"I'm
taking my ball and going home!"
|
For some reason, Sugar the Conspiracy Cat and your humble
reporter here have still not been able to convince a few of our readers of the reality of a dozen or so high
profile victimless false flags using
crisis actors, fake crying, fake blood, drills gone live, mannequins,
photoshop,
bullet hole stickers along with CIA news media and
well-connected Mayors & Police Chiefs who are all "in on
it." Well, it is a lot to swallow, even for
seasoned "conspiracy theorists", so we fully understand the emotional
blocks behind the skepticism of a few holdouts.
But
we did not expect to actually lose a handful of much-needed monthly donors over our position! The
Nice "attack"
was the final straw for them. Even after all we
have done to bring such great educational content to our readers, a few
long-time
donors who evidently believe that their support can
dictate/censor our content, "took their ball and went home"
-- crying all the way. "You are going to lose credibility!" or "You have no respect for the victims'
families!"
Well,
how can we "respect"
the families of the "victims" if we don't believe
that there even were any "victims" at the non-shootings
of Aurora, Sandy Hook, Charleston, San Bernadino,
Orlando and Dallas; or the non-bombing at the Boston Marathon; or the
non-massacres
in Paris and Brussels; or the non-truck attack in
Nice --- just to name a few.
We are hoping that some
of you will pick up the slack by becoming either a monthly auto-donor,
or hitting us up for a single donation at this
time. Just follow the link below so that we can continue producing
truthful
historical research and enlightening day-to-day
reporting that will yield to no advertiser or fair weather donor.
Mike & Sugar
!
By the way, did you know that Nice, France is blanket-covered by video surveillance?
Nice actually has the most CCTV cameras per block in all of France -- 915
public surveillance cameras. (here)
Why are there no city surveillance
videos of the "mile long" truck rampage through the world famous promenade,
eh Monsieur l'Inspecteur?
******************************
"History
is indeed little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes
of mankind."
Edward Gibbon, English historian
(1737-1794), From: "The Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire"
******************************
To make a donation, and receive full access to
pay-to-view pdf's, please visit the DONATION PAGE.
DEAR MIKE AND DEAR SUGAR
There has been some legendary characters like Jesus Christ
who was said to have addressed certain issues for the benefit of humans. When it was said that he was captured, beaten
up, tortured and crucified, it was again said that NOBODY lifted a single
finger to come to his help.
I am 70 years old and I wasted my entire life and resources in
the defense of freedom, truth, justice and a moral way of life, but failed
miserably, not being able to help even myself as Satan proved more powerful and
more competent than God to deal with those two legged evolved-apes, hypocrites
and cowards calling themselves humans.
I have been impressed by your knowledge and understanding of
world matters and also by your courage to say so publicly and persevere no
matter what. Materially I lost almost
everything and what is left is only part of my research and some souvenirs of
my shattered family.
Please, do not rely on people to be as dedicated as you
because at the slightest obstacle most would stand for their own personal
interest. Even when you belong to a
dedicated group the powers we gave our respective governments are such that
they have become literal dictators and harm us at will and infiltrate all our
groups however small.
I wish you could spend more time with your loved ones
because even when some listen they fo not do much about it in the right
direction. I wish I could help.
With Christic love
Basheer
P.S. Monsieur l’Inspecteur knows that all is fake, but, for
multiple reasons, it is not in the
interest of most of us to accept this truth!
Ole Dammegard: Yet ANOTHER French false flag in Nice
Published on 20 Jul 2016
Ole
Dammegard has discovered several strong indications that the Nice truck
attack was yet another false flag. As I pointed out just a few hours
after the attack was reported, the date and number of victims sent the
usual “illuminati” signals. Listen to the full radio interview here: http://noliesradio.org/archives/117439
Comments
Muhammad Ali Ben Marcus He can't! They were all appointed by AIPAC and the ADL of B'nai B'rith!
Vickie Jacobs True.
Muhammad Ali Ben Marcus You
know, Vickie, I need to explain myself. It looks like I am impulsive
sometimes (or all the time) in my responses, but this is not so as I
base all my responses on conclusions of very careful research that spans
a lifetime. Of course, I may be mistaken at times as I rely on my
fallible memory most of the time, but there are certain issues that do
not need any debate anymore. In old days we use to blame women for the
art of GOSSIPING as a female exclusivity; today men has far excelled
women in this practice especially in the political domain. Everything
is about MONEY and as long as those who print our money out of thin air
no matter what we say we will change nothing. The masses are not
conscious that with THAT money, the usurers have bought us and the
entire Earth where they have a controlling power. All the wars are about
that control. If Rothschilds do not control your money, the USA and
its Allies will rush to bomb you to the Stone Age. Obama appointees do
not run the show. One day I saw a picture of Obama and Hillary together
during the campaign where they were meant to be arch enemies. WHAT I
SAW, was that they must just have come out of the same bed after a
sexual encounter! This picture never left me to this day and when I saw
Bill by Obama's sides, this strengthened my belief that both Hillary
and Obama were literally in bed together! Doing what that's another
question? I applied the litmus test to TRUMP and the result was AIPAC
positive just like Obama and the others. US Americans tend to forget
that most of their Presidents were of the same British bloodline and
Freemasonic! When Bush met Elisabeth II he said that it was as if he
were coming to HIS MOTHER???
Have a good day!
Basheer
Four Million Muslims Killed in US-NATO Wars: Should We Call It Genocide?
Hearkening back to the Japanese interment camps of WWII, some Americans are now calling for Muslims to be placed in camps or even openly calling for genocide against the 1.6 billion practitioners of the faith.
Note: Following the recent US House of Representatives vote to declare that ISIS is committing genocide in Iraq and Syria, we bring to the attention of our readers this article originally published in August 2015.
It may never be possible to know the true death toll of the modern Western wars on the Middle East, but that figure could be 4 million or higher. Since the vast majority of those killed were of Arab descent, and mostly Muslim, when would it be fair to accuse the United States and its allies of genocide?
A March report by Physicians for Social Responsibility calculates the body count of the Iraq War at around 1.3 million, and possibly as many as 2 million. However, the numbers of those killed in Middle Eastern wars could be much higher. The actual death toll could reach as high as 4 million if one includes not just those killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also the victims of the sanctions against Iraq, which left about 1.7 million more dead, half of them children, according to figures from the United Nations.
Raphael Lemkin and the definition of genocide
The term “genocide” did not exist prior to 1943, when it was coined by a Polish-Jewish lawyer named Raphael Lemkin. Lemkin created the word by combining the Greek root “geno,” which means people or tribe, with “-cide,” derived from the Latin word for killing.
The Nuremberg trials, in which top Nazi officials were prosecuted for crimes against humanity, began in 1945 and were based around Lemkin’s idea of genocide. By the following year, it was becoming international law, according to United to End Genocide:
“In 1946, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution that ‘affirmed’ that genocide was a crime under international law, but did not provide a legal definition of the crime.”With support from representatives of the U.S., Lemkin presented the first draft of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide to the United Nations. The General Assembly adopted the convention in 1948, although it would take three more years for enough countries to sign the convention, allowing it to be ratified.
According to this convention, genocide is defined as:
“…any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, such as:Under the convention, genocide is not merely defined as a deliberate act of killing, but can include a broad range of other harmful activities:
- (a) Killing members of the group;
- (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
- (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
- (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
“Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy a group includes the deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group’s physical survival, such as clean water, food, clothing, shelter or medical services. Deprivation of the means to sustain life can be imposed through confiscation of harvests, blockade of foodstuffs, detention in camps, forcible relocation or expulsion into deserts.”It can also include forced sterilization, forced abortion, prevention of marriage or the transfer of children out of their families. In 2008, the U.N. expanded the definition to acknowledge that “rape and other forms of sexual violence can constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity or a constitutive act with respect to genocide.”
A Middle Eastern genocide
A key phrase in the convention on genocide is “acts committed with intent to destroy.” While the facts back up a massive death toll in Arab and Muslim lives, it might be more difficult to argue that the actions were carried out with the deliberate intent to destroy “a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.”
The authors of the convention were aware, however, that few of those who commit genocide are so bold as to put their policies in writing as brazenly as the Nazis did. Yet, as Genocide Watch noted in 2002: “Intent can be proven directly from statements or orders. But more often, it must be inferred from a systematic pattern of coordinated acts.”
In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush employed a curious and controversial choice of words in one of his first speeches. He alarmed some by referencing historic, religious conflicts, as The Wall Street Journal staff writers Peter Waldman and Hugh Pope noted:
“President Bush vowed … to ‘rid the world of evil-doers,’ then cautioned: ‘This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while.’In the wars that followed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. not only killed millions, but systematically destroyed the infrastructure necessary for healthy, prosperous life in those countries, then used rebuilding efforts as opportunities for profit, rather than to benefit the occupied populations. To further add to the genocidal pattern of behavior, there is ample evidence of torture and persistent rumors of sexual assault from the aftermath of Iraq’s fall. It appears likely the U.S. has contributed to further destabilization and death in the region by supporting the rise of the self-declared Islamic State of Iraq and Syria by arming rebel groups on all sides of the conflict.
Crusade? In strict usage, the word describes the Christian military expeditions a millennium ago to capture the Holy Land from Muslims. But in much of the Islamic world, where history and religion suffuse daily life in ways unfathomable to most Americans, it is shorthand for something else: a cultural and economic Western invasion that, Muslims fear, could subjugate them and desecrate Islam.”
After 9/11, the U.S. declared a global “War on Terror,” ensuring an endless cycle of destabilization and wars in the Middle East in the process. The vast majority of the victims of these wars, and of ISIS, are Muslims. In this context, many Americans are embracing Bush’s controversial language of religious warfare, calling for Muslims to be placed in camps or even openly calling for genocide.
The original source of this article is Mint Press News
Copyright © Kit O'Connell, Mint Press News, 2016
Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page
Become a Member of Global Research
Comments
18 July 2016 - www.slobodan-milosevic.org
Muhammad Ali Ben Marcus No, if they are not Christian Armenians or Jewish whatever!
Muhammad Ali Ben Marcus This
question is, of course, very stupid! Do we need the UN to tell us when
a crime is a crime? The "Children of Israel" (I do not know what this
really means!) came up with the wisdom that if you kill one human being
it is as if you killed the entire of humankind and if you save one human
being it is as if you saved the entire of humankind. Muslims have the
same wisdom. So, to hell with the UN and its conventions! CRIME IS
CRIME! and Might is Right because those criminals will never be
punished as this world is literally ruled by SATAN and its names are the
USA, Israel, the UK, the EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and client
members like Japan, India, Pakistan, Saudia, Qatar, the Maghreb, Turkey,
THE VATICAN, and so on! BAFS
Hague Tribunal Exonerates Slobodan Milosevic for Bosnia "War Crimes" Ten Years Too Late
The UN war crimes tribunal has determined that the late Serbian
president was not responsible for war crimes committed in Bosnia during
the 1992-95 war. The judges determined that Slobodan Milosevic was not
part of a "joint criminal enterprise" to victimize Bosnian Muslims and
Croats.
Written By: Andy Wilcoxson18 July 2016 - www.slobodan-milosevic.org
The
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague
has determined that the late Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic was not
responsible for war crimes committed during the 1992-95 Bosnian war.
In a stunning ruling, the trial chamber that convicted former Bosnian-Serb president Radovan Karadzic of war crimes and sentenced him to 40 years in prison, unanimously concluded that Slobodan Milosevic was not part of a “joint criminal enterprise” to victimize Muslims and Croats during the Bosnian war.
In a stunning ruling, the trial chamber that convicted former Bosnian-Serb president Radovan Karadzic of war crimes and sentenced him to 40 years in prison, unanimously concluded that Slobodan Milosevic was not part of a “joint criminal enterprise” to victimize Muslims and Croats during the Bosnian war.
The
March 24th Karadzic judgment states that “the Chamber is not
satisfied that there was sufficient evidence presented in this case to find
that Slobodan Milosevic agreed with the common plan” to permanently remove
Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from Bosnian Serb claimed territory.[1]
The
Karadzic trial chamber found that “the relationship between Milosevic and the
Accused had deteriorated beginning in 1992; by 1994, they no longer agreed on a
course of action to be taken. Furthermore, beginning as early as March 1992,
there was apparent discord between the Accused and Milosevic in meetings with
international representatives, during which Milosevic and other Serbian leaders
openly criticised Bosnian Serb leaders of committing ‘crimes against humanity’
and ‘ethnic cleansing’ and the war for their own purposes.”[2]
The
judges noted that Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic both favored the
preservation of Yugoslavia and that Milosevic was initially supportive, but
that their views diverged over time. The judgment states that “from 1990 and
into mid-1991, the political objective of the Accused and the Bosnian Serb
leadership was to preserve Yugoslavia and to prevent the separation or
independence of BiH, which would result in a separation of Bosnian Serbs from
Serbia; the Chamber notes that Slobodan Milosevic endorsed this objective and
spoke against the independence of BiH.”[3]
The Chamber found that “the declaration of sovereignty by the SRBiH Assembly in the absence of the Bosnian Serb delegates on 15 October 1991, escalated the situation,”[4] but that Milosevic was not on board with the establishment of Republika Srpska in response. The judgment says that “Slobodan Milosevic was attempting to take a more cautious approach”[5]
The judgment states that in intercepted communications with Radovan Karadzic, “Milosevic questioned whether it was wise to use ‘an illegitimate act in response to another illegitimate act’ and questioned the legality of forming a Bosnian Serb Assembly.”[6] The judges also found that “Slobodan Milosevic expressed his reservations about how a Bosnian Serb Assembly could exclude the Muslims who were ‘for Yugoslavia’.”[7]
The Chamber found that “the declaration of sovereignty by the SRBiH Assembly in the absence of the Bosnian Serb delegates on 15 October 1991, escalated the situation,”[4] but that Milosevic was not on board with the establishment of Republika Srpska in response. The judgment says that “Slobodan Milosevic was attempting to take a more cautious approach”[5]
The judgment states that in intercepted communications with Radovan Karadzic, “Milosevic questioned whether it was wise to use ‘an illegitimate act in response to another illegitimate act’ and questioned the legality of forming a Bosnian Serb Assembly.”[6] The judges also found that “Slobodan Milosevic expressed his reservations about how a Bosnian Serb Assembly could exclude the Muslims who were ‘for Yugoslavia’.”[7]
The
judgment notes that in meetings with Serb and Bosnian Serb officials “Slobodan Milosevic
stated that ‘[a]ll members of other nations and ethnicities must be protected’
and that ‘[t]he national interest of the Serbs is not discrimination’.”[8] Also that “Milosevic
further declared that crime needed to be fought decisively.”[9]
The
trial chamber notes that “In private meetings, Milosevic was extremely angry at
the Bosnian Serb leadership for rejecting the Vance-Owen Plan and he cursed the
Accused.”[10] They also found that “Milosevic tried to reason with the Bosnian Serbs saying
that he understood their concerns, but that it was most important to end the
war.”[11]
The
judgment states that “Milosevic also questioned whether the world would accept
that the Bosnian Serbs who represented only one third of the population of BiH
would get more than 50% of the territory and he encouraged a political
agreement.”[12]
At a meeting of the Supreme Defense Council the judgment
says that “Milosevic told the Bosnian Serb leadership that they were not
entitled to have more than half the territory in BiH, stating that: ‘there is
no way that more than that could belong to us! Because, we represent one third
of the population. […] We are not entitled to in excess of half of the
territory – you must not snatch away something that belongs to someone else!
[…] How can you imagine two thirds of the population being crammed into 30% of
the territory, while 50% is too little for you?! Is it humane, is it fair?!’”[13]
In
other meetings with Serb and Bosnian Serb officials, the judgment notes that
Milosevic “declared that the war must end and that the Bosnian Serbs’ biggest
mistake was to want a complete defeat of the Bosnian Muslims.”[14] Because of the
rift between Milosevic and the Bosnian-Serbs, the judges note that “the FRY
reduced its support for the RS and encouraged the Bosnian Serbs to accept peace
proposals.”[15]
The
Tribunal’s determination that Slobodan Milosevic was not part of a joint
criminal enterprise, and that on the contrary he “condemned ethnic cleansing”[16] is of tremendous significance
because he got blamed for all of the bloodshed in Bosnia, and harsh economic
sanctions were imposed on Serbia as a result. Wrongfully accusing Milosevic
ranks right up there with invading Iraq only to find that there weren’t any
weapons of mass destruction after all.
Slobodan Milosevic was vilified by the entire western press corps and virtually every politician in every NATO country. They called him “the Butcher of the Balkans.” They compared him to Hitler and accused him of genocide. They demonized him and made him out to be a bloodthirsty monster, and they used that false image to justify not only economic sanctions against Serbia, but also the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia and the Kosovo war.
Slobodan Milosevic had to spend the last five years of his life in prison defending himself and Serbia from bogus war crimes allegations over a war that they now admit he was trying to stop. The most serious charges that Milosevic faced, including the charge of genocide, were all in relation to Bosnia. Now, ten years after his death, they admit that he wasn’t guilty after all – oops.
Slobodan Milosevic was vilified by the entire western press corps and virtually every politician in every NATO country. They called him “the Butcher of the Balkans.” They compared him to Hitler and accused him of genocide. They demonized him and made him out to be a bloodthirsty monster, and they used that false image to justify not only economic sanctions against Serbia, but also the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia and the Kosovo war.
Slobodan Milosevic had to spend the last five years of his life in prison defending himself and Serbia from bogus war crimes allegations over a war that they now admit he was trying to stop. The most serious charges that Milosevic faced, including the charge of genocide, were all in relation to Bosnia. Now, ten years after his death, they admit that he wasn’t guilty after all – oops.
The
ICTY did nothing to publicize the fact that they had cleared Milosevic of involvement
in the joint criminal enterprise. They quietly buried that finding 1,303 pages
into the 2,590 page Karadzic verdict knowing full well that most people would probably never bother to
read it.
The
presiding judge in the Radovan Karadzic trial, O-Gon Kwon of South Korea, was
also one of the judges in the Slobodan Milosevic trial. Milosevic’s exoneration
by the Karadzic trial chamber may be an indication of how the Milosevic chamber
would have eventually ruled, at least on the Bosnia charges, if Milosevic had lived
to see the conclusion of his own trial.
It’s worth recalling that Slobodan Milosevic died under a very suspicious set of circumstances. He died of a heart attack just two weeks after the Tribunal denied his request to undergo heart surgery in Russia.[17] He was found dead in his cell less than 72 hours after his attorney delivered a letter to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in which he said that he feared he was being poisoned.[18]
The Tribunal’s official report on the inquiry into his death confirmed that, “Rifampicin had been found in a blood sample taken from Mr. Milosevic on 12 January 2006.” And that “Mr. Milosevic was not told of the results until 3 March 2006 because of the difficult legal position in which Dr. Falke (the Tribunal’s chief medical officer) found himself by virtue of the Dutch legal provisions concerning medical confidentiality.”[19]
It’s worth recalling that Slobodan Milosevic died under a very suspicious set of circumstances. He died of a heart attack just two weeks after the Tribunal denied his request to undergo heart surgery in Russia.[17] He was found dead in his cell less than 72 hours after his attorney delivered a letter to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in which he said that he feared he was being poisoned.[18]
The Tribunal’s official report on the inquiry into his death confirmed that, “Rifampicin had been found in a blood sample taken from Mr. Milosevic on 12 January 2006.” And that “Mr. Milosevic was not told of the results until 3 March 2006 because of the difficult legal position in which Dr. Falke (the Tribunal’s chief medical officer) found himself by virtue of the Dutch legal provisions concerning medical confidentiality.”[19]
The presence of Rifamicin (a non-prescribed drug) in Milosevic’s blood would
have counteracted the high blood pressure medication he was taking and
increased his risk of the heart attack that ultimately did kill him. The
Tribunal’s admission that they knew about the Rifampicin for months, but didn’t
tell Milosevic the results of his own blood test until just days before his
death because of “Dutch legal provisions concerning medical confidentiality” is
an incredibly lame and disingenuous excuse. There is no provision of Dutch law
that prohibits a doctor from telling the patient the results of his own blood test
-- that would be idiotic. On the contrary, concealing such information from the
patient could be seen as malpractice.
This all gives rise to well-founded suspicion that powerful geopolitical interests would rather Milosevic die before the end of his trial than see him acquitted and have their vicious lies exposed. U.S. State Department cables leaked to Wikileaks confirm that The Tribunal did discuss Milosevic’s medical condition and his medical records with U.S. Embassy personnel in The Hague without his consent.[20] They clearly didn’t care about medical confidentiality laws when they were blabbing about his medical records to the American embassy.
It’s an unsatisfying outcome that Milosevic has been quietly vindicated for the most serious crimes that he was accused of some ten years after his death. At a minimum financial compensation should now be paid to his widow and his children, and reparations should be paid to Serbia by the western governments who sought to punish Serbia in order to hold Milosevic “accountable” for crimes that their own Tribunal now admits he wasn’t responsible for, and was in fact trying to stop.
This all gives rise to well-founded suspicion that powerful geopolitical interests would rather Milosevic die before the end of his trial than see him acquitted and have their vicious lies exposed. U.S. State Department cables leaked to Wikileaks confirm that The Tribunal did discuss Milosevic’s medical condition and his medical records with U.S. Embassy personnel in The Hague without his consent.[20] They clearly didn’t care about medical confidentiality laws when they were blabbing about his medical records to the American embassy.
It’s an unsatisfying outcome that Milosevic has been quietly vindicated for the most serious crimes that he was accused of some ten years after his death. At a minimum financial compensation should now be paid to his widow and his children, and reparations should be paid to Serbia by the western governments who sought to punish Serbia in order to hold Milosevic “accountable” for crimes that their own Tribunal now admits he wasn’t responsible for, and was in fact trying to stop.
[1] ICTY, Karadzic Judgment,
24 March 2016, Para. 3460
[2] Ibid., Footnote 11027
[3] Ibid., Para. 3276
[4] Ibid., Para. 2709
[5] Ibid., Para. 2710
[6] Ibid., Para. 2685
[7] Ibid., Para. 2687
[8] Ibid., Para. 3288
[9] Ibid., Para. 3284
[10] Ibid., Para. 3289
[11] Ibid., Para. 3295
[12] Ibid., Para. 3290
[13] Ibid., Para. 3297
[14] Ibid., Para. 3293
[15] Ibid., Para. 3292
[16] Ibid., Para. 3280
[17] ICTY Case No. IT-02-54
Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic, Decision on Assigned Counsel Request for
Provisional Release, February 23, 2006
[18] Text of Slobodan
Milosevic’s Letter to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
< http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/sm030806.htm >
< http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/sm030806.htm >
[19] Judge Kevin Parker
(Vice-President of the ICTY), Report to the President of the ICTY: Death of
Slobodan Milosevic, May 2006; ¶ 31, 76
[20] U.S. State Dept. Cable
#03THEHAGUE2835_a, “ICTY: An Inside Look Into Milosevic’s Health and Support
Network”
< https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/03THEHAGUE2835_a.html >
< https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/03THEHAGUE2835_a.html >
No comments:
Post a Comment