3017-ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? | View Thread

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/12/historic-new-harpers-article-exposes-controls-america.html

There can be little doubt now: America’s decades-long catastrophic failures to make significant progress in eliminating even a single one of the numerous jihadist groups around the world is due to the American government’s secret under-the-table crucial ongoing assistance to those groups, and this American-government support has intentionally encouraged recent terrorist events especially in Syria, Libya, and other countries that had been allied with Russia — but which might be flipped ‘our’ way, by those jihadists. In such countries (America’s ‘enemies’), the U.S. government calls the jihadist groups ‘moderates’ and ‘pro-democracy.’ But in Christian, Jewish, and Shiite-Muslim dominant countries, they’re instead called “terrorists,” which is what they actually are. George Orwell called such linguistic tricks for fooling any nation’s mass of suckers, “Newspeak,” but America’s version is more sophisticated than his fictional one was. And so is America’s version of Orwell’s “Big Brother” more sophisticated than his — and now we know what it actually is, because of this:

The great investigative journalist Andrew Cockburn, in the January 2016 issue of HarpersMagazine, has come forth with what may be the best public-affairs article I’ve ever seen(it’s at that link), because he has interviewed key individuals in the U.S. government’s CIA and other intelligence agencies, some of whom he even identifies by name (i.e., they’re retired), and all of whom provide different details of the very same stunning huge story, a story that I have been reporting only in bits and pieces over the past year, but for which Cockburn offers an astounding amount of fuller and entirely new documentation — it blows everything else away.

To boil it all down (which he sadly doesn’t): The fundamentalist-Sunni royal family of the Sauds have bought the highest levels of the U.S. government in order to control U.S. foreign policies, especially the ongoing wars to take down the governments of Iraq, Libya,Syria, and ultimately (they hope) of Russia itself, which latter nation has allied itself instead with Shiia countries. The controlling entities behind American foreign policies since at least the late 1970s have been the Saud family and the Sauds’ subordinate Arabic aristocracies, which are the ones in Qatar (the al-Thanis), Kuwait (the al-Sabahs), Turkey (the TukticErdoğans, a new royalty), and UAE (its six royal families: the main one, the al-Nahyans in Abu Dhabi; the other five: the al-Maktoums in Dubai, al-Qasimis in Sharjah, al-Nuaimis in Ajman, al-Mualla Ums in Quwain, and al-Sharqis in Fujairah). Other Saudi-dominated nations — though they’re not oil-rich (more like Turkey in this regard) — are Pakistan and Afghanistan.

On December 15th, the Sauds formed their own Sunni-Islamic version of the American aristocracy’s NATO; and, though it shares one existing member with the 28-member NATO military alliance, which is Turkey, the other 34+ nations in it are, like the Sauds’ Kingdom itself, ruled by Wahhabist-Salafist leaders, and are likewise vigorously against both Russia and Shiite-led countries — just as NATO itself also is.

Cockburn mentions by name only the al-Sauds, but he documents the cooperation of the other Kingdoms in the ringleading Sauds’ fundamentalist-Sunni plan, for, essentially, a Saud Caliphate, which dream had actually started when Muhammad Ibn Saud and Muhammad Ibn Wahhab in the year 1744 swore their mutual oaths to one-another that started Saudi Arabia: Saud’s descendants would be authorized by Wahhab’s clerics to be approved by God to rule, in return for which the Sauds would impose upon their subjects the Wahhabist-Salafist version of Islam, and would allow the Wahhabist clerics to make the country’s laws, with the approval of (and enforcement by) the Sauds. It’s the traditional deal between a nation’s aristocrats and its clergy, but superpowered in the Sauds’ case with ‘god’s’ gift of oil, and America’s commitment of weapons (which is an endless boon to America’s weapons industry).

As I have documented previously, the bookkeeper for Al Qaeda, who also was their traveling bagman who personally collected in cash each one of the many multi-million-dollar donations to al-Qaeda, has testified in stunning detail, under oath (not merely as the interviewee of some journalist), regarding the identities of the chief funders of al-Qaeda; and, he said, to summarize, that, “Without the money of the — of the Saudi you will have nothing”; but, even Hillary Clinton, in a much quoted 2009 wikileaked cable telling America’s Ambassadors what to say to the Islamic-nation rulers (quoted from also by Cockburn), mentioned this Saudi problem, when she addressed the issue indirectly to the Sauds, via the U.S. Saudi Ambassador:

While the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) takes seriously the threat of terrorism within Saudi Arabia, it has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority. Due in part to intense focus by the USG over the last several years, Saudi Arabia has begun to make important progress on this front and has responded to terrorist financing concerns raised by the United States through proactively investigating and detaining financial facilitators of concern. Still, donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide. … In contrast to its increasingly aggressive efforts to disrupt al-Qa’ida’s access to funding from Saudi sources, Riyadh has taken only limited action to disrupt fundraising for the UN 1267-listed Taliban and LeT-groups that are also aligned with al-Qa’ida and focused on undermining stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

So: we know that al-Qaeda was an operation financed chiefly by the Saud family not only pre-9/11, but until at least 2009.

She went on to request, almost to plead with them:

We would like to stress our interest in broadening and deepening this dialogue and information exchange as we still lack detailed information on the ultimate sources of terrorist financing emanating from the Kingdom.

No sanctions against them were threatened: a subordinate doesn’t threaten his (or her) master.

She also requested their:

cutting off the flow of funds from Saudi Arabia to foreign religious, charitable, and educational organizations that propagate violent extremist ideologies to vulnerable populations.

She went on also to mention, regarding Kuwait (whose Sabah family are ruling there only because the Sauds want them to):

the specific activities of terrorist financiers in country, Kuwaiti charities financing terrorism abroad, and Kuwait’s lack of a comprehensive anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing regime. … Al-Qa’ida and other groups continue to exploit Kuwait both as a source of funds and as a key transit point. … A particular point of difference between the U.S. and Kuwait concerns Revival of Islamic Heritage Society (RIHS). In June 2008 the USG domestically designated all RIHS offices RIHS under Executive Order 13224 for providing financial and material support to al-Qa’ida and UN 1267-listed al-Qa’ida affiliates, including Lashkar e-Tayyiba, Jemaah Islamiyah, and Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya.

To Kuwait’s Sabahs themselves, she said:

We remain concerned that the continued absence of counterterrorism legislation criminalizing terrorist financing will continue to prevent effective counterterrorist efforts.

She noted regarding Qatar:

Qatar has adopted a largely passive approach to cooperating with the U.S. against terrorist financing. Qatar’s overall level of CT cooperation with the U.S. is considered the worst in the region.

However, she said nothing at all to the rulers, the Thanis, themselves.

To UAE’s Nahyans, she concluded by saying:

We urge your government to strengthen its regulatory and enforcement regime to interdict cash couriers transiting major airports.

To Pakistan’s rulers, she said:

We urge your government to support the international community’s efforts to combat terrorist financing. … We urge your government to comply with UN and domestic legal obligations to enforce sanctions on the Pakistan-based, UN-proscribed NGOs al Rashid Trust and al Akhtar Trust, and all successor organizations that continue to funnel money and provide other forms of support to the Taliban and LeT. … We emphasize that social services provided by NGO extremist organizations, such as Jamaat-ud Dawa (JUD) challenge the legitimacy of your government to provide for its people.

The clergy in all of those countries are mainly Wahhabist, which outside Saudi Arabia is instead called Salafist. This is the fundamentalist wing of Sunni Islam, and it is rabidly anti-Shiite. It dominates not only Arabia but also Pakistan and Afghanistan; it’s the jihadist wing of Islam, the wing that promotes restoring the “Caliphate” or Islamic Empire.

Secretary of State Clinton had nothing to say in this cable, to Shiite-dominant countries, such as Iran, Iraq, and Syria, nor to Bahrain which is Sunni-ruled, by the Salafist al-Khalifa family, who continue to rule their majority-Shiite population only because in 2011, U.S. weapons and Saudi soldiers slaughtered opponents of the regime. Here was the never-telecast U.S. news-report about that, and here is an interview with its reporter, who was fired and blackballed from U.S. media for having tried to report it. (A youtube news-medium, Vice News, wasn’t as corrupt: they allowed their report to run.)

So, it’s remarkable that Andrew Cockburn is able to get his extraordinarily honest article published in a mainstream American news-medium. Perhaps Harpers Magazine is suddenly testing the limits of what the U.S. aristocracy will tolerate to be published. But whatever the reason is, it’s to be welcomed, and applauded.

The only scientific study that has yet been done of whether or not the U.S. is a democraacy or instead a dictatorship found that it’s a dictatorship; and now the international extension of that dictatorship, if not the chief figures in this dictatorship (if America’s aristocracy actually is subordinate to the Sauds), can be more clearly understood. But, perhaps, one can safely say that the alliance between the U.S. aristocracy and the royal Sauds, is emerging as a global dictatorship, a dictatorial type of world government. Because, clearly: those two aristocraciues have been, to a large extent, ruling the world together, for several decades now. From their perspective, jihadists are themselves a weapon, not merely a political nuisance.

This is a more realistic explanation of America’s decades-long catastrophic failures to make significant progress in eliminating even a single one of the numerous jihadist groups around the world: that’s how things have been planned to be. It’s not just ‘intelligence errors’ or ‘not being tough enough.’ Those ‘explanations’ are just cover-stories, propaganda, PR from the aristocrats. It’s skillful ‘crowd control’: keeping the people in their ‘proper’ places.

Listening to America’s Presidential campaign ‘debates’ in this light enables a viewer to understand better the pressures upon each one of the candidates — and upon the moderators who ask the questions, and who don’t ask the follow-up questions that will expose the lies in the answers. It’s not merely a contest between the candidates; it is all part of a collective war by the aristocracy against the public, to keep them in their ‘proper’ places.

—————

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 12/18/2015 5:42:20 PM
	Cancer ISN'T all in your genes: Up to 90% of cases 'could be wiped out by avoiding triggers caused by our unhealthy lifestyles' · Study found factors like sunlight and diet play a bigger role than DNA · Healthy habits dramatically reduce the chances of getting cancer · Scientists are divided over how much cancer is caused by genes/ lifestyle By FIONA MACRAE SCIENCE EDITOR FOR THE DAILY MAIL PUBLISHED: 18:16 GMT, 16 December 2015 \| UPDATED: 15:15 GMT, 17 December 2015 Most cases of cancer are down to unhealthy lives, rather than bad genes, doctors said last night. They said that factors in the world around us, from diet, to sunlight, cigarettes and disease, play a far bigger role in fuelling cancer than dodgy DNA. Up 90 per cent of cancer cases would be wiped up if all these triggers could be avoided. Dr Emma Smith, of Cancer Research UK, said: ‘Healthy habits like not smoking, keeping a healthy weight, eating a healthy diet and cutting back on alcohol are not a guarantee against cancer, they do dramatically reduce the risk of developing the disease.’ The new study claims that up to nine in ten cancers could be avoided if triggers linked to lifestyle were avoided While the advice may not seem surprising, scientists are divided about how much cancer is caused by what we do and how much is unavoidable. The controversy was stoked a year ago by research that claimed that most cases are caused by errors in DNA that are generated at random as the body ages and its cells divide. The researchers said this meant that most cases of cancer were down to ‘bad luck’, rather than an unhealthy lifestyle. It said that for or two out of three cancer victims, the cumulative effect of random mistakes in genes is to blame for the disease rather than poor choices about how they lived their lives or ‘chose’ their parents. The latest study involved four analyses of the causes of cancer and used some of the same data as the first piece of research. However, it came to the opposite conclusion, suggesting that cancer incidence is far too high to be explained by simple mutations in cell division alone. They said that, if random mutations were to blame, there would be far fewer cases of cancer than there are. Dr Yusuf Hannun, of Stony Brook University in the US, said that while luck plays a role, factors in the world around us are much more important. These include diet, alcohol, cigarettes, sunburn, some viruses, pollution and likely other factors that have yet to be identified. New study finds most cancers are caused by the way we live Loaded: 0% Progress: 0% 00:00 Play Mute Current Time0:00 / Duration Time1:16 Fullscreen Need Text Getting rid of external risk factors, like smoking and some viruses, would reduce the incidence of all forms of the disease, including breast cancer, depicted Previous studies have shown that people moving from low cancer incidence to countries with high cancer rates develop the same tumour incidences, which also suggests the risks are caused more by environment than genes. Scientists also looked at patterns in the mutations associated with certain cancers and found that mutations during cell division rarely build up to the point of producing cancer, even in tissues with relatively high rates of cell division. The team found that some exposure to environmental factors would be needed to set off the disease. The Johns Hopkins University study earlier this year also failed to include common cancers such as prostate, breast, stomach, and cervix, which have been heavily linked to environmental causes. In 2012, there were almost 339,000 of new cancer cases of cancer recorded and almost 162,000 deaths, according to figures from Cancer Research UK. The chances of beating cancer in England is improving but still lags behind countries elsewhere in Europe, official figures revealed last month. Previously experts have estimated that 30-40 per cent of cancer cases would be avoided given a better lifestyle, but there has been no similar calculation about whether the remainder can be prevented. The new study claims that adopting a healthy lifestyle can significantly reduce your chances of cancer Writing in the journal Nature, he said that the genes we inherit from our parents only account for a very small number of cancer cases. He concluded: ‘These results are important for strategizing cancer prevention, research and public health.’ Other experts said he had built a ‘compelling case’ for his argument. Professor Kevin McConway, of the Open University, said: ‘The authors’ aim is to calculate what percentage of cancers would not arise, if we could wave a magic wand and get rid of all possible external risk factors. ‘There would still be cancers, because of the way that cells divide in the body. But there would be fewer of them.’ Dr Jian-Min Yuan, of the University of Pittsburgh in the US, said: ‘These results demonstrate that a large proportion of cancer is caused by environmental factors and are preventable if their underlying causes are identified.’ Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3362965/How-cancer-ISN-T-genes-90-cancer-wiped-avoiding-triggers-caused-unhealthy-lifestyles.html#ixzz3uh8wBTsw Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter \| DailyMail on Facebook
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+2

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 12/19/2015 12:36:41 AM
	Historic New Harpers Article Exposes Who Controls America, by Eric Zuesse IMPORTANT READING! ~J Posted on December 18, 2015 [by Jean Haines]by Jean http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/12/historic-new-harpers-article-exposes-controls-america.html There can be little doubt now: America’s decades-long catastrophic failures to make significant progress in eliminating even a single one of the numerous jihadist groups around the world is due to the American government’s secret under-the-table crucial ongoing assistance to those groups, and this American-government support has intentionally encouraged recent terrorist events especially in Syria, Libya, and other countries that had been allied with Russia — but which might be flipped ‘our’ way, by those jihadists. In such countries (America’s ‘enemies’), the U.S. government calls the jihadist groups ‘moderates’ and ‘pro-democracy.’ But in Christian, Jewish, and Shiite-Muslim dominant countries, they’re instead called “terrorists,” which is what they actually are. George Orwell called such linguistic tricks for fooling any nation’s mass of suckers, “Newspeak,” but America’s version is more sophisticated than his fictional one was. And so is America’s version of Orwell’s “Big Brother” more sophisticated than his — and now we know what it actually is, because of this: The great investigative journalist Andrew Cockburn, in the January 2016 issue of HarpersMagazine, has come forth with what may be the best public-affairs article I’ve ever seen(it’s at that link), because he has interviewed key individuals in the U.S. government’s CIA and other intelligence agencies, some of whom he even identifies by name (i.e., they’re retired), and all of whom provide different details of the very same stunning huge story, a story that I have been reporting only in bits and pieces over the past year, but for which Cockburn offers an astounding amount of fuller and entirely new documentation — it blows everything else away. To boil it all down (which he sadly doesn’t): The fundamentalist-Sunni royal family of the Sauds have bought the highest levels of the U.S. government in order to control U.S. foreign policies, especially the ongoing wars to take down the governments of Iraq, Libya,Syria, and ultimately (they hope) of Russia itself, which latter nation has allied itself instead with Shiia countries. The controlling entities behind American foreign policies since at least the late 1970s have been the Saud family and the Sauds’ subordinate Arabic aristocracies, which are the ones in Qatar (the al-Thanis), Kuwait (the al-Sabahs), Turkey (the TukticErdoğans, a new royalty), and UAE (its six royal families: the main one, the al-Nahyans in Abu Dhabi; the other five: the al-Maktoums in Dubai, al-Qasimis in Sharjah, al-Nuaimis in Ajman, al-Mualla Ums in Quwain, and al-Sharqis in Fujairah). Other Saudi-dominated nations — though they’re not oil-rich (more like Turkey in this regard) — are Pakistan and Afghanistan. On December 15th, the Sauds formed their own Sunni-Islamic version of the American aristocracy’s NATO; and, though it shares one existing member with the 28-member NATO military alliance, which is Turkey, the other 34+ nations in it are, like the Sauds’ Kingdom itself, ruled by Wahhabist-Salafist leaders, and are likewise vigorously against both Russia and Shiite-led countries — just as NATO itself also is. Cockburn mentions by name only the al-Sauds, but he documents the cooperation of the other Kingdoms in the ringleading Sauds’ fundamentalist-Sunni plan, for, essentially, a Saud Caliphate, which dream had actually started when Muhammad Ibn Saud and Muhammad Ibn Wahhab in the year 1744 swore their mutual oaths to one-another that started Saudi Arabia: Saud’s descendants would be authorized by Wahhab’s clerics to be approved by God to rule, in return for which the Sauds would impose upon their subjects the Wahhabist-Salafist version of Islam, and would allow the Wahhabist clerics to make the country’s laws, with the approval of (and enforcement by) the Sauds. It’s the traditional deal between a nation’s aristocrats and its clergy, but superpowered in the Sauds’ case with ‘god’s’ gift of oil, and America’s commitment of weapons (which is an endless boon to America’s weapons industry). As I have documented previously, the bookkeeper for Al Qaeda, who also was their traveling bagman who personally collected in cash each one of the many multi-million-dollar donations to al-Qaeda, has testified in stunning detail, under oath (not merely as the interviewee of some journalist), regarding the identities of the chief funders of al-Qaeda; and, he said, to summarize, that, “Without the money of the — of the Saudi you will have nothing”; but, even Hillary Clinton, in a much quoted 2009 wikileaked cable telling America’s Ambassadors what to say to the Islamic-nation rulers (quoted from also by Cockburn), mentioned this Saudi problem, when she addressed the issue indirectly to the Sauds, via the U.S. Saudi Ambassador: While the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) takes seriously the threat of terrorism within Saudi Arabia, it has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority. Due in part to intense focus by the USG over the last several years, Saudi Arabia has begun to make important progress on this front and has responded to terrorist financing concerns raised by the United States through proactively investigating and detaining financial facilitators of concern. Still, donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide. … In contrast to its increasingly aggressive efforts to disrupt al-Qa’ida’s access to funding from Saudi sources, Riyadh has taken only limited action to disrupt fundraising for the UN 1267-listed Taliban and LeT-groups that are also aligned with al-Qa’ida and focused on undermining stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan. So: we know that al-Qaeda was an operation financed chiefly by the Saud family not only pre-9/11, but until at least 2009. She went on to request, almost to plead with them: We would like to stress our interest in broadening and deepening this dialogue and information exchange as we still lack detailed information on the ultimate sources of terrorist financing emanating from the Kingdom. No sanctions against them were threatened: a subordinate doesn’t threaten his (or her) master. She also requested their: cutting off the flow of funds from Saudi Arabia to foreign religious, charitable, and educational organizations that propagate violent extremist ideologies to vulnerable populations. She went on also to mention, regarding Kuwait (whose Sabah family are ruling there only because the Sauds want them to): the specific activities of terrorist financiers in country, Kuwaiti charities financing terrorism abroad, and Kuwait’s lack of a comprehensive anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing regime. … Al-Qa’ida and other groups continue to exploit Kuwait both as a source of funds and as a key transit point. … A particular point of difference between the U.S. and Kuwait concerns Revival of Islamic Heritage Society (RIHS). In June 2008 the USG domestically designated all RIHS offices RIHS under Executive Order 13224 for providing financial and material support to al-Qa’ida and UN 1267-listed al-Qa’ida affiliates, including Lashkar e-Tayyiba, Jemaah Islamiyah, and Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya. To Kuwait’s Sabahs themselves, she said: We remain concerned that the continued absence of counterterrorism legislation criminalizing terrorist financing will continue to prevent effective counterterrorist efforts. She noted regarding Qatar: Qatar has adopted a largely passive approach to cooperating with the U.S. against terrorist financing. Qatar’s overall level of CT cooperation with the U.S. is considered the worst in the region. However, she said nothing at all to the rulers, the Thanis, themselves. To UAE’s Nahyans, she concluded by saying: We urge your government to strengthen its regulatory and enforcement regime to interdict cash couriers transiting major airports. To Pakistan’s rulers, she said: We urge your government to support the international community’s efforts to combat terrorist financing. … We urge your government to comply with UN and domestic legal obligations to enforce sanctions on the Pakistan-based, UN-proscribed NGOs al Rashid Trust and al Akhtar Trust, and all successor organizations that continue to funnel money and provide other forms of support to the Taliban and LeT. … We emphasize that social services provided by NGO extremist organizations, such as Jamaat-ud Dawa (JUD) challenge the legitimacy of your government to provide for its people. The clergy in all of those countries are mainly Wahhabist, which outside Saudi Arabia is instead called Salafist. This is the fundamentalist wing of Sunni Islam, and it is rabidly anti-Shiite. It dominates not only Arabia but also Pakistan and Afghanistan; it’s the jihadist wing of Islam, the wing that promotes restoring the “Caliphate” or Islamic Empire. Secretary of State Clinton had nothing to say in this cable, to Shiite-dominant countries, such as Iran, Iraq, and Syria, nor to Bahrain which is Sunni-ruled, by the Salafist al-Khalifa family, who continue to rule their majority-Shiite population only because in 2011, U.S. weapons and Saudi soldiers slaughtered opponents of the regime. Here was the never-telecast U.S. news-report about that, and here is an interview with its reporter, who was fired and blackballed from U.S. media for having tried to report it. (A youtube news-medium, Vice News, wasn’t as corrupt: they allowed their report to run.) So, it’s remarkable that Andrew Cockburn is able to get his extraordinarily honest article published in a mainstream American news-medium. Perhaps Harpers Magazine is suddenly testing the limits of what the U.S. aristocracy will tolerate to be published. But whatever the reason is, it’s to be welcomed, and applauded. The only scientific study that has yet been done of whether or not the U.S. is a democraacy or instead a dictatorship found that it’s a dictatorship; and now the international extension of that dictatorship, if not the chief figures in this dictatorship (if America’s aristocracy actually is subordinate to the Sauds), can be more clearly understood. But, perhaps, one can safely say that the alliance between the U.S. aristocracy and the royal Sauds, is emerging as a global dictatorship, a dictatorial type of world government. Because, clearly: those two aristocraciues have been, to a large extent, ruling the world together, for several decades now. From their perspective, jihadists are themselves a weapon, not merely a political nuisance. This is a more realistic explanation of America’s decades-long catastrophic failures to make significant progress in eliminating even a single one of the numerous jihadist groups around the world: that’s how things have been planned to be. It’s not just ‘intelligence errors’ or ‘not being tough enough.’ Those ‘explanations’ are just cover-stories, propaganda, PR from the aristocrats. It’s skillful ‘crowd control’: keeping the people in their ‘proper’ places. Listening to America’s Presidential campaign ‘debates’ in this light enables a viewer to understand better the pressures upon each one of the candidates — and upon the moderators who ask the questions, and who don’t ask the follow-up questions that will expose the lies in the answers. It’s not merely a contest between the candidates; it is all part of a collective war by the aristocracy against the public, to keep them in their ‘proper’ places. ————— Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+2

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 12/19/2015 12:51:08 AM
	US military in Syria violate sovereignty, not fighting terror – Damascus Published time: 18 Dec, 2015 09:23Edited time: 18 Dec, 2015 18:36 © Namir Noor-Eldeen / Reuters The actions of the US military in Syria are a violation of the latter’s sovereignty and not part of any anti-terrorist action, Syria’s deputy foreign minister says. “We doubt that they [US troops] are sincere in their fight against terrorism. They do not coordinate their actions with the Syrian Army. This makes those forces illegal in Syria’s territory. One cannot say they are fighting terrorism,” Faisal al-Mikdad, Syria’s deputy foreign minister, said in an interview with RIA Novosti. “Fighting terrorism must be a practical task, not this advertising gig that the West is engaged in,” he added. The diplomat spoke after Washington confirmed the deployment of special operations troops in Syria. US Secretary of Defense Ash Carter called on Thursday the first commando mission in Syria a success. Read more Role of Saudi-led ‘military alliance’ put to question as some members reject participation "I think the point is that it bore the fruit that we hoped it would," Carter told reporters after meeting with troops, commanders and Kurdish leaders in Irbil, the capital of the Iraqi Kurdish Autonomy. Mikdad blasted Saudi Arabia for hosting a meeting of various forces seeking to oust the government in Damascus. “Some of the participants that Saudi Arabia allowed to the conference are not really opposition. Others represented terrorist groups. We can only say that Syria does not negotiate with terrorists. The only place we meet them is the battlefield,” he said. He also dismissed the hyped-up Riyadh-led military anti-terrorism coalition of 34 nations, which Saudi Arabia revealed this week. Mikdad said the proposed alliance was sectarian in nature and used religious slogans for political goals much like the terrorist group Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) does. The Saudi alliance had a somewhat bumpy start as several nations listed as its members claimed they had learned about their participation from the media. Mikdad said the Syrian Army may join forces with some groups of the so-called Free Syrian Army, an umbrella organization backed by Western powers that supposedly includes moderate rebel forces. “If all the guns are pointed at one enemy, that is terrorism, we would welcome it. Or they may drop their weapons and go back to peaceful life or enlist into the army,” Mikdad said, adding that rebels wishing to do so must stop partaking in crimes like killings of civilians, kidnappings and pillaging of cities under their control. The Syrian official said the impact of Russia’s anti-terrorist campaign in Syria is already visible across the country. “The biggest achievement is the weakening of Daesh [an Arabic abbreviation for Islamic State, previously ISIS/ISIL] and other terrorist groups,” Mikdad said. “Russian airstrikes have degraded the terrorists, as proven by the recapturing of territories in Hama, Latakia, Idlib and Aleppo provinces. Those are significant successes and they will become apparent even more soon,” he said. (RT)
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+2

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 12/19/2015 10:16:52 AM
	Ukraine won't repay $3 billion Russian debt due this weekend By NATALIYA VASILYEVA15 hours ago FILE - In this file photo taken on Friday, Dec. 11, 2015, Prime Minister of Ukraine, Arseniy Yatsenuk, delivers a speech to Ukrainian lawmakers in Parliament in Kiev, Ukraine. Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk said on Friday, Dec. 18, 2015, that his country won't repay a $3 billion debt owed to Russia by this weekend after Moscow's refusal to accept repayment terms already offered to other international creditors. (AP Photo/Sergei Chuzavkov, File) View Gallery MOSCOW (AP) — Ukraine won't make a $3 billion debt repayment due to Russia this weekend because Moscow refused to agree to terms already accepted by other international creditors, Ukraine's prime minister said Friday. Related Stories Ukraine says it can't pay off debt to RussiaAssociated Press Ukraine Won't Repay $3 Billion Debt Owed To Russia Huffington Post [$$] Russia Could Sell Stake in Rosneft to Bolster Finances The Wall Street Journal Ukraine says committed to talks in good faith with Russia on $3 billion bond Reuters Ukraine still committed to good faith debt talks with Russia: Finance Ministry Reuters La ciencia revela una crema antiarrugas mejor que LifeCell Sponsored  The "moratorium" on outstanding debt repayments to Russia announced by Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk effectively means that Ukraine is defaulting on the debt due Sunday. That move could jeopardize crucial loans that Ukraine has been receiving from a $17.5 billion bailout deal with the International Monetary Fund. It's the latest spat between the two neighbors following a run of gas supply disputes, Russia's 2014 annexation of the Crimean Peninsula and its support for separatists in eastern Ukraine. "After Russia refused to accept our offer, despite our attempts to reach a restructuring deal, the government is imposing a moratorium on the repayment of the $3 billion debt to Russia," Yatsenyuk said at a televised government session. "We are ready for court proceedings with Russia." He did not indicate when Ukraine would be ready to repay the debt. Moscow has previously said it will take Ukraine to court if it fails to pay on time. Ukrainian Finance Minister Nataliya Yaresko said late Friday she hoped the dispute could still be resolved but Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov discounted that possibility, saying "there is only the court prospect." View gallery Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk speaks on the phone in the Ukraine parliament in Kiev, Uk … Alongside the sovereign debt, the Ukrainian government has decided to put on hold the repayment of a combined debt of $507 million that two Ukrainian state-owned enterprises owe to Russian banks. It is unclear at this point how Ukraine's imminent default will affect its four-year IMF bailout, as the IMF recently said it can continue to lend to countries behind in debt payments as long as the country is trying "in good faith" to reach a deal. Still, William Jackson, a senior emerging markets economist at London-based Capital Economists consultancy, said Friday's announcement "does feed into broader concerns that the country's IMF program is now at risk." He said the IMF's recent concerns about the Ukrainian parliament's decision to reject a proposed budget for the next year and a new tax code could indicate a "growing risk that the country's bailout could be put on hold." Ukraine's economy has struggled over the past few years and the country has negotiated repayment terms with creditors, but not with Russia. View gallery Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk speaks during a cabinet meeting in Kiev, Ukraine, Friday, … In November, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed a debt restructuring, saying Moscow would be willing to agree to payments of $1 billion a year between 2016 and 2018. Ukraine turned down the offer, saying it cannot legally offer Russia a better deal than the one it has negotiated with other debt holders. That deal has seen countries accept a 20 percent write-down of their Ukrainian bond holdings, a move that has cut Ukraine's sovereign debt from $19 billion to $15.5 billion. Relations between the two neighbors soured after Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula in March 2014 and threw its backing behind separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine. Ukrainian leaders have accused Moscow of sending troops and weapons to the east, a claim the Kremlin has denied. The government in Kiev has also sought to give a political dimension to the debt, hinting that Russia bought Ukrainian bonds in December 2013 in a clandestine bribe of then-President Viktor Yanukovych, who was facing massive anti-government protests at the time. Yanukovych fled the country in February 2014. Kiev-based analyst Vadim Karasyov was confident the default on the Ukrainian bonds will not mean financial ruin for Ukraine. "Yatsenyuk has clearly run the idea of the moratorium by the main creditors and received their guarantees," Karasyov told The Associated Press. He said foreign investors in Ukraine are not likely to be affected "because you can count them on one hand as it is." __ Yuras Karmanau in Minsk, Belarus, contributed to this report.
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+2

Menu

Forums

Cancer ISN'T all in your genes: Up to 90% of cases 'could be wiped out by avoiding triggers caused by our unhealthy lifestyles'

20+ Iraqi soldiers killed, 30 injured after US airstrike – Iraqi MP to Sputnik

Historic New Harpers Article Exposes Who Controls America, by Eric Zuesse IMPORTANT READING! ~J

US military in Syria violate sovereignty, not fighting terror – Damascus

Ukraine won't repay $3 billion Russian debt due this weekend

Like us on Facebook!