Dear Friends,

PLEASE take ten minutes to watch this video with Dr. Marcus Papadopoulos. A week ago, Papadopoulos passionately revealed the truth of the US-Russia relationship at the House of Lords in Britain’s prestigious House of Parliament.

Papadopoulos defines the situation in terms of ACTION and REACTION: Washington/NATO’s ACTION and Russia’s REACTION. If the ACTION stops … Russia’s REACTION will stop. Papadopoulos is spot on.

The situation between Washington/NATO and Russia gets more tense by the day, with the prospect that a full-scale Nuclear War could break out in a matter of days, weeks or a few months––if the current direction isn’t altered. Can you believe the situation has degenerated to this stage?

With American and Russian cities already targeted … and many of the 10,000 nuclear weapons on high alert, one would think that only the insane would continue to move toward nuclear war. Yet this is not the case.

Dr. Papadopoulos gives a full explanation of the needless and relentless wars going on, and rightly points to the cornerstone, The Wolfowitz Doctrine, which was quietly hammered out in the bowels of the Pentagon in 1992 after the USSR collapsed. It was written by Paul Wolfowitz and “Scooter” Libby, later to be made a little more palatable by Dick Cheney and Colin Powell.

[Continue Reading]

The Nation

The personal vilification of Russia’s president is propelling the new Cold War toward hot war, poisoning American politics, and degrading US media.

by Stephen F. Cohen

Nation Contributing Editor Stephen F. Cohen and John Batchelor continue their weekly discussions of the new US-Russian Cold War. (Previous installments are at TheNation.com.) Unlike most installments, which cover an array of news stories, this one focuses on a single but encompassing subject: the nearly decade-long demonization of Putin by the US political-media establishment.

[Continue Reading]

Friends,

Again Robert Parry, our award winning investigative journalist, brings truth home to us.

Our mainstream media interprets near identical wars in Aleppo and Mosul in two radically different ways. One is extolled, the other condemned. In Mosul where US troops are attacking and Aleppo where the Syrians and Russians are attacking.

Pray tell, what is the difference?

Sharon

---

Consortium News
October 17, 2016

Good Deaths in Mosul, Bad Deaths in Aleppo

Exclusive: As the U.S.-backed offensive in Mosul, Iraq, begins, the mainstream U.S. media readies the American people to blame the terrorists for civilian casualties but the opposite rules apply to Syria’s Aleppo, reports Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Note how differently The New York Times prepares the American public for civilian casualties from the new U.S.-backed Iraqi government assault on the city of Mosul to free it from the Islamic State, compared to the unrelenting condemnation of the Russian-backed Syrian government assault on neighborhoods of east Aleppo held by Al Qaeda.

In the case of Mosul, the million-plus residents are not portrayed as likely victims of American airstrikes and Iraqi government ground assaults, though surely many will die during the offensive. Instead, the civilians are said to be eagerly awaiting liberation from the Islamic State terrorists and their head-chopping brutality.

[Continue Reading]

Friends, on October 1, General Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, rang the alarm on a “No Fly Zone” over Syria which was gaining traction in Washington. In no uncertain terms he predicted, “For us to control the airspace over Syria would require that we go to war with Syria and Russia.” (bold s.t.)

October 9 in the second Presidential Debate, this concept of “No Fly Zone” was still spoken about as though it’s a viable strategy. Does this mean that America is willing to go to war with Russia which has an equal number of nuclear weapons as we have?

We must somehow impress on our decision makers that strategies other than military solutions are desperately needed for our nation and our world. We can no longer invade countries to secure oil, gas and pipelines without taking the nations’ populations into consideration.

How do we open up this discussion to a nationwide audience here in the U.S.?

Surely few if any Americans would vote to start WWIII that would incinerate their families and homes. We need far cooler heads who will take responsibility for our futures rather than “acting tough” when far better solutions exist — like pulling out of Syria where we Americans have NO legal right to be.

FYI, Heads of State can invite other nations to participate if they are attacked and get UN approval to do so. Assad asked Russia, Syria’s decades-long trading partners, to assist with the rebels fomenting a “civil war.” These “rebels” unfortunately were mostly hired mercenary/terrorists even in the beginning. This was never a legitimate civil war, but a war instigated by Saudi, Qatar, Israeli and US money and “energy” interests. It is all about oil, gas and pipelines in addition to the centuries of hatred between Muslim rival groups. We should have NEVER gotten mixed up in this horrendous affair.

For truth, fair play, goodwill and solutions that are beneficial for all concerned,

Sharon

---

Sputnik News
October 1, 2016

Top US General: Hillary’s No Fly Zone Strategy Would ‘Require’ War With Russia

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford warned Congress that the implementation of a No Fly Zone, a centerpiece of Hillary’s foreign policy strategy, would result in World War III.

During testimony before the Senate Committee on Armed Services last week General Joseph Dunford rang the alarm over a policy shift that is gaining more traction within the halls of Washington following the collapse of the ceasefire brokered by the United States and Russia in Syria saying that it could result in a major international war which he was not prepared to advocate on behalf of.

[Continue Reading]

Hi all,

When listening to the October 9 debate between Hillary and Trump, I heard Hillary come out emphatically saying that Russia was responsible for hacking America’s emails to tamper with our election process. I wondered how it had been determined that this was the truth, sufficient for this bold, declarative sentence. Maybe I had missed something? I have hardly watched any of the TV news regarding this election Was it really so? Surely she wouldn’t tell a bald-faced lie to a world-wide audience during the debates without specific information.

So I immediately canvassed a dozen people “in the know” on our E list to learn how this information was attained. In retrospect, there is NO evidence that this assertion was the truth. If it had been these people would have definitely known about it and could give references. Regardless of which candidate one is listening to today, they cannot be depended on to tell the truth. They apparently feel utterly comfortable to say with confidence anything they wish, whether it is true or false.

We have come to a low point in our political discourse …. and public discourse for that matter. This does not bode well for our future or the future of America.

Sharon

Canvassed comments follow:

[Continue Reading]