Rumors Of War

Every single day:

The Movement Toward Nuclear War (I)

The US government is now feeding the fear that the publics in all of the former Soviet and Soviet-allied subjugated states very naturally but also entirely unjustifiably feel against the successor Russian state; and this understandable residual fear, in turn, is being responded to by Russia, by means of its pouring tens of thousands of troops and associated armaments toward their borders in order to protect against a potential US invasion from US-allied soil.

This mutual buildup along Russia’s European borders can easily get out of control, and so Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has many times quietly urged Washington for there to be private communications between himself and US President Barack Obama to reach a peaceable conclusion to this escalation, but Obama repeatedly refuses.

The real function of Western propaganda in Western Europe, such as Rupert Murdoch’s recent propaganda using Mikhail Gorbachev in this way, is not so much in order to stir his countrymen’s fears of an invasion against their country by Russia, but is instead to stir sufficient support by Brits for UK to join with the US invasion of Russia that increasingly likely will be precipitated under the Article V provision of the NATO Treaty as a ‘justification’ to escalate to all-out war if and when Russia provides a ‘provocation’. 

That may not happen this year (and the US military sends signals that they won’t be prepared for that until 2017), but the buildup is happening right now.

NATO Says It Might Now Have Grounds to Attack Russia

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at The Saker

On Tuesday, June 14th, NATO announced that if a NATO member country becomes the victim of a cyber attack by persons in a non-NATO country such as Russia or China, then NATO’s Article V “collective defense” provision requires each NATO member country to join that NATO member country if it decides to strike back against the attacking country. 

The preliminary decision for this was made two years ago after Crimea abandoned Ukraine and rejoined Russia, of which it had been a part until involuntarily transferred to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev in 1954. That NATO decision was made in anticipation of Ukraine’s ultimately becoming a NATO member country, which still hasn’t happened. 

However, only now is NATO declaring cyber war itself to be included as real “war” under the NATO Treaty’s “collective defense” provision.

NATO is now alleging that because Russian hackers had copied the emails on Hillary Clinton’s home computer, this action of someone in Russia taking advantage of her having privatized her U.S. State Department communications to her unsecured home computer and of such a Russian’s then snooping into the U.S. State Department business that was stored on it, might constitute a Russian attack against the United States of America, and would, if the U.S. President declares it to be a Russian invasion of the U.S., trigger NATO’s mutual-defense clause and so require all NATO nations to join with the U.S. government in going to war against Russia, if the U.S. government so decides.  

NATO had produced in 2013 (prior to the take-over of Ukraine) an informational propaganda video alleging that “cyberattacks” by people in Russia or in China that can compromise U.S. national security, could spark an invasion by NATO, if the U.S. President decides that the cyberattack was a hostile act by the Russian or Chinese government. 

In the video, a British national-security expert notes that this would be an “eminently political decison” for the U.S. President to make, which can be made only by the U.S. President, and which only that person possesses the legal authority to make. NATO, by producing this video, made clear that any NATO-member nation’s leader who can claim that his or her nation has been ‘attacked’ by Russia, possesses the power to initiate a NATO war against Russia. 

In the current instance, it would be U.S. President Barack Obama. However, this video also said that NATO could not automatically accept such a head-of-state’s allegation calling the cyber-attack an invasion, but instead the country that’s being alleged to have perpetrated the attack would have to have claimed, or else been proven, to have carried it out. 

With the new NATO policy, which was announced on June 14th, in which a cyber-attack qualifies automatically as constituting “war” just like any traditional attack, such a claim or proof of the target-nation’s guilt might no longer be necessary. But this has been left vague in the published news reports about it.

In previous times, espionage was treated as being part of warfare, and, after revelations became public that the U.S. was listening in on the phone conversations of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, espionage has become recognized as being simply a part of routine diplomacy (at least for the United States); but, now, under the new NATO policy, it might be treated as being equivalent to a physical invasion by an enemy nation.

At the upcoming July 8th-9th NATO Summit meeting, which will be happening in the context of NATO’s biggest-ever military exercises on and near the borders of Russia, called “Atlantic Resolve”, prospective NATO plans to invade Russia might be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus plan for the entire alliance. However, even if that happens, it wouldn’t be made public, because war-plans never are.

Next war with Hamas 'inevitable,' must be Israel's last, top defense official says

A senior Defense Ministry official said Wednesday that the next round of fighting in the Gaza Strip against the Hamas terror group was inevitable, because Hamas is gearing up for it, and that it must be the last.

“A war of attrition is not an option. The next confrontation must be the last in terms of Hamas’s regime,” the senior official, who insisted on anonymity, told Israeli reporters at a briefing.

Israel has arguably been involved in a war of attrition against Hamas for years, with each side slowly grinding away at the other.

New Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman has frequently criticized the government in recent years for failing to smash Hamas, and repeatedly called for more to be used in the course of the 2014 war, during which he was himself a member of the key security cabinet that oversaw the conflict.

With strict border control and occasional large-scale operations, Israel works to deplete Hamas’s supply of weapons and fighters. Meanwhile Hamas, with rockets and “terror tunnels,” hopes to diminish Israeli resolve.

In the IDF’s last foray into the Gaza Strip, in a 50-day 2014 conflict known in Israel as Operation Protective Edge, the goal was not to destroy Hamas but to deliver a “meaningful blow” to the terror organization and its tunnel network, according to the army’s own account.

Israel previously launched operations in Gaza in December 2008 and November 2012.

The official stressed that Israel does not seek another war, but says “Hamas is a growing threat.”

“Their goal is destroying the State of Israel,” he added.

In his first meeting with senior generals after appointed as defense minister last month, Liberman hinted at a new strategy to deal with Hamas, suggesting he would not allow continued military conflicts in Gaza.

“We don’t have the luxury of conducting drawn-out wars of attrition,” Liberman told the Israel Defense Forces’ General Staff on his first day of the job.

The defense official also lashed out at Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, describing him as “the number one problem for Israel,” and saying he was not interested in bringing abut a peace agreement.

DHS: Right-Wingers Same Threat As Islamic Extremists

One month after the San Bernardino terrorist attack that left 14 innocent people dead, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson told advisors that right wing extremists pose just as much of a threat to the country as Islamic extremists.

Johnson made the comments during the Homeland Security Advisory Council’s (HSAC) January meeting. City of Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo, whom Johnson appointed to HSAC, shifted the discussion to the threat of right-wing extremists, according to the official meeting minutes.

“Member Acevedo reminded the Council that the threat from right-wing extremists domestically is just as real as the threat from Islamic extremism,” the minutes state.

Johnson echoed the sentiment. “Secretary Johnson agreed and noted that CVE [Subcommittee on Combating Violent Extremism], by definition, is not solely focused on one religion,” the minutes state.

Another council member, Cardinal Point Strategies CEO Paul Goldenberg, joined the chorus.

“Member Goldenberg seconded Member Acevedo’s remarks and noted the importance of online sites in right wing extremist communities, not only in America but worldwide,” the minutes state.

ISIS Praises Mateen as 'Lion of Caliphate,' Urges Attacks at Theaters, Hospitals, Amusement Parks

An ISIS-affiliated media group issued new statements today praising Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen as a "lion of the caliphate" and a "hero" for slaughtering 49 "infidels" -- and calling on other lone jihadis to follow his example.

The Obama administration has confirmed that Mateen was consuming ISIS propaganda online before he opened fire at the Pulse nightclub early Sunday morning and called 911 to swear fidelity to ISIS.

"As we know all too well, terrorist groups like ISIL have called on people around the world and here in the United States to attack innocent civilians. Their propaganda, their videos, their postings are pervasive and more easily accessible than we want," President Obama said after a National Security Council meeting in Washington this morning. "This individual appears to have absorbed some of that and during his killing spree, the shooter in Orlando pledged allegiance to ISIL."

"An attacker, as we saw in Orlando, only has to succeed once," the president added.

New Orlando Shooter Eyewitness Emerges: Testifies That 5 People Were Involved In Pulse Attack

A victim of Sunday’s early morning terror attack at the Pulse nightclub gave a bombshell interview to an ABC reporter after being released from a local hospital.

During the interview the eyewitness, who played dead for several hours during the attack as a strategy to stay alive, said that he had overheard a phone conversation that the shooter was engaged in.

The eyewitness said that the shooter made mention that he was the “fourth shooter” and that there were “three others,” “snipers,” along with a ‘female suicide bomber’ that was playing dead.

ISIS and U.S. Weaponry: At Home and Abroad

The same politicians who claim they’d like to restrict U.S. gun sales have flooded the world markets with the weaponry of mass slaughter. President Obama’s administration has approved more weapons sales abroad than any other administration since World War II. Over 60 percent of those weapons have been sold to the Middle East. Add to that total huge quantities of U.S. weapons in the hands of the United States or its proxies in the Middle East — or formerly in their hands but seized by ISIS.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton waived restrictions at the State Department on selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Qatar, all states that had donated to the Clinton Foundation. Saudi Arabia had chipped in at least $10 million, and Boeing added another $900,000 as Secretary Clinton made it her mission to get Saudi Arabia the planes with which it would attack Yemen.

In the past five years, the United States has sold weapons to at least 96 countries. As of 2011 the United States accounted for 79% of the value of transfer agreements to ship weapons to governments in the Middle East, 79% also to poor nations around the world, and 77% of the value of total agreements to ship weapons to other countries, according to the Congressional Research Service. By 2014, those percentages had dropped a bit but remained over 50%.