Afghanistan, Friday. Around a hundred civilians, many of them women and children, have been slaughtered in another NATO terrorist attack, at first denied and now admitted by the US Armed Forces after a callous attempt to downplay the tremendous carnage caused by another bombardment which went tragically wrong.
The North Atlantic Terrorist Organization has committed yet another spectacular massacre in Afghanistan. Bullseye! A direct hit on a number of civilian houses in the village of Azizabad, Herat Province in Western Afghanistan on Friday. Eye witnesses report that the damage is massive and the victims were gathered together in a funeral wake.
The US Armed Forces initially denied responsibility for this blatant act of terrorism, then started to issue disinformation, as is the norm, saying that 30 militants had been killed in a military operation in the area. Now they admit the “loss of life”. What next? Will they use Israel’s excuse during its massacres in the Lebanon (which the Bush regime failed to condemn once) and say “Well, they shouldn’t have been there, should they?” Or will they simply ignore the facts, as the Bush regime did when Saakashvili’s Georgian US-trained armed forces slaughtered 2.000 Russian civilians in one night and Bush and Rice did not have the decency to mention this one single time?
Winning hearts and minds through massacres of defenceless children
Is this how NATO wins hearts and minds? Today a child, tomorrow a terrorist, is that the norm? And what is NATO anyway? Set up on 4th April 1949, NATO is an anachronism from a different era. Sensing the growing aggressiveness of this belligerent organization, the reaction from the eastern bloc was to set up the Warsaw Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance on May 14th 1955.
When the Soviet bloc disintegrated (the voluntary dissolution was provided for in the Soviet Constitution), the need for the Warsaw Pact ended and therefore it was dissolved in 1991. At the time, NATO had given reassurances to the Russian Federation that it would not expand eastwards.
Shortly before Germany was reunified, Chancellor Helmut Kohl pledged to Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO installations would not be placed in the eastern part of Germany. This pledge was almost immediately broken. When the Warsaw Pact disintegrated, private assurances were given to Moscow that the ex-Member states would not seek membership with NATO. They lied through their teeth. So what is NATO, other than an out-of-date, lying terrorist organization which serves one purpose, and one purpose only, namely to serve as a marketplace for the arms lobby in Washington/Tel Aviv?
How can Russia be expected to trust such an organization? Clearly its intentions are hideously antagonistic, as we see in the hostile and aggressive statements of the US State department and in the very presence of its Secretary of State on a daily basis, as we see in the missile defence shield placed on Russia’s western flank. Certainly, in the event of conflict such installations could be carpet-bombed and would serve for nothing, as indeed any concentration of troops and equipment on Russia’s borders could be neutralised by blanket attacks with missiles, blasting a crater 100 kilometres wide around such military formations.
In this scenario, after the wholesale destruction of its offensive capability on Russia’s borders, NATO would be faced with a stark choice: launch nuclear weapons against Russian cities and be carpet-nuked in retaliation, destroying the civilised world, or stare defeat in the face and surrender. But does anyone believe NATO, this murderous, callous, lying clique of fat-cat elitists which perpetrates massacre after massacre after massacre and tries to deny the facts, would not go all the way?
If NATO is serious about including Russia in an integrated security system in Europe, it is going about it the wrong way. Inclusion is the step forward, not exclusion or antagonism and antagonism passes by the admission of new member states such as Ukraine or Georgia. Does NATO really want to start a civil war in Ukraine? Does NATO really support the Saakashvili regime which slaughtered 2,000 Russian citizens in one night?
Politicising the issue
How democratic is NATO? Does NATO ask the citizens of its member states about its policies, even though these dictate the core of foreign policy? No, it does not. It is a supra-national, grey, faceless organism which overtakes each and every fibre of democratic control, placing the Washington/Tel Aviv arms lobby above the national governments and unanswerable and unaccountable to its peoples.
So supposing the democratization of NATO entered the political agenda, and supposing the citizens of its member states brought the issue onto the party political platform? Does my party stand for inclusion in NATO and thereby control by the arms lobby and very possibly a nuclear war, or does my party stand for a dissolution of NATO due to its very nature as an anachronistic dinosaur belonging six decades in the past and as an undemocratic institution which has no right to jurisdiction under every norm of Constitutional Law?
The continuation of NATO as a military bloc is an insult to the citizens of Europe. It is time they took up the gauntlet and stood up for themselves once and for all.
The Trump administration is looking for a replacement for the American military contingent in the north of Syria. If the United States agrees with Saudi Arabia, the situation in the south of the country will become a lot more intense as Iran and Israel stand on the brink of war
The United States is concerned about the current crisis in the relations with Russia and suggests returning to reasonable policies to avoid a nuclear war