To understand why the US has failed, and is failing, so colossally in Afghanistan, we need to remember the reason the US got involved in the country in the first place, and no, I am not referring to the US government’s publicly acknowledged pretext for entering the war there, namely to retaliate against the people who allegedly perpetrated the 9/11 attacks (who were in fact mostly Saudis, not Afghans. Yes, it was a patently phony pretext).
The reason the US got into the country first is the real, ulterior motive for waging war on the country in Oct 2001. And that reason goes back to the Carter administration.
Carter was somewhat smarter and less bellicose than most other presidents, but he made the fatal mistake of heeding the advice of his deranged adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who advised him to send the CIA into Afghanistan to rout the Russians. Carter foolishly allowed this, and ultimately, it cost the US trillions of dollars and many US lives and it further tarnished the already tarnished US reputation and undermined the trust invested in it by the rest of the world.
Now while smart in some areas, Carter had no understanding of what the Russians were doing in Afghanistan and why. Like most US politicians, he was blinded by Russophobia and thought Russia was merely trying to spread its “godless communist” ideology. Not exactly.
Despite all their blemishes, the Soviets were supporting a secular government in Afghanistan in order to create a more peaceful and civilized environment for the Afghans and, as a corollary, to preserve the stability and security of surrounding Soviet satellites like Tajikistan, which serves as a buffer between Afghanistan and Russia. While the Soviet Union did have its own ideology to peddle, the crazies in Afghanistan also had theirs, and theirs was infinitely more dangerous. And supported by the good old USA.
So while the Soviets wanted to create a communist state there, more importantly, they wanted to control that government to keep Russia safe, and that was a very understandable motive (unless you are a high ranking member of the State Department or other mentally deranged US official who hated Russians for being Russians, not because the Soviet Union was communistic).
This Soviet goal of creating a secular government – whether communist or other – is the key to the question of why the Afghans have so stubbornly resisted entering the 21st Century.
And the answer is disarmingly simple, and related to the reason for the failed US-led wars in the Middle East and elsewhere.
I will highlight this simple explanation because it is crucial to understanding all US foreign policy:
The US, under the CIA, needed to sponsor military action not by a secular people, but by radical Islamist groups in Afghanistan, and this was known collectively as the Mujahideen, the forerunners of the Taliban.
Whether you are a radical irrational Russia hater or a rational human being, you will understand that the Russians were not supporting a radical group of terrorists in Afghanistan. The US was supporting such radicals, and that was for them necessary in order to reach their irrational goal of evicting the Russians.
In fact, the Soviets were helping the ordinary, decent people of that country to live in a more civilized environment where, for example, women and minorities would be treated with respect.
But in order to fight the Russians, the US warmongers had to collaborate with only the radicals, because decent Afghans did not want to evict the people who were helping them improved and progress.
There is an old proverb that goes:
He who goes to bed with dogs wakes up with fleas.
The US spent 2 decades in bed with dogs and can’t figure out why it is covered with fleas?
Vince Dhimos answered a question at Quora.
Do you think that Russia is using disinformation tactics in the rest of the world?
Vince Dhimos Geopolitical Analyst at New Silk Strategies (2016–present)
I read Russian news from Russia in Russian every single day, anywhere from 5–10 or more articles, some of which I translate for my web site and some for Quora.
I read the serious sites like РИА Новости - события в Москве, России и мире сегодня: темы дня, фото, видео, инфографика, радио, for general news and editorials, and FBA Ekonomika ФБА «Экономика сегодня» Новости экономики for economics and finance and also general news. This news is all in Russian and is not aimed at a Western audience. Therefore, it is obviously not aimed at influencing Westerners. However, much of the news that interests me is digests of information that comes from US financial pages, eg, statements by renowned US economists like Stephen Roach, or Deutsche Bank economist Shameer Goel regarding the fate of the US dollar. Let’s not pretend that news from sources in the US is fake news just because it was quoted in a Russian news outlet, shall we? (I routinely open up cited news cites in the US to verify the Russian reports and have yet to find a misquote or discrepancy).
I note that one answer to this question claims to give an “example” of Russian disinformation but does not. Instead it mentions a report from a US satellite country that claims to have found examples of “Russian disinformation” but does not give a single example of such. This is clearly an example of US Russophobic propaganda and nothing else. If you have an actual example of such disinformation, trot it out so we can examine it and decide for ourselves if your example is actually disinformation or not. No, we are not going to simply take your word for it. Why? The US and its satellites use disinformation all the time for the truly despicable reason of starting wars by convincing gullible Western readers that such and such a leader or country is an enemy. NATO and the US Congress, for example, keep saying Russia is an adversary but never give a specific example of why this is so, and the US media regurgitate the “adversary” allegation without evidence. Western audiences seem to require little or no proof of anything their governments tell them. Do I need to remind you how DANGEROUS this is? Belief is the number one cause of death in war. For their own survival, Westerners must learn to doubt and question. Soviet citizens learned to question their media and they survived in an improved form — ie, the Russian Federation.
This grassroots practice of believing the outright lies disseminated by the US and European press has led to war after war after war and has supported sanctions that amount to nothing but criminal violations of human rights. Remember the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Yes, you do and you know they were never found. Yet the US used this lie to drag the “free world” into a war that cost trillions of dollars and as many as 3 MILLION human lives, mostly innocent people caught in the cross fire. There is no excuse for this and it is way past time for the Western public to rub the sleep out of their eyes. Look. When has Russia done anything remotely resembling this tired worn out US trick — ie, faking news to make its people support an immoral war? And let’s admit it: the Russian participation in the REAL fight against terror in Syria was genuinely moral and honest. They didn’t support terrorists and call them “moderates.” Russia objected when the US-NATO decided to go in and slaughter 4000 Europeans (Serbs are Europeans, Google it) in 1998, and yet, NATO cheekily claims, without a speck of evidence, that it exists to protect EUROPE from Russia. But hey, it was NATO that committed genocide in a European country, something Russia never did (how would you like to keep a “watch dog” in your home that ate your children?). That is the extent to which the US-led West lies on a regular basis, but yet, we are told that it is Russia that spreads disinformation?
Details on NATO here: https://www.quora.com/Why-hasn-t-NATO-evaluated-its-peacekeeping-experience-to-identify-and-implement-best-practices-for-transitioning-failed-states-into-functional-democracy/answer/Vince-Dhimos
Details on why Russia is not the aggressor and the US is: https://www.quora.com/How-does-a-country-like-Russia-which-GDP-based-on-totally-natural-reserves-low-technology-screw-up-population-meddle-in-the-affair-of-other-countries-Moldova-Azerbaijan-Georgia-Syria-or-say-other-Shouldnt-Western/answer/Vince-Dhimos
Vince Dhimos answered a question at Quora.
If no one would consider it legitimate for the U.S. to claim sovereignty over Canada simply because the U.S. defeated the British in the American Independence War, why does the world agree with the Chinese that Taiwan belongs to them?
Vince Dhimos certificate from Mandarin Chinese (language) & Chinese Culture, History, National Taiwan Normal University (Graduated 1990)
I don’t know if the world agrees with this or not. No all-world poll has been taken.
The fact that the US allowed China to manipulate it into accepting the one-China position on Taiwan is the fault of the very naive Jimmy Carter, who allowed the Chinese to foist the one-China principle on the US negotiators in 1979.
Thus Carter allowed the issue to be falsely framed as an either-or issue, but that was nonsense. Of course, it is silly to assume that Taiwan could speak for all Chinese, including the entire mainland. BUT that does not mean that Taiwan could not be recognized as an independent country.
Instead of de-recognizing Taiwan as demanded by the Chinese delegation, Carter could have insisted that the country remain sovereign but with a more appropriate name. The name Republic of China was obsolete by then because, as stated above, Taiwan could not reasonably represent China.
So instead of allowing himself to be manipulated, Carter could have asked Taiwan to drop the ROC name and call itself, for example, Republic of Taiwan. If that had been done, the US would not have had to pull its embassy from there, which was a huge slap in the face to a faithful ally and important trading partner. But Carter sealed the fate of Taiwan forever by allowing himself to be manipulated. He held all the cards but snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. And it is now just a matter of time before Taiwan is absorbed into the PRC.
Such a shame!
Vince Dhimos answered a question at Quora.
Do you believe that Israel is hitting Iranian targets more aggressively lately in the hopes of provoking a military response from them while Trump is still President, rather than taking a chance on Biden's response?
Vince Dhimos Geopolitical Analyst at New Silk Strategies (2016–present)
The main reason the latest Israeli hit on Syria looks more aggressive to most readers of US and allied news is that Western news almost invariably ignores Israeli attacks on Syria. In September 2018, Reuters finally reported that Israel had already then struck 200 times in Syria:
Israel says struck Iranian targets in Syria 200 times in last two years
Nothing has changed since then, but Western msm still ignore these strikes.
The only way to keep up with the Israeli missile strikes is to read news sites from other countries, particularly the Middle East, where it is not forbidden to tell the truth about Israeli aggression.
Here are the sources I use to keep informed:
SouthFront: Crisis News, World Events, Political Survey
AMN - Al-Masdar News | المصدر نيوز
TASS Russian News Agency
Bulgarian Military: Bulgarian & International Military and Defence News
The best one, and the one I consult the most is aviapro: Video Production & Radio Since '99
but this one is all in Russian. You can help yourself by copy-pasting into Google Translate.
At any rate, just consider that after hundreds of missile strikes, if any country other than Israel displayed this kind of raw aggression, the targeted country would have fought back or declared war. But Israel’s crimes and aggression enjoy the full protection and approval of the US government! (Yes, the government that complains the most about so-called Russian or Chinese “aggression.” It would be comical if it were not so downright tragic.)
THE DEIR YASSIN MASSACRE. ISRAEL COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOUNDED WITHOUT IT AND IT COULDN’T HAVE SUCCEEDED WITHOUT US EVANGELICALS
Vince Dhimos answered a question at Quora.
Why did the US order the Chinese consulate in Houston to close? What did they steal?
Vince Dhimos Geopolitical Analyst at New Silk Strategies (2016–present)
Below is our translation of an article from Sohu 搜狐 (美为关闭中国驻休斯敦领馆编造理由，外交部：欲加之罪，何患无辞_美国) with my intra-textual notes in [brackets]. If you examine Western reports of US accusations against China and Russia, you will find that they almost never contain details of the accusations. This is a red flag that will be picked up by keen readers. For example, US lawmakers in 2018 banned the sale of aluminium products from Russian company Rusal based on accusations against CEO Oleg Deripaska, but admitted that the ban was based solely on suspicions but no proof. As a result, Rusal lost billions of dollars in revenues and US aluminium companies that relied on Rusal ingots almost went broke until the ban was eventually lifted months later! This is typical of US political allegations and we therefore need to take them with a grain of salt. The same pattern was followed when ex Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter were poisoned in Salisbury, England. There was no conclusive evidence, just the fact that the toxin was originally developed in the Soviet Union. But at the same time, there were Western governments that had this same toxin in their possession. Just the same, without proof, Russia had to endure sanctions that hurt its economy. And yet, how hypocritical, when you consider that the CIA has been assassinating inconvenient persons around the world for decades. The same is true of the allegation that COVID-19 originated in a Wuhan lab. No one ever provided evidence but this allegation served the purpose of helping Trump garner votes in November and also helped both parties galvanize their gullible voters against the “enemy” China (the creation of an “enemy” is especially important this election year because neither party has any ideas for resolving the health and economic problems due to the pandemic! Westerners need to be extremely careful of US accusations against countries that US politicians are using as political punching bags, and they need to be careful when reading press releases about these accusations because the msm almost always accept the official politically tainted versions. The US elites think we are all stupid and we should be very angry about that.
As you read the translation, note that the main red flag is not what is said in the article but the fact that the Chinese viewpoint, as expressed below, has almost been completely expurgated from US media reports. In other words, we are not supposed to know that the Chinese even had a defence at all! That is like a judge in a court of law denying the defendant’s attorney the opportunity to present his case and stating on the record that there was no defence. This is a far cry from the much vaunted “democracy” for which the US is famous.
The United States fabricated reasons for closing the Chinese consulate in Houston
[Global Times Comprehensive Report] Why did the United States suddenly ask China to close the Consulate General in Houston before 4 pm on the 24th? How will China counter this? Will the relations between the two countries get out of control in the "tooth for tooth" confrontation? Since Washington unilaterally provoked the "closed library" conflict, international public opinion has been filled with all kinds of incomprehensible and agitated voices. Secretary of State Pompeo, Assistant Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific Affairs Stilwell and other US officials jumped up on the 22nd, groundlessly accusing China of "espionage", claiming that the Houston Consulate is the centre of action for China to steal US intellectual property. "The U.S. claims that the Chinese Consulate in Houston is engaged in activities that are inconsistent with its status. This is completely malicious slander." Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin charged on the 23rd that the U.S. "closure" request seriously violates international law and basic norms of international relations. It seriously violated the relevant provisions of the Sino-US consular treaty and severely damaged Sino-US relations. "This is breaking down the bridge of friendship between the Chinese and American peoples." Since the beginning of this year, the international community has witnessed the escalating provocations of the United States against China on issues such as the new crown pneumonia epidemic, the South China Sea, Hong Kong [I deconstructed the US hysteria over Hong Kong: Vince Dhimos's answer to Will the USA remain idle if China tries to swallow Hong Kong?, and Huawei [I showed here that the seizure of Meng Weizhou was illegal: https://www.quora.com/So-considering-the-recent-arrest-in-Canada-of-a-Huawei-CFO-it-appears-the-real-question-is-is-Canada-with-the-USA-or-is-Canada-with-China-If-youre-a- anadian-what-do-you-think/answer/Vince-Dhimos]. The comment that "the relationship between the two countries is in a state of free fall" is often repeated. Now, as Washington takes unprecedented action, this concern has reached its peak. "China-US relations have dropped to the lowest level since diplomatic normalization more than 40 years ago," the New York Times wrote on the 23rd. Many foreign media are calling the latest White House measures “reckless” and “excessive.” Investigating the reason, some analysts believe that this is the result of the combination of Trump's campaign strategy and the Cold War mentality of the China hawks within his administration. [It is not just the Trump administration. The Democrats are adopting an anti-China stance in their campaign rhetoric]
"If you want to add a crime, why don't you worry about it"
At the White House press conference on the 22nd, when asked if it is possible to close more Chinese embassies and consulates in the United States, US President Trump replied, "This is always possible." On the same day, Pompeo, who was visiting in Denmark, said that China’s actions in Houston had "widespread impact". "It was not only American intellectual property that was stolen, but also European intellectual property, causing the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs." "President Trump said 'enough' and we will not allow this to continue," Pompeo said. US Deputy Secretary of State Biegun said on the 22nd that the decision to close the consulate was in response to "a long-standing series of worrying issues" between the US and China. He accused China of "increasingly tough and provocative actions" for causing today's situation.
According to a 7-page document compiled by US law enforcement officials obtained by the New York Times, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) claimed that the Chinese Consulate in Houston tried to “illegally” transfer sensitive information such as medical research [in this time of pandemic, all medical research should be shared with all nations affected. None of it should be classified as proprietary. How can obtaining this information be a crime? The real crime is concealing this vital information, leading to excess deaths and infection, as the US is doing]; persuaded more than 50 people Researchers and scholars transfer their own research or information to Chinese institutions [but this was not coercion. If the scholars wanted to do this, then it is not illegal. Besides, I suppose these scholars were Chinese. If an American embassy tried to persuade a US scholar in another country to transfer his research to the US, would anyone complain?? I am sure this has happened]; coerce fugitives wanted by China to return to China [How is this wrong? Would anyone blame a US embassy if it tried to persuade fugitives wanted by the US to return to the US for trial? For heaven’s sake, the US coerced foreign countries to extradite Julian Assange even though no charges had been formulated against him!] U.S. Senator Rubio, who has always been anti-China, exaggerated on the 22nd that the Chinese Consulate in Houston is "not a diplomatic facility" but a hub for China to carry out large-scale espionage and influence operations in the United States. [Excuse me, but all major world powers — especially the US — try to influence people. So how is it wrong to do this just because someone is Chinese? As for the charge of espionage, note that no examples are given]
Stilwell also claimed on the 22nd that the Chinese Consulate in Houston is the centre of action for China to steal US intellectual property rights [Trump uses the expression “stealing patents” etc. This is a display of gross ignorance. A patent attorney would use “infringing on patent rights.” But where is the evidence?], and that this institution has a history of "subversive behaviour." However, the "New York Times" said that he provided few details to prove his assertion, and only mentioned one thing: On May 31, the Chinese Consul General in Houston Cai Wei and two other diplomats escorted Chinese tourists to the city with false identities from a charter boarding gate.
Regarding this matter, Wang Wenbin stated on the 23rd that Chinese consular officials had obtained prior approval from the US to enter the restricted area of the airport and used consular documents approved by the US State Department. This matter is legal, compliant, and there are many precedents. The US statement is entirely fabricated. [And this is a renowned US media outlet, not a Chinese source, saying this!]
"In fact, I have talked to the American media countless times about this issue. Unfortunately, maybe my voice is too small for them to hear." Consul Cai Wei gave a detailed response in an interview with the media on the 23rd. He said that the documents he used to send to the plane were issued by the U.S. State Department. At that time, a group of overseas students returned to China. The consulate gave them masks and protective clothing, and also copied a small card to tell them how to isolate them when they returned to China. Everything, including myself, has been screened."
In response to the US's unreasonable actions, Wang Wenbin said on the 23rd that China will make necessary responses to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests. The Chinese Embassy in the United States issued a statement on the same day and emphasized that the relevant US allegations are "if you want to add a crime, there is nothing wrong with it." In addition, in terms of the number of Chinese and American embassies and consulates in each other's countries and the number of diplomatic and consular personnel, the United States far exceeds that of China. "The U.S. should not shoot itself in the foot." The embassy reminded.
According to a report by Bloomberg News on the 23rd, the United States has an embassy in Beijing and five consulate-generals in mainland China. The number of diplomats is about 700. This number does not include the number of consulate-generals in Hong Kong. The U.S. Embassy in China has about 400 to 500 diplomats, while the Chinese Embassy in the United States has about 300 diplomats.
Vince Dhimos answered a question at Quora.
If you had to listen to either Chelsea Clinton or Ivanka Trump discuss foreign policy, who would you rather hear speak? Why or why not?
Vince Dhimos Geopolitical Analyst at New Silk Strategies (2016–present)
What most Westerners fail to understand is that US foreign policy has nothing to do with the voters and nothing to do with establishing and maintaining good relations with foreign states. In fact, it is not a policy at all, just a mean-spirited and criminal attempt to disenfranchise the inhabitants of the Muslim world, breaking up their states into smaller weaker ones that are easier for the US and Israel to control. Thus the grassroots can’t control “foreign policy” with their vote because they do not choose the candidates. The elites at the top of the pyramid choose them and they absolutely will never give you a candidate who differs significantly from the presidents who went before them and mired us down in war after war after war in the Middle East, North Africa and Afghanistan. This is why it is so foolish to believe that Trump was different or that he wanted to “drain the swamp” of the Deep State. After all, the fact that Trump caters to Netanyahu’s every whim is absolute proof that he is just another alligator in the swamp. I had written about the agents that control the US and if you are a middle class American, they do not include you.
Here is the list again, and almost at the very top we have Israel and its lobbies, notably AIPAC, which virtually writes all of US foreign policy, at least as concerns the Muslim world (North Africa and Middle East, MENA). Now if Trump had come out and said he was going to reform US policy on Israel and work for a just resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict (and that would mean not giving Israel more Arab land! Jared Kushner would not have been given a cabinet position), then we could say that Trump was departing from Deep State policies and trying to “drain the swamp.” Unfortunately, though, he would never have gotten elected under those circumstances, partly because the Deep State would have blocked him and partly because US Evangelicals – 80% of whom advocate supporting Israel against the Palestinians – would not have supported him. (Here is a deconstruction of “Christian” Zionism: http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/international-relations/christian-zionism-has-taken-the-world-to-the-brink-of-war-but-has-no-basis-in-scripture)
In the twisted, sick US system, foreign policy does not require any expertise at all, which is why it is completely irrelevant what Chelsea or Ivanka think or say about it. I once read an article that told the true story of a man well versed in Middle Eastern studies who applied for a job at the State Department. When the official in charge was reviewing his application, he said “you are knowledgeable about such and such a region and you speak several Middle Eastern languages?” “That’s correct,” the applicant answered. “Sorry, we can’t use you.” came the frigid reply.
The State Department is only interested in people with the correct ideology, not with knowledge of the different regions of their “expertise.” After all, if a candidate had in-depth intimate knowledge of a region, he or she might sympathise with the people who lived there and would be less apt to want to bomb and sanction them. That would never do for the Frankensteins at the State Department who seek to destroy them!
Chelsea’s mom knew next to nothing about the tribes, languages, cultures, attitudes and politics of the Muslim world, only that she and her boss, Obama, supported the Muslim Brotherhood and wanted it to take over North Africa, while they wanted the Gulf States and the Wahhabists to take over the Middle East. That’s total terrorist control of the region aimed at creating chaos, and it was a goal shared by both Hillary and her boss.
If that is news to you, have a listen to the speech in the below-linked video, starting at minute 1:23:
If you were paying attention when Obama was pretending to wage a “war on terror” but in fact allowing ISIS militias to enter Syria by the hundreds in those famous white Toyota trucks with machine guns mounted on their beds, and when he bombed Libya just long enough to get Ghaddafi brutally murdered and replaced by Muslim Brotherhood militias, then you know that, regardless of whether the referenced policy document actually existed, Obama did indeed pursue the strategy described in that speech and that whatever foreign policy “expertise” Secretary of State Hillary might have had, there was never any question of genuine expertise at the State Department, the only requisite for its officials being a loyalty to this sick strategy – which it would be reasonable to expect Biden to continue if he is elected in November. Thus, whatever Chelsea may have learned in her course work at college, there is no reason to believe that, should she be elected to a position in the State Department, she would depart from the policies pursued by her mother during the war on Ghaddafi and the Libyan people.
This diabolical strategy to break up states and disenfranchise people is why Hillary’s boss had Ghaddafi murdered, plunging Libya into a chaos of black slavery and terrorism that has not changed since then. It didn’t take expertise to accomplish this, it took a dark nihilistic sadistic mind. Neither Chelsea nor Ivanka have any new ideas that will change that.
And a Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Libya is what Obama attempted to establish. He failed mainly because Russia entered the Middle East in 2015 and gave the US a lesson in respect. We can hope that Washington will continue to fail in implementing their perverted policies in the Muslim world no matter who becomes president in November.
Unless Chelsea has broken radically from her mother, then this is the policy she would support, a policy to destabilize the North Africa Middle East (NEMA) region in order to maintain control on behalf of Israel and its Yinon Plan (see video linked above). As far as we can tell at this point, that strategy has not changed for the Democrats. It is why they support the terrorist-backed GNA.
As for Ivanka, she and her husband are firm supporters of her husband Jared Kushner’s so-called Deal of the Century, a policy of allowing Israel to annex more land illegally in Palestine and Jerusalem as part of the long-term Israeli strategy of incrementally disenfranchising the few Arabs left in their original territory. Thus I would not waste one second of my time listening to either of these two women discuss foreign policy because their ideas can be expected to be pure ideology, no real world solutions at all. The ideas they represent are the reason for all the wars in the last 3 decades or so.
Here is why Trump and his “Christian” Zionist followers are dreadfully, tragically wrong:
THE PARABLE OF THE GOOD SAMARITAN. WHAT YOUR PASTOR DIDN’T TELL YOU
Vince Dhimos answered a question at Quora.
Why does Russia support China, in South China Sea issue ?
Vince Dhimos Master's in Russian from Kutztown State University
Your question has a sound basis in fact. Russia does support China in this issue but not very strongly. In fact, Russia declares it wants to stay out of the issue, as reported here:
Putin: Russia is staying out of South China Sea dispute
The US is now starting to feel the effects of its irrational position toward Russia. If the US and its puppets in Europe etc had taken a more reasonable stance toward Russia, that country might be more amenable to nudging China away from what the US is calling an expansionist policy. But after all, US-controlled NATO and the US Pentagon have officially declared Russia as an “adversary” of the US. That’s unfair on so many levels. I have shown, for example, that Russia is not the aggressor it is alleged to be in world affairs: https://www.quora.com/How-does-a-country-like-Russia-which-GDP-based-on-totally-natural-reserves-low-technology-screw-up-population-meddle-in-the-affair-of-other-countries-Moldova-Azerbaijan-Georgia-Syria-or-say-other-Shouldnt-Western/answer/Vince-Dhimos
Further, Russia is supplying cheap gas to Europe, and since Europe is supposedly an ally of the US, then the US ought to view that positively. But no, Congress has decided to slap unfair sanctions on the gas pipeline project Nord Stream 2 in a bid to prevent completion of the line, thereby causing great economic harm to both Russia and Europe. These stupid policies have greatly damaged Russia-US relations, perhaps irreparably, precluding any possibility of persuading Russia to pressure China to soften its expansionist policies in the South China Sea.
Vince Dhimos answered a question at Quora.
How important is it to expel China from the UNSC?
Vince Dhimos certificate Mandarin Chinese (language) & Chinese Culture, History, National Taiwan Normal University (Graduated 1990)
If the US can expel any country it wants to expel, then it can’t be called the UN. It would have to be called US Organization for World Manipulation.
Actually, though, in many ways, that is exactly what the UN already is.
While US blow-hard politicians keep up the flow of dubious accusations against countries they don’t like, accusing them — without proof — of human rights abuses, the US has for 7 decades been providing, at the UN, cover for Israeli atrocities while also contributing its own atrocities in the form of wars that have slaughtered at least 10 MILLION mostly unarmed civilians from the air, and sanctions that have criminally starved millions and heartlessly deprived them of health care.
There is a long list of UN resolutions against Israel in response to that country’s EXTREME abuse of Palestinians. I counted, in this List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel - Wikipedia, close to 200 resolutions against Israel for crimes ranging in gravity from shooting Palestinians in illegally Israeli-occupied territories to kill or maim, to illegally seizing land. However, whenever the UN votes on any kind of enforcement or punitive measures against a guilty-as-sin Israel, the US immediately vetoes them. Yet China almost never joins the US in these unjust vetoes.
So someone needs to explain to me how a serial supporter and perpetrator of human rights abuses should be allowed to expel China or any other country for that matter, and why the US itself should not be expelled from the UNSC!
The following statement is the kind that most social media, including Quora, cannot tolerate, not because it is untrue but because any criticism of Israel today, no matter how justified, can be deleted as “anti-Semitic,” even though many open-minded Israelis, like Gideon Levy and Ilan Pappe, for instance, as well as US Jews, agree in essence with this viewpoint.
Much of the US support for Israel’s crimes comes from US Evangelicals who believe that God gave Israel the land but, for some reason, ignore the multiple key passages in the Old Testament showing that God banished Hebrews who disobey Him (see http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/news--analysis/march-15th-2020). A WIN/Gallup poll shows that 65% of Israelis polled have no religious beliefs whatsoever. Yet, the mainstay of “Christian” Zionism is Ezekiel 37, the prophetic dream about the dry bones representing a dormant Israel, which re-assemble themselves for the resurrection of Israel, and it so happens that verse 24 of that chapter prophesies that this resurrected Israel – which these Zionist cultists claim is modern Israel – would be “obedient to God’s decrees.” How can they be obedient to a God they don’t believe in? And how can their extreme human rights abuses of Palestinians be reconciled with the Old Testament decree that Jesus said was the greatest of all commandments (together with the commandment to love God), namely, love your neighbour as yourself. Jesus also told the parable of the good Samaritan, who, like today’s Palestinians, were hated by the Jews of His day because they held beliefs contrary to traditional Judaism (see http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/culture/the-parable-of-the-good-samaritan-the-part-they-didnt-teach-you-in-sunday-school). He was clearly advocating for universal love – a doctrine that today’s Evangelicals despise as they promote Israel’s human rights abuses against the Palestinians! Never has such a large and powerful group claiming to be “Christians” made such a mockery of Jesus’ key teachings as today’s Evangelicals!
Yet almost none of them stop and ask themselves whether God might just now be responding in His own way, through the current unprecedented economic and health crisis, to their heretical distortions of the scriptures, and their blasphemous assertion that the impenitently and arrogantly degenerate Donald Trump was “appointed by God” to save America.
And I am in no way implying that the Democrats will pull America out of a crisis that neither party is morally or mentally equipped to deal with. If you are a believer, then it must have occurred to you that the US is in the hands of an angry God.
English presentation starts minute 1:23. Obama introduced the policy of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, which destroyed Libya and continues to wreak havoc there. Remember that a group of Democrat senators called for sanctions on Russia for its involvement in supporting Haftar, who is anti-Muslim Brotherhood and hence anti-Serraj. https://www.quora.com/Do-you-support-Black-Lives-Matter-1/answer/Vince-Dhimos Will Biden continue this pro-terror policy?
Vince Dhimos answered a question at Quora.
Why do Syrians claim they are secularists even though they have apostasy law and ban homosexuals and Jews in their country?
There is no brief explanation of this that could explain it all in a few minutes or in a short post. But let me first say that Assad is indeed a secularist, one of the few in the Muslim world, that there is no law criminalizing apostasy in Syria and that Jews are not banned there. The truth is that hundreds of Jews were banished from Aleppo long before the Assad family rose to power and at the beginning of the civil war, ISIS (not Assad) was persecuting and killing them and they were rescued by an international organization. As for homosexuals, an old law from decades prior to the Assads, banning homosexual behaviour — similar to a law on the books in Texas until recently — has been de facto suspended under Assad (LGBT rights in Syria - Wikipedia). So where do these stories come from and why do they all make Assad appear to be the villain when in fact his government has been at the forefront of the fight for human rights in Syria?
Understanding the conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) requires long hours of hard study, which is why very very few Westerners have even the slightest clue as to what is going on and whom to believe. They complain that they can’t understand the Middle East but they won’t do any homework. This is also why few understand that both US political parties actually support the wars and the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East — even though some politicians claim they aim to end these wars. Yet, watch what they do, and ignore what they say. (Recently, prominent Democrat senators condemned Russia for fighting against the terror-supported GNA in Libya – which supports the Muslim Brotherhood – even though this illegitimate regime turns a blind eye to black slavery).
The US official narrative is that Muslims are simply untrustworthy and anti-Semitic so the wars are all their fault and Israel is their innocent victim – even though Jewish terrorist gangs like the Stern Gang and Irgun ethnically cleansed most of Palestine in 1948, displacing 700,000 of them, mostly into refugee camps. This oversimplified version of the current situation is generally accepted by Western news consumers and is precisely why these wars never seem to end — as they help the manipulators in Washington and European capitals perpetuate them without having the little people every suspect what they are up to. If the grassroots ever learn the truth, it will be all over for the warmongering elites. The trouble is, the warmongers in Washington control the media.
The negative allegations against Assad and Syria in the Western press are all the product of a campaign of long duration to eliminate Assad and to support terrorists and Islamic extremists, including the Muslim Brotherhood, which have been supported by the US and European countries for many years. There are a number of motives, some of which are exposed in the analysis presented below.
The most authoritative source on the Middle East conflicts is Thierry Meyssan, whose revelations and in-depth analyses are so contradictory to the allegations and reports we read in the West that they will sound like fiction to many, but they are in fact supported by detailed thorough research — in contradistinction to the simplified narrative fed to the gullible public.
It is important to understand how the West introduced Muslim terrorism into the Middle East in the first place. We reproduced a detailed report on the origin of Middle Eastern terrorist groups. Yes, nothing is free. Learning the truth will take a long time and will cost you a lot of midnight oil. It may even cost you friendships and tend to isolate you from your brainwashed peers. But if you’re game, the following is an analysis by the eminent scholar Thierry Meyssan that will help you understand where the many horrendous allegations against Assad come from, and will lead you to the conclusion that 99% of the stories you read or hear about Assad’s alleged abuse of his own people – and about non-US aligned states in general – are simply propaganda whose ultimate aim is full US control of the Middle East, even if this means flirting with nuclear holocaust. In fact, such flirtation is underway even as we write this. Fortunately, Russia is there as a spoiler.
My intra-textual notes are in [brackets].
I realize you may simply not have time to read the following in one sitting, but if not, please file it for reference.
Germany and the UNO against Syria, by Thierry Meyssan
Germany and the UNO against Syria
by Thierry Meyssan
The neo-conservatives and liberal hawks who have been preparing the war against Syria since 2001 have been relying on several states from the UNO and the Gulf Co-operation Council. While we know about the role played by General David Petraeus in launching and pursuing the war until today, two personalities - Jeffrey Feltman (number 2 at the UNO) and Volker Perthes (Director of the main German think tank) - have remained in the shadows. Together, with the support of Berlin, they have been using and are still manipulating the United Nations in order to destroy Syria. [Syria’s only salvation is in Russian intervention]
VOLTAIRE NETWORK | DAMASCUS (SYRIA) | 28 JANUARY 2016
عربي ČEŠTINA DEUTSCH ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΆ ESPAÑOL فارسى FRANÇAIS ITALIANO NEDERLANDS POLSKI PORTUGUÊS РУССКИЙ TÜRKÇE
The German academic Volker Perthes has been working with the CIA in the preparation of the war against Syria since 2005. He directs the most powerful European think tank, the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP).
In 2005, when Jeffrey Feltman – then the US ambassador in Beirut - supervised the assassination of Rafic Hariri, he relied on support from Germany, both for the assassination itself (Berlin supplied the weapon) , and for the UNO [UN] Commission charged with accusing [Lebanese] Presidents el-Assad and Lahoud [Lebanese presidens] (prosecutor Detlev Mehlis, police commissioner Gerhard Lehmann and their team). The international campaign against the two Presidents was notably led by the German political analyst Volker Perthes .
[Thierry Meyssan also researched the story of the UNSC’s deliberately shoddy investigation of the Rafic Hariri assassination in Lebanon: https://www.voltairenet.org/article167553.html, whose purpose was simply to indict Assad and get him out of the way. Eliminating Assad has always been the key to US involvement in Syria and Lebanon]
Volker Perthes studied in Damascus, Syria, in 1986 and 1987, funded by a German research grant. He then went on to pursue a career as professor of political science in Germany, with the exception of the period between 1991 and 1993, during which he taught at the American University of Beirut. Since 2005, he has been the Director of the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP), the main German public think tank, which employs more than 130 specialists, half of whom are university professors.
However, when Feltman organised the Israeli attack on Lebanon in 2006, he implicated only the United States, hoping that once Hezbollah was beaten, Syria would come to its rescue in Beirut, which would provide an excuse for US intervention. Finally, Berlin sent only its marines to participate in the United Nations Forces (Finul). [Clearly the Hariri assassination was aimed at stripping Lebanon of Syrian military assistance in preparation for the 2006 Israeli attack on Lebanon. Hezbollah saved Lebanon from destruction and led Israel to give up the war effort. This is why Lebanon will never bow to US pressure to stop supporting Hezbollah under the false pretext that it is a “terrorist organization”. Any organization that opposes Israel too strongly is automatically branded a terrorist organization by the Washington crime syndicate. We posted variously on the Hariri assassination and why the US and Israel organized and perpetrated it, including here]
During the annual meeting of the Bilderberg Group, between the 5th and the 8th June 2008 - five years before the war - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave a presentation which underlined the necessity of overthrowing the Syrian government. She was accompanied in this task by the Director of the Arab Reform Initiative , Bassma Kodmani (future founder of the Syrian National Council), and the Director of the SWP, Volker Perthes. The Bilderberg Group is a NATO initiative, and NATO directly handles security for these meetings .
According to a cable revealed by Wikileaks, Volker Perthes advised Ms. Rice concerning Iran. He believed that it would be dangerous to launch a military operation which could have unpredictable regional consequences - it was, however, more efficient to sabotage its economy. Volker Perthes’ advice was followed, in 2010, with the destruction of the software of Iranian nuclear plants by the Stuxnet virus .
In March 2011, Volker Perthes published an opinion column in the New York Times mocking President el-Assad’s speech to the People’s Chamber, during which the President had denounced a “conspiracy” against Syria . According to Perthes, the “revolution” was under way in Syria, and el-Assad had to go.
In the summer of 2011, the German government managed the breakthrough of the Muslim Brotherhood in Tunisia and Egypt. It noted that at the CIA’s demand, it hosted the international coordination of the Brotherhood in Aachen [Mistranslated as Aix-la-Chapelle in the linked-to text]. Berlin thus decided to support the Brotherhood everywhere they attained power, with the exception of Hamas in Palestine, in order to avoid annoying Israël. Under the influence of Volker Perthes, the German Minister for Foreign Affairs – at that time, Guido Westerwelle – persuaded himself that the Brotherhood was not “Islamist”, but “guided by Islam”. He created a discussion forum with the “moderate Islamist movements” (sic), and a Task Force for Syria. As for Perthes, he organised a reception at the Ministry in July for a delegation from the Syrian opposition, led by Brother Radwan Ziadeh.
Speech by Ahmet Davutoğlu [Turkish PM served 2014-2016] during the closed Tusiad-Stratfor conference, 6th October 2011.
On the 6th October 2011, on the proposition of the State Department, Volker Perthes took part in the closed conference organised by the Turkish Industry & Business Association (Tusiad) and the private US intelligence company Stratfor [CIA-linked, aka “Shadow CIA”] in order to study Turkey’s energy options, and also the possible responses of eight other countries, including Germany . Present at the meeting were the ten top Turkish fortunes and Taner Yıldız – the Minister for Energy – the man who was supposed to help the Erdoğan family organise the funding of the war with oil stolen by Daesh. [The illegitimate Libyan government GNA, recognized by the UN and US, among others, has a complicated relationship with the MB, but the latter opposes the legitimate Libyan National Army of Khalifa Haftar, thereby at least indirectly supporting the GNA. Obama supported the candidacy of MB-linked Egyptian presidential candidate Mursi, who was later overthrown by the current presidet Al-Sisi. Some US Democrats are warm toward the illegitimate Turkish-backed GNA]
In January 2012, Jeffrey Feltman – then State Department director for the Near East – asked Volker Perthes to direct the “The Day After” programme, which was tasked with putting together the next regime in Syria. These meetings were held over a six-month period and resulted specifically in a report which was made public after the Geneva Conference.
“The Day After” mobilised 45 members of the Syrian opposition, including Bassma Kodmani and the Muslim Brotherhood. It was financed by the US Institute of Peace, the equivalent of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), but is under the authority of the Department of Defence. Also solicited were Germany, France, Norway, Holland and Switzerland.
“The Day After” drew up the first draft of the plan for the total and unconditional capitulation of Syria, which became the obsession of the United Nations once Jeffrey Feltman was nominated Director of Political Affairs for the UN, in July 2012.
At his official swearing-in as the number 2 of UNO, the 2nd July 2012, Jeffrey D. Feltman takes the oath before General Secretary Ban Ki-moon. As of that date, the Organisation, which is supposed to promote peace, has been under the control of the “liberal hawks”.
Here are the principles of the Perthes-Feltman plan
the sovereignty of the Syrian People will be abolished; [This US-supported item shows why US “democracy” is a farce]
the Constitution will be repealed;
the President will be relieved of his functions (but a vice-President will remain in charge of formal functions);
the People’s Assembly will be dissolved;
at least 120 leaders will be considered guilty and banned from any political function, then judged and sentenced by an international Tribunal;
the Direction of Military Intelligence, the Direction of Political Security and the Direction of General Security will be dismantled and dissolved; “political” prisoners will be freed and anti-terrorist procedures will be repealed;
the Hezbollah and the Guardians of the Revolution will be made to withdraw; then, and only then, will the international community [read: US-controlled Western community] fight terrorism 
At the same time, Volker Perthes organised the “Working Group on Economic Recovery and Development” for the “Friends of Syria”. In June 2012, under the co-presidency of Germany and the United Arab Emirates, this group distributed to the member states of the “Friends of Syria” concessions for the exploitation of Syrian gas, which could be claimed in return for their support for the overthrow of Assad’s regime . [This is a very important reason the US is bogged down in Syria. It has promised to distribute these gas concessions – and probably oil concessions as well – to the corrupt states that tried to throw out Assad. It may explain why Trump was obliged to say “we’re going to keep the oil” in Syria]
Volker Perthes also organised the “Working Group on Transition Planning” for the Arab League.
Finally, he set up the “Syrian Transition Support Network” in Istanbul.
As from the Geneva Conference (30th June 2012) and the meeting of the “Friends of Syria” in Paris (6th July 2012), we can find no more public traces of Volker Perthes’ role, apart from his publications, which are aimed at maintaining Germany’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood. Germany is maintaining its policy, and after the abdication of the Emir of Qatar and the powerful rise of Saudi Arabia, nominated Boris Ruge - the director for Syria in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs - as its ambassador to Riyadh.
In January 2015, Chancellor Angela Merkel demonstrated for tolerance and against terrorism, arm in arm with Aiman Mazyek, the General Secretary of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany. In reality, he is one of the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood. [Incredibly, Merkel seems to have been permanently influenced by these anti-Assad people. She still talks as if Assad is the main problem in Syria, and not the terrorists.]
In the summer of 2015, during his visit to Damascus, the Syrian government asked Staffan De Mistura for an explanation concerning the Perthes-Feltman Plan, of which he had only just been made aware. Highly embarrassed, the special envoy of the General Secretary of the UNO confirmed that these documents did not engage him, and promised to take no notice of them. It seems that Moscow had threatened to make them public at the Security Council during the presence of the heads of state at the opening of the General Assembly in September 2015. However, the documents were not divulged – their revelation would have questioned the very existence of the United Nations Organisation. During the same period, Berlin once again made contact with Damascus, but the Syrians were unable to determine whether this secret initiative was a reflection of a new policy by Chancellor Merkel, or one more attempt at infiltration.
However, at the same time, Volker Perthes was nominated by Staffan De Mistura and his superior Jeffrey Feltman  as a « peace negotiator » (sic) for the next meeting in Geneva. He will be tasked with meeting alternatively with the delegation from the Syrian opposition and the delegation from the Syrian Arab Republic.
For the last three years, in violation of their own Charter, the United Nations, far from doing anything at all to help restore peace to Syria, and without presenting the slightest evidence, accuse the Syrian Arab Republic of having put down a revolution, of using chemical weapons against its own population, of the massive practice of torture, and of starving its people [How ironic! The US sanctions and ban on sale of Syrian oil are starving the Syrians, not Assad]. Above all, it is dragging its feet on any peace initiative, leaving time for NATO and the Gulf Co-operation Council to pilot the overthrow of the regime by foreign mercenaries, in this instance the terrorist organisations al-Qaeda and Daesh. [Further confirmation of what we posted here]
Keep in mind:
Since 2005, the group assigned to preparing the war in Syria is being piloted by the US diplomat Jeffrey Feltman, assisted by the German academic Volker Perthes.
In 2005, Feltman organised the assassination of Rafic Hariri (because the security of Lebanon was handled by Syria); in 2006, he organised Israel’s war against Lebanon (because Hezbollah was then armed by Syria); in 2011, he directed the 4th generation war from the State Department; since 2012, from the United Nations, for which he has become the number 2, he has been working to make the war last long enough for the jihadist groups to achieve victory.
Perthes associated himself with Feltman and the private group Stratfor [CIA-linked] in order to influence German policy in the Middle East. In 2008, he presented the project for regime change in Damascus to the Bilderberg Group. In 2011, he convinced Merkel’s government to support the Muslim Brotherhood during the “Arab Spring”. In 2012, he presided over a work group tasked with preparing the new regime, then drew up a plan for the total and unconditional capitulation of Syria. Today, he is the UNO director for the Geneva peace negotiations. [And all for naught because in 2015, Russia entered the war and took back from the terrorists land seized from Syria]
Vince Dhimos answered a question at Quora.
THE WUHAN INSTITUTE OF VIROLOGY IS SAID TO BE THE ONLY LABORATORY IN CHINA CAPABLE OF WORKING WITH DEADLY VIRUSES. iS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE CORONAVIRUS CONTAGION ORIGINATED FROM THERE? IF NOT, WHAT IS YOUR EXPLANATION?
Most scientists are refuting the notion that COVID-19 originated in a lab. However, despite what they say publicly, evidence suggests an artificial origin is a distinct possibility.
What is least suspected and never discussed in the msm is the fact that there has been extensive collaboration between the Wuhan lab and the US. This would have been due to the fact that Chinese mammals, notably bats, are known to be a natural source of various SARS viruses and virologists would naturally be interested in Chinese-US collaborative research.
It has been reported, but later refuted, that the NIH granted Wuhan Institute of Virology $3.7 million for research on coronaviruses. While this claim may be false, Shi Zhengli, a virologist who directs the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), has co-authored a paper, together with Dr. Ralph Baric, of the University of N. Carolina, a paper on a SARS-like virus.
THE FOLLOWING CLAIM HAS SINCE BEEN REFUTED:
It was recently reported that the Wuhan Institute of Virology received a $3.7 million grant from the US National Institutes of Health to study coronaviruses.) [However, this claim has since been refuted]
The following source shows collaboration between Shi Zhengli, a top researcher at the Wuhan lab, and Dr. Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina.
“A 2015 paper in Nature Medicine co-authored by Shi [Shi Zhengli, also known as Bat Woman for her studies on bats] and Ralph Baric, a leading expert on coronaviruses at the University of North Carolina in the U.S., foreshadowed the COVID-19 pandemic. It described a SARS-like virus in bats that had the potential to jump directly to humans and resisted treatments used against SARS-like virus in bats that can jump from animal to human.”
The following source indicates that Shi and Baric collaborated on gain-of-function experiments on viruses. A gain-of-function study involves the actual creation of a new, potentially more dangerous species than any found in nature. Such studies have been banned by a moratorium imposed by the US NIH but, as we see below, this moratorium was lifted in 2017. Such a gain-of-function study could be the origin of a novel virus such as COVID-19, which, theoretically, could have been accidentally leaked outside the lab. Experts familiar with the Wuhan lab have affirmed that such a leak would have been unlikely due to the extreme restrictions imposed on a level 4 lab. However, we need to remember that, given the international collaboration described here, scientists in both countries would be loath to admit to the actual creation of a virus that has wrought havoc on the world’s economy and killed a significant number of people. Therefore the reader is at liberty to harbour whatever suspicions may occur to him on examining this evidence, regardless of the foregone conclusions promulgated in the press, which, unfortunately, is subject to political pressures in both the US and China.
In 2014, Shi Zhengli collaborated on additional gain-of-function experiments led by Ralph S. Baric of the University of North Carolina, which showed that two critical mutations that the MERS coronavirus possesses allow it to bind to the human ACE2 receptor, and that SARS had the potential to re-emerge from coronaviruses circulating in bat populations in the wild. In 2014, the US National Institutes of Health placed a moratorium on SARS, MERS, and influenza gain-of-function studies, due to concerns about the risks vs. benefits of such research, lifting this moratorium in 2017 after the creation of a new regulatory framework.