IMF's European Department, and Delia Velkouleskou, the IMF Mission Chief for Greece. The IMF anticipates a possible Greek default co-inciding with the United Kingdom's referendum on whether it should leave the European Union ('Brexit').

"This is going to be a disaster" remarks Velkouleskou in the meeting.

According to the internal discussion, the IMF is planning to tell Germany that it will abandon the Troika (composed of the IMF, European Commission and the European Central Bank) if the IMF and the Commission fail to reach an agreement on Greek debt relief.

Thomsen: "Look you, Mrs. Merkel, you face a question: you have to think about what is more costly, to go ahead without the IMF--would the Bundestag say 'The IMF is not on board?', or [to] pick the debt relief that we think that Greece needs in order to keep us on board?"

Remaining in the Troika seems an increasingly hard sell internally for the IMF, because non-European IMF creditor countries view the IMF's position on Greece as a violation of its policies elsewhere of not making loans to countries with unsustainable debts.

In August the IMF announced it would not participate in last year's €86 billion Greek bailout, which was covered by EU member states. IMF Chief Christine Lagarde stated at the time that the IMF's future participation was contingent on Greece receiving "significant debt relief" from creditors. Lagarde announced that a team would be sent to Greece, headed by Velkouleskou.

Thomsen said internally that the threat of an imminent financial catstrophe is needed to force the other players into a "decision point". For Germany, on debt relief, and In the case of Greece, to accept the IMF's austerity "measures," -- including raising taxes and cutting Greek pensions and working conditions. However the UK "Brexit" referendum in late June will paralyse European decision making at the critical moment.

"I am not going accept a package of small measures. I am not..." said Thomsen. "What is going to bring it all to a decision point? In the past there has been only one time when the decision has been made and then that was when [the Greeks] were about to run out of money seriously and to default. [...] And possibly this is what is going to happen again. In that case, it drags on until July, and clearly the Europeans are not going to have any discussions for a month before the Brexits..."

Last year Greek Finance Minister Tsakalotos accused the IMF of imposing "draconian measures," including on pension reform. While Velkouleskou concedes in the meeting that "What is interesting though is that [Greece] did give in... they did give a little bit on both the income tax reform and on the.... both on the tax credit and the supplementary pensions."

But Thomsen's view is that the Greeks "are not even getting close [to coming] around to accept[ing] our views." Velkouleskou argues that "if [the Greek government] get pressured enough, they would... But they don't have any incentive and they know that the Commission is willing to compromise, so that is the problem."

Velkouleskou: "We went into this negotiation with the wrong strategy, because we negotiated with the Commission a minimal position and we cannot go further [whereas] the Commission is just starting from this one and is willing to go much further. So, that is the problem. We didn't negotiate with the Commission and then put to the Greeks something much worse, we put to the Greeks the minimum that we were willing to consider and now the Greeks are saying [that] we are not negotiating."

While the Commission insists on a Primary Government Budget Surplus (total tax minus all government expenditure excluding debt repayments) of 3.5%; the IMF thinks that this target should be set at 1.5% of GDP. As Thomsen puts it, "if [Greece] come around to give us 2.5% [of GDP in tax hikes and pension-wage-benefits cuts]... we should be fully behind them." -- meaning that the IMF would, in exchange for this fresh austerity package, support the reduction of the Primary Surplus Target imposed upon them from the 3.5% that the European Commission insists on to 1.5%.

These targets are described as "very crucial" to the IMF. The IMF officials ask Thomsen "to reinforce the message about the agreement on the 2.5%, because that is not permeating and it is not sinking very well with the Commission."

At one point, Velkouleskou refers to an unusual solution: to split the problem into two programs with two different targets: "The question is whether [the Europeans] could accept the medium term targets of the Commission, for the purposes of the program, and our targets for the purposes of debt relief." Thomsen further explains that "They essentially need to agree to make our targets the baseline and then have something in that they hope that will overperform. But if they don't, they will still disburse."

The EWG [Euro Working Group] needs to "take a stand on whether they believe our projections or the Commission's projections." The IMF's growth projections are the exact opposite of the Commission's. The Commission projects a GDP growth of 0.5%, and the IMF a GDP decline of 0.5% (even if Greece accepts all the measures imposed by the IMF).
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Apr 04, 2016 1:36 pm

Oh Hi, Greece! We Didn't See You Blowing up Again...

COMMENTARY by Geoffrey Smith @Geoffreytsmith APRIL 4, 2016, 12:44 PM EDT


Here comes another round of brinkmanship, with an added dash of Brexit risk.

Greece is bubbling again.

The long-suffering cradle of democracy’s place on the front line of the migrant crisis may have pushed its economic problems down the international news agenda since last July, but they are coming sharply back into focus now, as the tensions between Athens and its lenders erupted again at the weekend.

As it has so often during the six (!) years since Greece first asked for a bailout, what is happening is being overshadowed by how it is happening.

It isn’t new that Athens can’t agree with the Eurozone and the International Monetary Fund on how to implement the latest €86 billion ($95 billion) bailout agreement; the left-wing government of Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras has been wriggling on that particular hook for months.

What is new is the extremes of mistrust and underhandedness that relations between the three have reached. First, somebody eavesdropped on a conference call between three senior IMF officials on negotiating tactics, two of whom were staying at the Hilton Hotel in Athens at the time. Then they leaked it, causing a fresh storm of indignation in Greece about economic blackmail. Tsipras fired off a theatrical letter to IMF head Christine Lagarde, who responded by draping only the thinnest veil of diplomatic language over an accusation that he had orchestrated it all himself.

“The (IMF mission to Greece) consists of experienced staff who have my full confidence and personal backing. For them to be able to do their work, as you have invited us, it is critical that your authorities ensure an environment that respects the privacy of their internal discussions and take all necessary steps to guarantee their personal safety.”
The call’s transcript features Poul Thomsen, Delia Velculescu, and Iva Petrova, who are, respectively, the head of the IMF’s European department, the head of the IMF mission in Greece, and a Washington-based expert in fiscal policy issues. In it, Thomsen (who has been directly involved in the Greek drama since 2010) effectively despairs that anything short of another round of last-ditch brinkmanship will persuade either Athens to carry out the promises it made last year, or persuade the Eurozone to forgive some of the debts under which Greece is suffocating.

“What is going to bring it all to a decision point?” Thomsen asks. “In the past there has been only one time when the decision has been made and then that was when they were about to run out of money seriously and to default.”
The explosive content comes as he speculates on how to deal with that situation.

“Basically we at that time say, ‘Look, you Mrs. Merkel, you face a question, you have to think about what is more costly: to go ahead without the IMF, would the Bundestag say, ‘The IMF is not on board?’ Or to pick the debt relief that we think that Greece needs in order to keep us on board?'”
As a disinterested observer, it’s hard to fault Thomsen’s logic. The Eurozone’s political leadership has had only one aim since 2010 and that is to stop Greece from leaving the currency union in a way that would expose Eurozone’s long-term frailties and leave it a prey to the remorseless pressures of financial markets. Greece’s governments have had many aims, but they have all boiled down to defending the bankrupt promises of their predecessors. The two have repeatedly cobbled together messy, last-minute compromises to cover up the unbridgeable gap between them.

At each step of the way, the IMF has betrayed itself. Under its charter, it’s only supposed to help out countries with temporary balance of payments problems that arise when private lenders decide they don’t want the counterparty risk any more. It lends hard currency in return for reforms that will guarantee a country’s long-term solvency. It is not supposed to lend to bankrupt governments, in their own currency, while they try half-heartedly to fix intractable political and structural problems.

Under European pressure, it has repeatedly agreed to pretend that Greece is not bankrupt, and that it continues to reform in good faith (Velulescu makes it quite clear what she thinks of that in the transcript: “These guys agree on something and then they give it up the next day. We have said this time and again, we know that they don’t do what we say…It just doesn’t function.”). The quid pro quo is that the European Central Bank agrees to a similar fiction of extending its “emergency lending assistance” to Greek banks that it pretends are solvent. Everyone knows that the endgame is either debt forgiveness or “Grexit.” No one has found a way to stomach either possibility, yet.

If that was the full extent of the issue, there would be good reason to think that this summer’s game of brinkmanship will end with another messy compromise just before Greece has to make a big debt repayment on July 20.




But this year is (a bit) different. As Thomsen notes, that date falls under the shadow of the U.K.’s vote on leaving the European Union, due June 23. That referendum will likely occupy most of European political elite for much of the early summer, and a vote to leave would send a centrifugal shock through the whole bloc. There would be no pretending any more that the EU is historically destined for an “ever closer union.”

At that point, it would become all about Berlin. Would the Bundestag drop its opposition to debt forgiveness (a government spokesman repeated Monday that it’s “not on the table”) and accept that saving Greece is a price worth paying to save the euro? Would it decide to cut Greece off and accept the consequences? Or would it try to co-opt the IMF into kicking the can down the road one more time?

The last option is without doubt the default. Thomsen suggests that it won’t sign off on such a trick again, and many of the IMF’s non-European members would back him in that. But does the Fund really have the guts to trigger the kind of global financial turmoil that it exists to stop?


IMF Tries To Put Out Fire From Bombshell Greece Leak, But Doesn’t Apologize
Speculation that the IMF would pressure Greece to negotiate is “nonsense,” says a letter rife with thinly veiled criticism.
04/03/2016 05:33 pm ET | Updated 18 hours ago
229
Daniel Marans
Reporter, Huffington Post

EVAN VUCCI/AP
The International Monetary Fund’s managing director told Greek prime minister Alexis Tsipras on Sunday that the IMF remains committed to good faith negotiations, trying to assuage concerns raised by a Saturday leak.

Christine Lagarde dismissed the possibility the IMF would use underhanded tactics to pressure Greece in the letter, which was also posted on the IMF’s website.

The Huffington Post first reported on Saturday that Tsipras had asked Lagarde whether Greece could “trust” the IMF in light of leaked remarks by IMF officials suggesting that a crisis-inducing “event” was necessary to get Greece to comply with IMF austerity requests.

“Of course, any speculation that IMF staff would consider using a credit event as a negotiating tactic is simply nonsense,” Lagarde wrote Sunday.

Lagarde acknowledged that the leak had sown suspicion, but said that the IMF was still capable of conducting its mission in Greece.

“I agree with you that successful negotiations are built on mutual trust, and this weekend’s incident has made me concerned as to whether we can indeed achieve progress in a climate of extreme sensitivity to statements of either side,” she wrote. “On reflection, however, I have decided to allow our team to return to Athens to continue the discussions.”

Lagarde implied that the leak had been the result of eavesdropping and suggested the onus was on the Greek government to prevent such an incident in the future.

“The team consists of experienced staff who have my full confidence and personal backing,” she wrote. “For them to be able to do their work, as you have invited us, it is critical that your authorities ensure an environment that respects the privacy of their internal discussions and take all necessary steps to guarantee their personal safety.”

She also implied that the Greek government had inappropriately leaked Tsipras’ letter to Lagarde Saturday.

“Finally, the IMF conducts its negotiations in good faith, not by way of threats, and we do not communicate through leaks,” Lagarde concluded. “To further enhance the transparency of our dialogue, I have therefore decided to release the text of this letter on our website at www.imf.org.”

The IMF conducts its negotiations in good faith, not by way of threats, and we do not communicate through leaks.
Christine Lagarde, IMF managing director
Lagarde does not address the authenticity of the leaked transcript, purportedly from a March 19 teleconference between IMF Europe director Poul Thomsen and IMF head of Greece mission Delia Velculescu, which Wikileaks published Saturday. A statement from a spokesman immediately after the leak neither confirmed nor denied that it was genuine.

In the transcript, Thomsen and Velculescu describe their belief that a credit “event” is the only thing that will prompt the necessary action by both Greece and Germany, the country’s largest sovereign creditor, but do not reveal any explicit plans to generate such an event. They state that without such an event, Greece would lack an incentive to follow through on meeting the IMF’s budget target, while Germany would remain unwilling to restructure Greece’s debts.

Greece likely views the leaked conversation as a tool to advance its position in negotiations. But Greece also has good reasons to be wary of negotiating partners, given its recent experience. The country agreed to previously unimaginable tax and spending concessions last July, in exchange for the current 86-billion-euro bailout package, after the European Central Bank withheld emergency assistance to Greek banks. The ECB’s actions pushed the Greek economy to the brink of collapse.

The Greek government has also argued that Thomsen in particular has made unreasonable demands, refusing Greek substitutes for some pension cuts that have an equivalent fiscal impact, at least on paper.

Peter Doyle, an economist and former IMF senior manager who worked with Thomsen for many years, believes the transcript is real based on what internal IMF discussions typically sounded like while he worked there.

What the two of them are doing is moaning to one another about their impotence.
Peter Doyle, former IMF senior manager
But rather than a conspiracy, Doyle characterized Thomsen and Velculescu’s conversation as a “whinge session.”

“What the two of them are doing is moaning to one another about their impotence,” he said.

Even if Thomsen and Velculescu wanted to precipitate a credit event, they lack the power to do so, Doyle said, since “the main driver in the whole process [is] Mrs. Merkel.”

Like Lagarde, Doyle surmised that the leak was likely the result of governmental eavesdropping, though he would not speculate about which government. Iva Petrova, another Athens-based IMF official, was listed on the transcript of the conversation but barely spoke, implying she may have joined Velculescu via speakerphone in a building in Athens. Such rooms are often bugged by intelligence agencies, Doyle said, adding that he “worked on [IMF] missions where I knew the hotel was bugged.”

What Doyle found disconcerting about the transcript, he said, is the near-total agreement between Velculescu, who runs the IMF’s Greek lending operation, and her boss.

“There is no sign here of debate, of speaking truth to power,” he said. “There is no sign here that Poul Thomsen, who has a dreadful record on his conduct toward Greece, is being challenged on what he is doing.”


So the Greece deportations are going ‘smoothly’? Take a closer look
Apostolis Fotiadis
The first refugees have been returned under the EU-Turkey deal, and there are already concerns about coercion and force being used
Greece starts deportation of refugees
‘Officials from Frontex clarified that the boats carried mostly Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Afghans and Moroccans who were going to be deported to Turkey prior to the deal or didn’t request asylum.’ Photograph: Milos Bicanski/Getty Images
Monday 4 April 2016 11.50 EDT

Today had been declared the first day that migrants and refugees would be deported from Greece within the framework of the EU-Turkey deal, and European authorities seemed determined not to miss the date. So as of Sunday, Greek police, along with the EU border agency Frontex, organised a large-scale operation to ensure the smooth handling of today’s returns from the islands of Chios and Lesbos.

The operation was initially deemed a success, with reports being limited to the boats and their occupants, which offered some digestible photo ops. There is plenty of evidence, though, that suggests that it has been no more than a media-savvy gesture on behalf of the European commission.

How much coercion and force will become necessary when people really start resisting deportations?
Officials from Frontex clarified that the boats carried mostly Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Afghans and Moroccans who were going to be deported to Turkey prior to the deal or didn’t request asylum. There were only two Syrians among them who appear not to have requested international protection. Indeed authorities appear to have rushed to identify such people so they could be available for today’s return. Termed “easy cases” by Frontex spokeswoman Eva Moncure, they are perfect material for today’s photo op.

As it turns out, more than 90% of people arriving in Greek islands since 20 March – when the EU-Turkey deal was enacted – have opted for asylum, thus complicating their return under the arrangement. It is no surprise then that no further dates have been announced for future deportations.


EU-Turkey deal begins as Syrian refugees arrive in Germany and Finland
Read more
The first day of deportations has been met with affirmative statements by credible international organisations, including the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), who confirmed that all procedures were regular and rights of deportees were observed. Everything is smooth and tidy, it seems. But this is one version of the story only. There is a second where things have gone less smoothly.

Activist lawyers’ accounts and journalist reports from the islands raise the question of whether refugees have been given sufficient time and access to asylum procedures. It appears that many of them do not yet understand the content of the deal or why they have been restricted, and there has been a last-minute rush for asylum claims among the people who are possible deportees. It is also unclear how Turkey plans to handle returnees, how they will be received, and whether they will be able to receive the protection that was previously offered to them there.

Turkey is no 'safe haven' for refugees – it shoots them at the border
emoval centre in Chios, police faced angry protesters among those rounded up to be deported. Videos have emerged in which detainees appear to scream “no deport” and “shame on Europe”. It is unclear to what degree the deportees have been coerced to comply with operational procedures.

Such evidence is important in order to pose questions about the future of the deal. How much coercion and force will become necessary when people really start resisting deportations? How will the EU follow up the nasty details of the process when Frontex does not have a complaints mechanism to carry out inquiries into violations? What will be the limits for NGOs and international organisations before they become complicit?

Deportation from Europe has a dark history, hence the need for a positive photo op today. But without genuine transparency over the enacting of the EU-Turkey deal, pictures alone won’t be enough.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Apr 04, 2016 1:43 pm

Don't be fooled; Greece is sending back a mere trickle of migrants while the millions waiting to descend on Italy are a human tsunami
By KATIE HOPKINS FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 10:27 EST, 4 April 2016 | UPDATED: 12:18 EST, 4 April 2016

They say history repeats itself.
I just never thought we were stupid enough to allow the same thing to happen right under our noses twice within two years.
I thought the deal was that we learned from the past and refused to make the same mistakes again in the present. In the same way I know not to marry a man twice my age or try and win a pretend job with a short man called Sugar.
But as the Austrian defence force starts sending troops to its Alpine border with Italy, I see we have learned very little from the recent migrant invasion of Europe and destruction of our culture and values.

Sent back: Migrants are escorted off a boat by police as they arrive in Turkey from the Greek island of Lesbos
+6

Crisis: Greece sent back the first wave of economic migrants today, pictured boarding a boat from Lesbos
+6

Returned: A Greek ferry carrying migrants back to Turkey from the Greek island of Lesbos arrives in Turkey
+6
On the same day we started sending back economic migrants to Turkey from Lesbos, Greece, Austria acknowledged that it is sending troops to the Brenner Pass where a new route has opened up – from Libya to Italy. And the numbers of migrants on their way is truly awesome in size.
If 2014 was a flood, this is the year of the Tsunami. And if you thought the last migrants were just mostly young, single men - this lot are almost exclusively so.
Austria is preparing to defend itself. Italy is about to become the new Greece.
And yet all you see on the news is a few handfuls of migrants, willingly sitting on a ferry to Turkey to start adventures new - as if the European Union has found a solution to the problem Merkel and the 'Migrants Welcome Muppets' created.


The suggestion that migrants are welcome is deeply flawed. In 2014 a record-breaking 38,000 asylum seekers were accused of committing crimes in Germany. In Hamburg alone more than 55 wallets and purses are stolen each day, 90% by males aged between 20 and 30 from North Africa and the Balkans.
Stifled by political correctness, the German authorities are playing down the lawlessness of migrants to avoid fuelling anti-migrant sentiment. The cover-up of the mass sex attacks New Years Eve in Cologne was a perfect example of the lengths the authorities would go to to protect those in the wrong.

Image
Influx: A map showing the routes migrants take into Europe, including the one from Libya to Italy


The legal hurdles to deportation are ferociously high. To be kicked out of Germany you need to easily identifiable (despite lobbing your passport over the side of your dinghy en route to Greece) commit a crime, be sentenced to a prison term of three years or more and come from a country where they will pander to your every need on your return.
In other words, make it to Germany and you are essentially a German for life.
Last year we retched at the story of 50 men, women and children suffocated and decomposing in the back of a frozen-chicken lorry abandoned by the side of the road, dripping blood, stinking of death.
Less than two years later will we be expected to react with some kind of shock when two hundred bodies are hauled lifeless from a shipping container en route from Libya to the Italian coast?
And what will it take to turn national opinion this time? What picture will the newspapers use to melt your hearts?
Last time it took the body of Aylan Kurdi to remind us that action ought to have been taken earlier. What will it take this time—a whole family? An even smaller child with an even more complicit father?
Reinforcements: Austrian police officers clashed with pro-migrant demonstrators near the Italian-Austrian border yesterday. Austrian soldiers will be deployed to the area to ensure migrants don't enter the country
+6
Image
Preparing to defend itself: Austrian soldiers will be sent to the border with Turkey to stop migrants travelling from Libya reaching the country. Pictured, police officers clashed with protesters at the border yesterday
+6

What will motivate the Pied Piper of displaced peoples - Merkel - to sacrifice the safety of her people in an attempt to erase the sins of Germany's past?
Like brainless lemmings, will we make the swift switch from anti-migrant sentiment to standing at train stations blowing whistles in welcome, Bob Geldof offering up spare rooms in some distorted display of snivelling self-sacrifice?
The German Development Minister, Gerd Muller, says eight to ten million migrants are on their way; currently collecting on the Libyan coast, waiting for the human traffickers to organise the containers on ships to pack them in to.
Make no mistake. Syrians are not just sitting at the border with Turkey waiting for something to happen. They are taking the long road and a different path to 'freedom'.
I was interviewed by police under caution a few months back for suggesting these people are cockroaches - able to survive the worst mankind can throw at them. But I am yet to find myself disproven.
As 260 willing souls leave Greek islands for Turkey under the eyes of the world’s press, eight to ten million more desperadoes are on their way to Germany a new route through the Med.
America may even reject visa free travel for Germans and France due to the high rates of passport forgery by migrants. Italy, Austria. How much more will it take to admit Schengen has collapsed?
Build your walls, close your borders and protect your children. North Africa is on its way.
In March 8,405 refugees arrived in Italy. Earlier this week 700 migrants were rescued from 6 boats off the coast of Libya, and four bodies were found.
History is just about to repeat itself. And lefties up there on the moral high ground have the perfect view to watch it all unfold.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Postby American Dream » Mon Apr 04, 2016 3:10 pm

Image
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Apr 04, 2016 3:19 pm

sure and of course you're not telling the IMF anything new....they're banking on it
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Postby jakell » Mon Apr 04, 2016 3:29 pm



I assume this is intended to convey your own views AD and it is not merely a playing card in some internet tit for tat game.
If so, then it's rather irrelevant as you are a very long way away from these things so fear is hardly an issue at present.

That said, are fear levels a sensible way of understanding these issues anyway?
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Apr 04, 2016 10:22 pm

European Union Throws Greece and Refugees to the Sharks
by Felicity Arbuthnot / April 4th, 2016

Hypocrisy, the most protected of vices.
— Moliere (Jean Baptiste Poquelin, 1622-1673.)

On March 18th the twenty-eight European Union leaders reached: “an agreement that has an irreversible momentum”, according to German Chancellor, Angela Merkel.

From Monday April 4th, all refugees and economic migrants arriving in Greece from Turkey after March 20th, the majority Syrian and Iraqis fleeing for their lives, risking the perilous sea crossing in which over eight hundred have died, the risk being preferable to the dangers at home, will be returned to Turkey.

In exchange for this disgraceful human-beings-as-chattels deal, Turkey, which already hosts three million fleeing refugees, would see the EU speed the transfer of three Billion Euros in financial assistance, with a further three Billion by 2018. In addition Turkish nationals would have visa free entry to all EU countries by June – dependent on Turkey meeting an astonishing seventy two long outstanding EU criteria, according to Reuters (March 20th.)

However, as groups of desperate souls who have risked the unimaginable to arrive in the EU are being forcibly returned to Turkey with the casualness of shipping commercial cargo, the EU intends to take a refugee from a refugee camp Turkey for each person returned from Greece.

“At a time when Turkey is hosting three million, those who are unable to find space for a handful of refugees, who in the middle of Europe keep these innocents in shameful conditions, must first look at themselves”, said President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in a televised speech. His point is certainly valid, especially as the desperate flight has been caused by actions and interference of some EU Member States with a British government implacably reluctant to taking in the displaced, yet always a murderous cheerleader for slaughter and destabilization in far away places.

Amnesty called the agreement “flawed, immoral and illegal” and “an historic blow to human rights.”

Greece, having been fiscally hung out to dry by the EU, trying to somehow host and register countless thousands, is to be belatedly assisted in establishing “a task force of some 4,000 staff, including Judges, interpreters, border guards and others to manage each case individually.” Who is going to foot the bill as the country reels under EU inflicted penury seems unclear.

Moreover, the EU seems not to have done their homework – or perhaps they simply do not care. Amnesty reports: “large-scale forced returns of refugees from Turkey to war-ravaged Syria” exposing “fatal flaws in a refugee deal signed between Turkey and the European Union …”

Research in Turkey’s southern border provinces: “suggests that Turkish authorities have been rounding up and expelling groups of around 100 Syrian men, women and children to Syria on a near-daily basis since mid-January. Over three days last week, Amnesty International researchers gathered multiple testimonies of large-scale returns from Hatay province, confirming a practice that is an open secret in the region”, but missed by the might of the EU? (Emphasis added.)

All forced returns to Syria are illegal under Turkish, EU and international law.

“In their desperation to seal their borders, EU leaders have wilfully ignored the simplest of facts: Turkey is not a safe country for Syrian refugees and is getting less safe by the day,” said John Dalhuisen, Amnesty International’s Director for Europe and Central Asia.

“It seems highly likely that Turkey has returned several thousand refugees to Syria in the last seven to nine weeks. If the agreement proceeds as planned, there is a very real risk that some of those the EU sends back to Turkey will suffer the same fate”, states Dalhuisen.

In the course of their research Amnesty found three young children deported back to Syria without their parents and the forced return of an eight month pregnant woman.

“The inhumanity and scale of the returns is truly shocking … Having witnessed the creation of Fortress Europe, we are now seeing the copy-cat construction of Fortress Turkey.”

Turkey with a per capita income (Gdp) of under $11,000 (UK $41,787; US $53,000+) has, however, been taking in Syrians fleeing the Western generated terrors since early 2011. Further, until early this year according to Amnesty, Syrian residents with passports had been able to cross freely at border points and those who entered irregularly, “the vast majority” were also able to register with Turkish authorities.

“Over the last few months though, Turkey has introduced visa requirements for Syrians arriving by air, sealed its land border with Syria for all but those in need of emergency medical care … “, according to John Dalhuisen. Much of the EU has long sealed theirs.

Shamefully, it has long been forgotten that Syria was a generous haven for Iraqis fleeing the US-UK onslaught of 2003. By 2007 1.2 million Iraqis had fled US-UK enforced “liberation, freedom and democracy” to be welcomed by Syria – a country of just eighteen million – and been offered “care and assistance … in spite of the limited nature of its material resources.”

Iraqi children were assimilated in the free education system leading to the need for many more schools, as hospitals and clinics also needed to expand to deal with the influx. By comparison, Britain (population 64.1 million) under Prime Minister David Cameron, has finally condescended to take in a meager 20,000 Syrian refugees – by 2020 – many whose plight his government’s plotting and bombing has helped create.

Jordan, population just 6.5 million, has taken in 1.4 million Syrians and has been hosting Iraqis since the 1991 blitz and subsequent twelve years of US-UK bombings, then the 2003 invasion and subsequent ongoing bloodshed.

Lebanon, population 4.5 million, hosts over a million Syrians seeking safety.

According to Europa.eu: “The EU covers over 4 million km and has 503 million inhabitants, the world’s third largest population after China and India”, yet with very honourable exceptions, the majority of EU countries have turned their back on a human tragedy of enormity.

Greece, of course, is carrying the can: “We are expecting violence. People in despair tend to be violent”, the government’s migration spokesman, Giorgos Kyritsis, told the Observer. “The whole philosophy of the deal is to deter human trafficking (into Europe) from the Turkish coast, but it is going to be difficult and we are trying to use a soft approach. These are people who have fled war. They are not criminals.” (Emphasis added.)

An example of the desperation manifested in a comment by Mustafa, a Syrian, with his wife and children: “If they make me go back to Turkey I’ll throw myself and my family into the sea, we went from hell to hell.”

By Sunday night (April 3rd) it emerged that Frontex, the EU border agency, had not even dispatched the appropriate personnel to oversee the operation. “Eight Frontex boats will transport men, women and children … back across the Aegean following fast-track asylum hearings. But of the 2,300 officials the EU has promised to send Greece only 200 have so far arrived, Kyritsis admitted.

“We are still waiting for the legal experts and translators they said they would send”, he added.

Moreover: “Humanitarian aid also earmarked for Greece had similarly been held up, with the result that the bankrupt country was managing the crisis – and continued refugee flows – on very limited funds from the state budget.”

Peter Sutherland, the UN Secretary General’s Special Representative for international migration and development, is scathing:

Collective deportations without having regard to the individual rights of those who claim to be refugees are illegal. Secondly, their rights have to be absolutely protected where they are deported to, in other words Turkey. There has to be adequate assurances they can’t be sent back from Turkey to Syria.

The founding principles of the European Union include: “the values of respect for human dignity, liberty, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights …”

It seems when it comes to Greece both the country and the refugees they have hosted against insuperable odds, have been thrown to the sharks.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Apr 07, 2016 10:19 pm

Clash of the Ignobles: The IMF, the European Commission and Greek Debt
by Binoy Kampmark / April 7th, 2016

The International Monetary Fund has been at odds with other partners in the Greek bailout saga. Its economists have wondered whether strangling a state with the noose of austerity is a decent way of either eliminating debt, let alone stimulating growth. Not that the body has gone entirely anti-austerity.

The European Commission, and the European Central Bank, have enjoyed taking the high road on trimming the Greek state while seeking debt repayments. Their obsession with credit, and their reduction of states and their citizens to bank balances, has betrayed a mania for debt hood over sovereignty. The point was amply illustrated by the financial occupation engineered in July, when Greece accepted a three-year, 86 billion-euro European Union bailout. The Syriza dream of financial independence and a comprehensive renegotiation of terms was at an end.

The clash of positions within the Troika, and the IMF itself, has perpetuated something of an institutional, undermining perversion. Athens has been effectively receiving funding from an organisation which has, as its main directive, an obligation not to fund insolvent states. This has caused a degree of dissatisfaction in the ranks of the organisation, one demonstrated by a conversation leaked by WikiLeaks that supposedly took place on March 19.

The dialogue between Delia Velculescu, the IMF’s Greek mission chief, and Peter Thomsen, the same organisation’s European head, became something of a bomb shell between Athens, its European counterparts, and the IMF. It hardly demonstrated a new won sweetness on the part of the IMF to be more generous. More accurately, it demonstrated the political haggling over how an oppressive debt-austerity regime could be handled for the next crisis.

For one, the transcript notes how the IMF was keen to factor “debt relief” for Greece in Troika negotiations. The organisation, however, was worried about EU paralysis given the prospects of a “looming Brexit”. To that end, some arm twisting of the German Chancellor Angela Merkel was suggested. Should the IMF leave the Troika, things would “look bad and [would] lead to discomforting questions in the Bundestag.”

In Thomsen’s near conspiratorial words, “In the past there has been only one time when the decision has been made and then that was when (the Greeks) were about to run out of money seriously and then to default.” Velculescu responds somewhat later with agreement, claiming that “we need an event, but I don’t know what that will be.”

This revelation riled Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras sufficiently to make him shoot a letter to IMF Chief Christine Lagarde. Her response on Sunday was that, “Any speculation that IMF staff would consider using a credit event as a negotiating tactic is simply nonsense.”

Having dismissed it as nonsense, Lagarde proceeded to reproach Tsipras for not guarding against such leaks. It was “critical” that the Greek authorities respect the “privacy of their internal discussions and take all necessary steps to guarantee their personal safety.”

The further disagreement here suggests an irritation on the part of the IMF regarding the Commission’s figures. The latter insist on a Primary Government Budget Surplus of 3.5 per cent, while the former, as stated by Thomsen, put it at 1.5 per cent. This comes down to whether Athens intends being compliant by accepting a revised austerity package plan.

This has made the negotiating stance of the Tsipras government difficult: does it hold out for a softer beating in terms of the next austerity package, or will the chop be even more severe? The tipping point will be that calamitous “event”, no doubt a default to one of the Troika members. Like disagreeable vultures, they fight over their quarry.

Greece’s former finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis, has his interpretation about IMF attitudes and the state of mind revealed by the Thomsen-Velculescu meeting. Thomsen, recalled Varoufakis, met him in a Paris hotel in February 2014 keen to press for a debt write-off. “At a minimum,” Thomsen is supposed to have said, “54 billion euros of Greece’s debt left over from the first ‘bailout’ should be written off immediately in exchange for serious reforms.”

From the start, Varoufakis had been insisting on genuine reforms to combat the debt impasse. The credit hungry rapacity of the German finance minister, however, intervened to make any such discussion impossible. “It was a discussion that never got formally off the ground as Germany’s finance minister vetoed all discussion on debt relief, debt swaps (which were my compromise proposal), indeed any significant change to the failed program.”

As Varoufakis rather colourfully summed up, the revelations from WikiLeaks reveal “an attrition war between a reasonably numerate villain (the IMF) and a chronic procrastinator (Berlin).” Another crisis event is brewing, bred with part malice, and part confusion. But without a comprehensive program of debt relief that encourages, rather than quashes, actual growth, the shackles will remain in place, and reform for Greece, and Europe in general, will be a just another superfluous word.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Postby backtoiam » Thu Apr 07, 2016 10:54 pm

Little bit long but thought provoking. Full of zingers. (quotes)

Refugee Crisis: Using Chaos To Build Power
Wednesday, 23 March 2016 03:29

Image

A European Union military force with power to intervene in member states. A new “Marshall Plan” to radically redesign whole regions of the world and impose regional government. A United Nations empowered to manage it all. Christendom under siege. And the end of nationhood as it is understood today. That is where the “refugee crisis” is heading, as the engineered disaster wreaks havoc across Europe and beyond. Despite the appearance of chaos, though, it is all by design, with a series of radical goals in mind.

While the establishment’s demands on Europe to accept millions of Middle Eastern refugees have been couched in “humanitarian” rhetoric, the real agenda is nothing of the sort. Rather than helping out their fellow human beings, globalist forces actually created the refugee crisis and the suffering behind it. And they are using it to advance multiple, related agendas — primarily globalism and statism. That the crisis is being exploited to undermine Western culture, national sovereignty, and even nationhood itself is now beyond dispute. Top globalists are openly bragging about it.

“I will ask the governments to cooperate, to recognize that sovereignty is an illusion — that sovereignty is an absolute illusion that has to be put behind us,” declared former Goldman Sachs chairman Peter Sutherland, an ex-member of the Bilderberg Steering Committee who currently “serves” as the UN special representative of the secretary-general for international migration. “The days of hiding behind borders and fences are long gone. We have to work together and cooperate together to make a better world. And that means taking on some of the old shibboleths, taking on some of the old historic memories and images of our own country and recognizing that we’re part of humankind.”

Billionaire globalist and open-borders zealot George Soros, in denouncing European officials trying to control the human tsunami coming across their borders, similarly declared, “Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.”

In essence, then, the engineered refugee crisis was created and is being used, at least in part, to advance what globalists often refer to in public as “global governance” and their “new world order.” As part of that, even the idea of nationhood is under fire — everybody is just part of “humankind,” as Sutherland put it. And as such, people must be governed by the “Parliament of Humanity,” as UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon referred to the dictators club known as the UN last year.

Already, the UN manages a global refugee program via the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). This agency decides which refugees will be settled where, including those destined to be settled in the United States at U.S. taxpayer expense. Further clues about the agenda can be found in the fact that the UN refugee outfit was until very recently led by António Guterres, the former president of the powerful global socialist-government-promoting Socialist International, as senior editor William Jasper documented in an October 19, 2015 cover story for this magazine.

There are several elements to the globalist plot as it relates to the refugee crisis.

Creating the Refugee Crisis

To begin with, it is important to understand that the same self-styled humanitarians claiming to be concerned about refugees, while demanding that they be given asylum in the West by the millions, are, in reality, the same people responsible for making their victims into refugees to begin with. As this magazine documented extensively in its October 19 cover story package, the globalist establishment literally unleashed the refugee exodus.

Among other actions to spark the crisis, Western governments and their allies — not to mention the globalist forces behind them, such as the Council on Foreign Relations and other global-government-promoting powerhouses — destroyed multiple Middle Eastern nations via war and chaos. These include Libya, bombed to smithereens by Obama and NATO under the supposed authority of the UN; as well as Syria, destroyed by civil war fueled by the globalist establishment; and of course Iraq, also crushed by Western intervention and globalist-fueled civil war.

Those same globalist forces were also responsible for wreaking havoc in many more nations — such as Yemen, Egypt, Ivory Coast, and Tunisia — through supporting uprisings, revolutions, terror groups, dictatorships, and more.

The predictable response to having one’s nation destroyed, of course, is attempting to leave — particularly if wealthier, freer nations throw down the welcome mat. And that is exactly what has happened and is still happening. Many of the same globalists responsible for creating the chaos and terror that refugees are fleeing from are publicly and loudly opening Europe’s doors to the growing tsunami of displaced victims. Obama and his billionaire supporter Soros, for example, were both instrumental in the UN-authorized war to destroy Libya, which was based on lies, and in fueling the civil war that is destroying what remains of Syria. And both of those figures have been very outspoken in demanding that the West welcome millions of refugees, regardless of the costs or the desires of Western voters.

The question that must be asked is: “Why?” The answers can be found in what has happened and what is happening, and especially in the policy prescriptions allegedly aimed at dealing with the crisis that globalists unleashed. At this point, Europe, Africa, and the Middle East are all in the cross hairs of internationalists, who are exploiting the refugee crisis to build up supranational institutions at the regional and global level to smash national sovereignty and even nationhood, to build up the power of government generally, and to destabilize societies. If left unchecked and unexposed, the refugee crisis will serve as a powerful tool to push the world ever closer to “global governance,” with a great deal of pain and misery along the way.

A New Marshall Plan: Regional Government for the Middle East

With the refugee situation quickly spiraling out of control across parts of the continent — the mass sexual assaults on New Year’s Eve across Germany and beyond, the implosion of law and order around Calais in France, the widely reported overrunning of Stockholm’s central station by refugee youths, and more — the public is now growing increasingly outraged. Indeed, even the establishment forces responsible for unleashing the chaos are now in some cases denouncing it. The New York Times, an establishment mouthpiece that dutifully promoted the globalist wars that sparked the refugee crisis and the subsequent flooding of the West with the victims of those wars (and many opportunists who joined the exodus), ran an op-ed pointing out that Germany was “on the brink” due to the crisis. Top European political bosses have also been sounding the alarm.

Another senior globalist, Rothschild banking dynasty protégé and billionaire hedge-fund boss Soros, played an instrumental role in encouraging the myriad wars and the subsequent tsunami of refugees into Europe that was sparked by those wars. And now, like other establishment voices, Soros is also pointing out the obvious. The European Union, he said in a recent interview, is “on the verge of collapse” due to the sudden influx of well over a million Islamic refugees last year. Not coincidentally, Soros also has ideas about “solutions.” And not surprisingly, those alleged “solutions” involve more globalism for Europe, Africa, and the Middle East — along with less sovereignty, self-government, and liberty.

In an interview with Bloomberg from the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, the radical anti-national sovereignty statist claimed that Europe needed to finance a new “Marshall Plan” for the regions of the world from which the refugees are fleeing — regions and nations destroyed in large part by the globalist Western establishment figures pushing the new plan. Soros was expressing support for a proposal made earlier by a fellow globalist, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble. The new Marshall Plan they envision seeks to transfer wealth from struggling European taxpayers to areas of the globe ruined by globalist machinations — but the real agenda goes much deeper, as did the last Marshall Plan after World War II.

“What is most important is for us to invest billions in those regions from which the refugees come to reduce the pressure on the external frontiers of Europe,” Schäuble argued in a panel discussion at the globalist WEF, speaking alongside several European prime ministers who also played a key role in flooding Europe with refugees displaced from the nations they helped destroy. “That will cost Europe much more than we thought.” Of course it will, and taxpayers, already suffering under a crushing burden, will pay for it all. Writing in the Soros-backed “Project Syndicate” propaganda organ in 2014, Schäuble previously called for a global taxation regime in a piece called Why Taxation Must Go Global,one of his many calls for more globalism and statism.

So what would a new “Marshall Plan” for the Middle East and Africa look like? A brief history of the original Marshall Plan might offer some clues. Officially known as the “European Recovery Program,” or ERP, the scheme involved transferring the equivalent of almost $150 billion in today’s dollars from U.S. taxpayers to Western European governments. The ostensible purpose was to help rebuild Europe after World War II. In practice, though, it served as a key tool in the transformation of Western Europe into a statist region dominated by Big Government and supranational institutions, eventually culminating in the subjugation of Europeans under the unaccountable EU super-state. That was the goal all along.

As far back as 1947, then-U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall (CFR) — a key player in handing China to Chairman Mao’s murderous communists, and perhaps mass-murdering dictator Joseph Stalin’s most important ally in the world — called for European “economic cooperation” as a precondition for the desperately needed American aid after the war. “It is already evident that, before the United States government can proceed much further in its efforts to alleviate the situation and help start the European world on its way to recovery, there must be some agreement among the countries of Europe as to the requirements of the situation and the part those countries themselves will take in order to give proper effect to whatever action might be undertaken by this Government,” said Marshall, the man after whom the scheme was named. “The initiative, I think, must come from Europe.... The program should be a joint one, agreed to by a number, if not all European nations.” The Committee of European Economic Cooperation responded with a major report signed by government representatives from across Europe outlining efforts to create a “customs union” that could eventually lead to even further cooperation. U.S. officials were pleased.

Members of Congress even tried to get language in the statement of purpose for the original Marshall Plan bill of 1948 explicitly declaring that it was the policy of the United States to encourage the economic unification and the political federation of Europe. In the end, language calling for the development of economic cooperation was included instead. The next year, the “political federation” amendment was pursued again, with the result being the addition of the sentence: “It is further declared to be the policy of the people of the United States to encourage the unification of Europe.” By 1951, Congress finally came out and said it openly, with a clause included in the 1951 Mutual Security Act stating that its purpose was “to further encourage the economic unification and the political federation of Europe.”

The goals of U.S. government support for European integration were explained in part decades ago, though largely ignored, by top U.S. officials. On September 20, 1966, for example, then-Under Secretary of State George Ball (CFR) testified before Congress on the State Department’s view on forming an “Atlantic Community,” essentially merging the United States with Europe. “I find little evidence of any strong interest among Europeans for any immediate move toward greater political unity with the United States,” he explained. “They fear the overwhelming weight of U.S. power and influence in our common councils.... We believe that so long as Europe remains merely a continent of medium- and small-sized states there are definite limits to the degree of political unity we can achieve across the ocean.” Globalism was the agenda then, just as it is today.

Creating a Middle East Union

Not coincidentally, the new “Marshall Plan” is being pushed by the same globalist establishment that has been openly advancing the imposition of a “Middle East Union” on the region in recent years. “Just as a warring [European] continent found peace through unity by creating what became the EU, Arabs, Turks, Kurds and other groups in the region could find relative peace in ever closer union,” claimed Mohamed “Ed” Husain, a former caliphate-seeking Islamist and current “adjunct senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies” at the CFR, in a piece published in the Financial Times and on the CFR website in mid-2014. “After all, most of its problems — terrorism, poverty, unemployment, sectarianism, refugee crises, water shortages — require regional answers. No country can solve its problems on its own.” That is, of course, nonsense, but it is standard globalist rhetoric.

Plenty of other globalists have offered similar admissions. It has become fashionable for establishment figures and their hangers-on to compare today’s Middle East with Europe before the EU. Indeed, Richard Haass, the CFR boss and a former leader at the U.S. State Department, writing in Soros’ Project Syndicate, does precisely that. In an incredible admission, Haass explains, without admitting the CFR’s giant role in instigating all of the tragedies he mentions, that the CFR-backed globalist wars of the last decade and a half were crucial in setting the region on fire — the same blaze that now supposedly can only be extinguished by a CFR-inspired “Middle East Union.” The globalist strategy used over and over again goes like this: Create a problem, then exploit and manage the inevitable reaction to push a “solution.”

“The 2003 Iraq war was highly consequential, for it exacerbated Sunni-Shia tensions in one of the region’s most important countries and, as a result, in many of the region’s other divided societies,” Haass wrote. “Regime change in Libya [by Obama, the UN, NATO, and CFR apparatchiks] has created a failing state; lukewarm support for [CFR- and Soros-backed] regime change in Syria has set the stage for prolonged civil war.” And the chaos, bloodshed, and terror will continue, he says, until “a new local order emerges or exhaustion sets in.” In the meantime, globalists should treat the region as a “condition to be managed,” Haass said. How convenient — the CFR sets a fire, and now purports to have the fire extinguisher, promising a raging inferno unless and until everyone submits to the globalist demands, including a new regional “order,” which, as in “new world order,” is globalist-speak for transnational government.

Of course, Husain, Haass, and the CFR are not alone. In 2011, the Islamist president of Turkey at the time, Abdullah Gül, also called for an EU-style regime to rule the Middle East. Speaking in the United Kingdom, Gül claimed “an efficient regional economic cooperation and integration mechanism” was needed for the region. “We all saw the role played by the European Union in facilitating the democratic transition in central and Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall,” he claimed. Islamic Turkey is also working to join the EU.

Various Middle Eastern tyrants have echoed the calls for a regional regime, too — the kings of Saudi Arabia and Jordan, for example. As Husain pointed out, the radical Muslim Brotherhood and the terrorist group Hamas are also working to unify the Middle East under one single tyrannical government of gargantuan proportions. With financial backing from the West under a new “Marshall Plan” and the bloodshed fueled by globalist-engineered wars, not to mention EU and UN support, the plot could easily become a reality.

Further Empowering the European Union

Also being advanced using the refugee crisis is the further empowerment of the EU itself, the regional government created thanks in large part to the original Marshall Plan. Among the various schemes allegedly needed to deal with the immigrant influx is the creation of military outfits — a border and coast-guard force — ostensibly aimed at “protecting Europe’s borders” from the immigration tsunami. The force would also fight “transnational crime and terrorism,” according to an EU outline of the scheme. The plan calls for mandatory biometric ID checks to come or go from the super-state’s territory, so everyone can be checked against Interpol’s databases.

Most alarmingly, perhaps, the EU military force would be able to “intervene” in European nations — even without permission from national authorities, as long as EU bosses claim the situation is “urgent.” In fact, even if the nation “considers that there is no need for additional intervention” from the new EU force, it could still be imposed by Brussels. The force would also have the power to commandeer national governments’ resources, something even the U.S. federal government cannot do to state or local authorities.

At the national level, some European officials were appalled. Creating such a structure “that is independent of member states is shocking,” said Polish Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski, noting that nobody even knew who the force would be accountable to. Greek and Swedish officials also spoke out.

Among EU leadership, though, it is par for the course. “Managing Europe’s external borders must be a shared responsibility,” claimed European Commission “First Vice President” Frans Timmermans with the Dutch Labor Party, a Bilderberg summit attendee. Noting that the new force could take over the management of national borders in some circumstances, the globalist official claimed, “It is essential to restore the credibility of our border management system.”

Meanwhile, EU officials and apparatchiks have taken to shrieking whenever a government actually takes serious actions to “restore the credibility” of border management. The howls have been especially pronounced when border checks were re-introduced along some intra-EU borders. When Hungarian authorities tried to stop the tsunami with a fence along the border with Serbia, for instance, eurocrats were fuming. In a letter sent to the government of Hungary, the European Commission — essentially the unelected regime now ruling Europe — blasted the use of troops on the border, complained about criminal sanctions imposed on illegal immigrants who damage the fence, and demanded that refugees stop being denied entry on the grounds that they transitted through a safe country. In short, actually guarding the borders appears to be the last thing on the EU’s agenda, except as an excuse to create a paramilitary force with powers to intervene in member nations.

Also at the top of the EU-empowerment agenda is a new agency in charge of refugees, with the power to resettle refugees in EU members against their will. A number of Eastern European governments have fought back against the plot, but it continues to advance, having already allocated a number of immigrants throughout the bloc. Last year the EU agreed to relocate 40,000, with that number set to balloon even further. (More than a million others are simply staying in nations where they registered without involvement with EU.)

For the UN, even all of that has not been enough. “UNHCR is deeply disappointed that although a majority of member States were in agreement with a wider relocation proposal involving 120,000 people, a final consensus on this could not be reached,” a UNHCR spokesperson said after the EU approved the deal. “Decisive agreement is needed without further delay to address the needs, as is bold action based on solidarity from all member States.” The then- “High Commissioner” himself, former Socialist International boss António Guterres, has also been loudly demanding that the EU usurp all power over asylum and resettlement. In other words, more assaults on sovereignty.

Some Europeans, though, have seen through the scheming and the exploitation of the refugee crisis by the Brussels-based super-state to advance its radical agenda. “Is Western Europe to be a series of democratic nation states that govern themselves, control their borders and trade with each other, or is the supra nationalist agenda of Brussels going to win? That’s the real debate that’s going on,” said EU Parliamentarian and U.K. Independence Party chief Nigel Farage.

Separately, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has described the orchestrated refugee tsunami as a tool of a “treasonous conspiracy” to destroy nationhood, Western civilization, and Christendom. “Ladies and gentlemen, what we face is nothing less than the challenge of finding ourselves at the gateway to the implementation of a deliberate conceptual project, which could be described as left-wing and which seeks to marginalize the nation states of Europe,” he told his countrymen. “Where this project has failed to overcome Christianity and the identity of the nation state — and the values and responsibility springing from it — in conventional political struggle, it will strive to eliminate it on ethnic grounds.”

Beyond crushing sovereignty, the crisis is also advancing assaults on liberty. Especially useful to the assault on individual freedoms has been the threat of terrorism posed by the influx of millions of Muslims, at least some of whom are and will be radicalized.

ISIS has been boasting that its operatives are among the refugees, and U.S. presidential contender Ben Carson even said it would be “jihadist malpractice” not to send terrorists into the West among the immigrants. He is right, of course, as the Paris attacks last year showed. Now, the jihadists will be used as the justification to wage war on liberty.

Already, as The New American has documented extensively, “Islamic” terror — much of it fomented behind the scenes by globalists and communists — is being used as a pretext to radically expand government. Just last year, EU “police,” known as Europol, announced the creation of a new unit to censor the Internet under the guise of fighting “extremism.” In Britain, authorities are cracking down on homeschoolers and Sunday schools under the guise of rooting out Islamic extremism. Attacks on gun rights, free speech, and more are all advancing under the guise of stopping “Islamic terrorism” and “Islamic extremism.” And as millions of Muslims continue to flood Europe, the totalitarian advances will only accelerate.

The end game is clear: using the increasingly powerful regional blocs such as the European Union, the African Union, Putin’s Eurasian Union, and the Middle East Union as building blocks to build what globalists such as Soros, Bush, Clinton, Biden, and others often refer to in public as their “New World Order.” In his recent book World Order, globalist operative and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger laid out the plan. “The contemporary quest for world order [world government] will require a coherent strategy to establish a concept of order [regional government] within the various regions and to relate these regional orders [governments] to one another,” he wrote. State Department documents going back decades outline the same strategy.

If humanitarianism were truly the motivation, countless experts have pointed out, it would be radically more cost effective, not to mention humane, to help refugees and victims of globalist wars closer to their homes. Literally 25 to 50 times more people could be supported in Lebanon or Jordan than in Europe for the same amount of tax funds. The wars that destroyed Middle Eastern countries and caused the crisis to begin with would never have been launched if the purported “humanitarian concerns” of the establishment were genuine. Instead, the agenda is to advance globalism, pure and simple, and the establishment seems barely interested in concealing it anymore.

In short, the “refugee crisis” appears to have been engineered in yet another typical example of what legendary French philosopher Frédéric Bastiat described as concocting the antidote and the poison in the same laboratory. Now that the deed is done, politicians and establishment figures are pointing out the obvious while exploiting the inevitable public reaction. Hopefully the people of Europe and the world will be smarter than to fall for the ruse yet again, as the consequences are deadly serious.
http://www.alt-market.com/articles/2835 ... uild-power
Last edited by backtoiam on Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"A mind stretched by a new idea can never return to it's original dimensions." Oliver Wendell Holmes
backtoiam
 
Posts: 2101
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:22 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:38 pm

I'm sorry backtoiam but is this the same far-right journalist, climate denier, Alex Newman? If so not a good track record there
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Postby backtoiam » Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:42 pm

I don't know but its hard not to muse on what the wrote, at least for me...his basic message is, "the people that created it did it on purpose, they intend to profit, at everybody else expense." Whether or not all his predictions come true is not relevant to me at this point because all my predictions will not come true either. He is on the right track though....If read thoroughly. I go issue by issue, not agenda by agenda, and that is my agenda, a chinese menu.
"A mind stretched by a new idea can never return to it's original dimensions." Oliver Wendell Holmes
backtoiam
 
Posts: 2101
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:22 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:58 pm

Unconstitutional: How the Imperial Presidents went to War all by themselves
By contributors | Apr. 6, 2016 |

By Andrew J. Bacevich| ( Tomdispatch.com ) | – –
Let’s face it: in times of war, the Constitution tends to take a beating. With the safety or survival of the nation said to be at risk, the basic law of the land — otherwise considered sacrosanct — becomes nonbinding, subject to being waived at the whim of government authorities who are impatient, scared, panicky, or just plain pissed off.
The examples are legion. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln arbitrarily suspended the writ of habeas corpus and ignored court orders that took issue with his authority to do so. After U.S. entry into World War I, the administration of Woodrow Wilson mounted a comprehensive effort to crush dissent, shutting down anti-war publications in complete disregard of the First Amendment. Amid the hysteria triggered by Pearl Harbor, Franklin Roosevelt issued an executive order consigning to concentration camps more than 100,000 Japanese-Americans, many of them native-born citizens. Asked in 1944 to review this gross violation of due process, the Supreme Court endorsed the government’s action by a 6-3 vote.
More often than not, the passing of the emergency induces second thoughts and even remorse. The further into the past a particular war recedes, the more dubious the wartime arguments for violating the Constitution appear. Americans thereby take comfort in the “lessons learned” that will presumably prohibit any future recurrence of such folly.
Even so, the onset of the next war finds the Constitution once more being ill-treated. We don’t repeat past transgressions, of course. Instead, we devise new ones. So it has been during the ongoing post-9/11 period of protracted war.
During the presidency of George W. Bush, the United States embraced torture as an instrument of policy in clear violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. Bush’s successor, Barack Obama, ordered the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen, a death by drone that was visibly in disregard of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Both administrations — Bush’s with gusto, Obama’s with evident regret — imprisoned individuals for years on end without charge and without anything remotely approximating the “speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury” guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Should the present state of hostilities ever end, we can no doubt expect Guantánamo to become yet another source of “lessons learned” for future generations of rueful Americans.
Congress on the Sidelines
Yet one particular check-and-balance constitutional proviso now appears exempt from this recurring phenomenon of disregard followed by professions of dismay, embarrassment, and “never again-ism” once the military emergency passes. I mean, of course, Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, which assigns to Congress the authority “to declare war” and still stands as testimony to the genius of those who drafted it. There can be no question that the responsibility for deciding when and whether the United States should fight resides with the legislative branch, not the executive, and that this was manifestly the intent of the Framers.
On parchment at least, the division of labor appears straightforward. The president’s designation as commander-in-chief of the armed forces in no way implies a blanket authorization to employ those forces however he sees fit or anything faintly like it. Quite the contrary: legitimizing presidential command requires explicit congressional sanction.
Actual practice has evolved into something altogether different. The portion of Article I, Section 8, cited above has become a dead letter, about as operative as blue laws still on the books in some American cities and towns that purport to regulate Sabbath day activities. Superseding the written text is an unwritten counterpart that goes something like this: with legislators largely consigned to the status of observers, presidents pretty much wage war whenever, wherever, and however they see fit. Whether the result qualifies as usurpation or forfeiture is one of those chicken-and-egg questions that’s interesting but practically speaking beside the point.
This is by no means a recent development. It has a history. In the summer of 1950, when President Harry Truman decided that a U.N. Security Council resolution provided sufficient warrant for him to order U.S. forces to fight in Korea, congressional war powers took a hit from which they would never recover.
Congress soon thereafter bought into the notion, fashionable during the Cold War, that formal declarations of hostilities had become passé. Waging the “long twilight struggle” ostensibly required deference to the commander-in-chief on all matters related to national security. To sustain the pretense that it still retained some relevance, Congress took to issuing what were essentially permission slips, granting presidents maximum freedom of action to do whatever they might decide needed to be done in response to the latest perceived crisis.
The Tonkin Gulf Resolution of 1964 offers a notable example. With near unanimity, legislators urged President Lyndon Johnson “to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression” across the length and breadth of Southeast Asia. Through the magic of presidential interpretation, a mandate to prevent aggression provided legal cover for an astonishingly brutal and aggressive war in Vietnam, as well as Cambodia and Laos. Under the guise of repelling attacks on U.S. forces, Johnson and his successor, Richard Nixon, thrust millions of American troops into a war they could not win, even if more than 58,000 died trying.
To leap almost four decades ahead, think of the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) that was passed by Congress in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 as the grandchild of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. This document required (directed, called upon, requested, invited, urged) President George W. Bush “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.” In plain language: here’s a blank check; feel free to fill it in any way you like.
Forever War
As a practical matter, one specific individual — Osama bin Laden — had hatched the 9/11 plot. A single organization — al-Qaeda — had conspired to pull it off. And just one nation — backward, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan — had provided assistance, offering sanctuary to bin Laden and his henchmen. Yet nearly 15 years later, the AUMF remains operative and has become the basis for military actions against innumerable individuals, organizations, and nations with no involvement whatsoever in the murderous events of September 11, 2001.
Consider the following less than comprehensive list of four developments, all of which occurred just within the last month and a half:
*In Yemen, a U.S. airstrike killed at least 50 individuals, said to be members of an Islamist organization that did not exist on 9/11.
*In Somalia, another U.S. airstrike killed a reported 150 militants, reputedly members of al-Shabab, a very nasty outfit, even if one with no real agenda beyond Somalia itself.
*In Syria, pursuant to the campaign of assassination that is the latest spin-off of the Iraq War, U.S. special operations forces bumped off the reputed “finance minister” of the Islamic State, another terror group that didn’t even exist in September 2001.
*In Libya, according to press reports, the Pentagon is again gearing up for “decisive military action” — that is, a new round of air strikes and special operations attacks to quell the disorder resulting from the U.S.-orchestrated air campaign that in 2011 destabilized that country. An airstrike conducted in late February gave a hint of what is to come: it killed approximately 50 Islamic State militants (and possibly two Serbian diplomatic captives).
Yemen, Somalia, Syria, and Libya share at least this in common: none of them, nor any of the groups targeted, had a hand in the 9/11 attacks.
Imagine if, within a matter of weeks, China were to launch raids into Vietnam, Thailand, and Taiwan, with punitive action against the Philippines in the offing. Or if Russia, having given a swift kick to Ukraine, Georgia, and Azerbaijan, leaked its plans to teach Poland a lesson for mismanaging its internal affairs. Were Chinese President Xi Jinping or Russian President Vladimir Putin to order such actions, the halls of Congress would ring with fierce denunciations. Members of both houses would jostle for places in front of the TV cameras to condemn the perpetrators for recklessly violating international law and undermining the prospects for world peace. Having no jurisdiction over the actions of other sovereign states, senators and representatives would break down the doors to seize the opportunity to get in their two cents worth. No one would be able to stop them. Who does Xi think he is! How dare Putin!
Yet when an American president undertakes analogous actions over which the legislative branch does have jurisdiction, members of Congress either yawn or avert their eyes.
In this regard, Republicans are especially egregious offenders. On matters where President Obama is clearly acting in accordance with the Constitution — for example, in nominating someone to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court — they spare no effort to thwart him, concocting bizarre arguments nowhere found in the Constitution to justify their obstructionism. Yet when this same president cites the 2001 AUMF as the basis for initiating hostilities hither and yon, something that is on the face of it not legal but ludicrous, they passively assent.
Indeed, when Obama in 2015 went so far as to ask Congress to pass a new AUMF addressing the specific threat posed by the Islamic State — that is, essentially rubberstamping the war he had already launched on his own in Syria and Iraq — the Republican leadership took no action. Looking forward to the day when Obama departs office, Senator Mitch McConnell with his trademark hypocrisy worried aloud that a new AUMF might constrain his successor. The next president will “have to clean up this mess, created by all of this passivity over the last eight years,” the majority leader remarked. In that regard, “an authorization to use military force that ties the president’s hands behind his back is not something I would want to do.” The proper role of Congress was to get out of the way and give this commander-in-chief carte blanche so that the next one would enjoy comparably unlimited prerogatives.
Collaborating with a president they roundly despise — implicitly concurring in Obama’s questionable claim that “existing statutes [already] provide me with the authority I need” to make war on ISIS — the GOP-controlled Congress thereby transformed the post-9/11 AUMF into what has now become, in effect, a writ of permanent and limitless armed conflict. In Iraq and Syria, for instance, what began as a limited but open-ended campaign of air strikes authorized by President Obama in August 2014 has expanded to include an ever-larger contingent of U.S. trainers and advisers for the Iraqi military, special operations forces conducting raids in both Iraq and Syria, the first new all-U.S. forward fire base in Iraq, and at least 5,000 U.S. military personnel now on the ground, a number that continues to grow incrementally.
Remember Barack Obama campaigning back in 2008 and solemnly pledging to end the Iraq War? What he neglected to mention at the time was that he was retaining the prerogative to plunge the country into another Iraq War on his own ticket. So has he now done, with members of Congress passively assenting and the country essentially a prisoner of war.
By now, through its inaction, the legislative branch has, in fact, surrendered the final remnant of authority it retained on matters relating to whether, when, against whom, and for what purpose the United States should go to war. Nothing now remains but to pay the bills, which Congress routinely does, citing a solemn obligation to “support the troops.” In this way does the performance of lesser duties provide an excuse for shirking far greater ones.
In military circles, there is a term to describe this type of behavior. It’s called cowardice.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 166 guests