standard furniture victoria hours - Hallo friend furniture stands lover, At this time sharing furniture stands entitled standard furniture victoria hours, I have provided furniture stands ideas. hopefully content of posts that I wrote this home design, Furniture Decorating, interior, furniture stands can be useful. OK, following its coverage of furniture stands ideas..

About : standard furniture victoria hours
Title : standard furniture victoria hours

standard furniture victoria hours

woe unto them that call evil good, and goodevil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, andsweet for bitter! --isaiah 5:20 in order to contain russia, a full selectionof methods are being used; from attempts at political isolation, and economic pressure,to a wide-scale information war and special services methods. as it has been recently, directly and openlysaid: they are going to twist the arms of those who don't agree, but such tricks donot work with russia, have never worked before, and will not work in the future.

russia is responsible for the violence ineastern ukraine. the violence is encouraged by russia, theseparatists are trained by russia, they are armed by russia, they are funded by russia. the only way the united states can have anyeffect in this region and turn the tide is to start killing russians. killing russians by ah, killing so many russiansthat even putin's media can't hide the fact that russians are returning to the motherlandin body bags. the united states is imposing new sanctionsin key sectors of the russian economy: energy, arms and finance.

well the questions i'd be asking is numberone: who could have shot it down? who had the equipment? it's obviously an anti-aircraft missile. who could have had the expertise to do that? putin's ambitions are blindingly obvious myfriends: he wants to prop up assad, by kingmaker in any transition, undermine u.s. policy andoperations, and ultimately expand russian power in the middle east. nato's supreme commander says the west mustdo more to counter russia by employing a rapid reaction approach to internet communicationsthat counteracts russia's false narratives

spread on social media. phillip breedlove said sunday that vladimirputin's russia has been waging information warfare as part of its actions against ukraine. breedlove said: "we need as a western groupof nations, or as an alliance to engage in this informational warfare. the way to attack the false narrative is todrag the false narrative into the light and expose it!" british media though reporting the heir tothe thrown, made a rather unguarded comment it would appear, comparing russian presidentvladimir putin to adolf hitler.

a fifth of the world's economy, almost a halfof earth's population. the brics nations are said to counter thewestern domination, and they're banking on a new global order. can the new brics bank balance the westernhold on international finance? will the member states be able to cement theirblock with closer ties? and how will their rising strength reshapethe world in years to come? as illustrated by time magazine in a recentreport: brazil, russia, india, china, and south africa, otherwise known as the 'brics', don'tlike a u.s. dollar-dominated world reserve currency.

they've been kneecapped by it for far toolong, not to mention sponsored wars, and bankrupted nations around the world. so naturally they are planning a breakaway,a fresh start from the u.s. and european-inspired money laundering debt monster that makes upthese institutions, and are planning a new one all on their own. according to insiders in washington d.c. andon wall street, this is a real game-changer for the west. with the announcement of a new developmentbank headquartered in shanghai to be operational in 2016, the brics nations are threateningthe very existence and the monopoly on international

finance and indentured servitude western bankshave enjoyed arguably for far too long. it thus makes perfect sense why the obamaadministration; a representative not of the people, but of 'too big to fail' banks andgiant multinational corporations is actively campaigning to demonize putin and all thingsrussian. ironically the american people have russiaand putin to be thankful for more in recent years than they do obama or the united statesgovernment. putin's asylum of american patriot and truth-telleredward snowden just one notable example. snowden's leak of a vast illegal and anti-constitutionalwiretapping and surveillance program here in the united states is arguably the biggeststory and the largest example of washington's

corruption and overreach this century. it highlights the anti-constitutional sewerpit that makes up washington d.c. today. but remember, putin is the enemy here... not only is the west demonizing putin, butthey are also actively campaigning for the demonization of rising china and its allies. they're 'communist' remember? they 'oppress' their people... like bank bailouts, quantitative easing, obamacare,and spying on american citizens is anything representative of a capitalist or free society.

the new development bank set to launch intwo years time will also have a twin, just like the world bank. this twin, the equivalent of the western-inspiredinternational monetary fund (imf), will provide short-term emergency loans to participatingcountries, really just long-term and perpetual debt obligations of its member states. like the world bank and imf today, this willprovide tremendous power to the brics. it will strengthen the ruble, the renminbiand any brics-backed currency or digital equivalent, and likely collapse the u.s. dollar. but of course, this has been the point sincethe very beginning; global engineering of

a global currency and a new world order. engineered bank bailouts, financial stimulus,and giant wealth transfers from the middle class - the poor to the rich, has only helpedthe collapse along the way, and now it's coming to fruition, a new baby is being born, andit's not the united states. to one of our top stories now. too much devotion to the dollar is widelyregarded as one of the causes of the global financial crisis in 2008, afterwards, aftershocks still being felt in europe today of course. their countries that they'd thought had founda savior in the form of the imf loans have

now been criticized for ah, criticizing thelender for holding them captive because of it - the terms and conditions of it. according to the imf bailout terms; a borrowingcountry has got to slash jobs, pensions, wages and even change laws in accordance with thelender's whim. spain for example, forced to run a millionpeople out of work, more than a half of the nation's young people are still unemployed. more stats, portugal still dealing with abanking crisis and shrinking gdp. mustn't forget greece either, after six yearsof recession, still got the worst unemployment rate in the eu.

let's talk about the developments here then,regarding brics, regarding that, regarding the imf - pepe escobar is with us live onthe line, ''hi pepe''. so um, talking about brics now forming theirown bank, one of our big stories this morning. how big of a rival is it going to be reallythough to the imf or the world bank at the end of the day? real stuff or wishful thinking? no, look! it's a long and winding road and it startsnow. look, the first brics summit was in yekaterinburgin russia six years ago.

now we have facts on the ground, on the airwaves,and all over the world. this is a, i would say that this is the beginningof the implosion of the 1944 bretton woods agreement. this is a development bank, by emerging powers;it's based on the brazilian development bank. many of these beautiful stadiums that yousee during the world cup, they were financed by the brazilian development bank. so it's financing of infrastructure, by thebrics themselves, among themselves, in 5 countries, then they can start lending to other countriesas well, they can help to industrialize africa in the long run, and without all of theseconditions imposed by loans by the imf and

the world bank. it sounds like 'bad business!' the imf just announced that if ukraine defaultson its debts to creditors, it will still loan it money. would you loan money to a deadbeat? that's how the imf works; it loans billionsto countries who it knows can't pay back. it's a jewish scam to foreclose on a country'sassets. you see the imf's major share holder is theu.s. treasury with sole veto rights. current and former heads of the treasury:jacob lew, larry summers. and robert rubin

are all goldman sachs boys. sounds like a guest list for a 'bar mitzvah'doesn't it? goys too, paulson and geithner, both shillsfor the bar mitzvah bunch at goldman sachs. lagarde is just 'gentile winter dressing.' connect the dots: the u.s. treasury that runsthe imf is bankrolled at interest by the fed, a consortium of jewishbanks orbited around the rothchild dynasty. the imf is a jewish bankster operation whoseloans are not to boost a country's economy, but to pay off creditors that it already owes,many of whom are part of the kleptocracy. yats says so himself!

you are well aware that the government launcheda four year eff (extended fund facility) program with the imf, together with the imf we expectto get up to 25 billion dollars in the forthcoming four years, but the gap is much bigger, muchbigger... as you are well aware, this money goes directlyto our creditors... and with a 'one,' 'two' punch the imf is screwingukraine. punch one is to shrink the economy via ''austerity''- this is done by imf ''conditionalities'' which demands raising taxes, and cutting governmentbenefits; and yats takes the bait! despite the fact that the government has frozenall social expenditures, we shut down the number of entitlement programs, we did everythingwe can to fix the budget gap, we still need

an enormous - an additional enormous amountof financial support... it's a bottomless pit.. cutting government programs and raising taxesonly widens the budget deficit by reducing the purchasing power of the citizens. with no buyers the gdp shrivels up! and with ukraine ditching its lucrative russianmarket, and with europe spurning ukrainian-made goods, ukraine is now a failed state! the imf likes it like that! now comes punch 'two:' with compound interestclimbing and the debt unserviceable, the imf

demands that ukraine sell off its assets to''cool'' the creditors. even with privatization the debt will neverbe paid off, and ukraine becomes an eternal vassal to jewish banksters. and with yats and u.s. commerce secretarypenny pritzker now planning a ukrainian fire sale, the imf and its client monsanto arelicking their chops over ukraine's farmland too. not for nothing did they install saakashvili,as the new governor of odessa, a vital part of ukraine's red basket and maritime shipping. he just admitted that things were much betterunder yanukovych, who nudelman of the u.s.

state department toppled. now ukraine is the poorest country in europe. if the collapse of the economy suddenly stops and ukraine develops by four percent annually, we will reach the level of 2013 in 20 years.

only in 20 years will we return to the figures of yanukovych's ukraine. ain't gonna to happen! once the imf fleeces the assets, yanukovych'sukraine will be a jewish-owned state, and that's how the imf works. my dear ukrainians, you can kiss your countrygoodbye! to begin as president obama becomes the firstpresident in u.s. history to make two visits to india.

that's where the president and first ladyhas just wrapped up their three day visit. obama also became the first u.s. presidentto be the chief guest at india's republic day parade, which took place on monday. but it is what china is saying to india aboutthat visit that's grabbing attention. the chinese telling india to avoid a quote:''zero-sum trap'' being set by washington and its allies. the chinese seem to believe that the u.s.is singling out, even pressuring india to become a key ally in order to slow china'srise. that republic day parade became an opportunityfor china's president to express china's willingness

to quote: ''make concerted efforts with indiato lift their strategic cooperative partnership oriented to peace and prosperity to a higherlevel'' end quote. so what does this back and forth over indiareally mean? for insight i was joined earlier by journalist,professor, and former assistant secretary of the treasury for economic policy underronald reagan: paul craig roberts, and i begin by asking him if in fact the united statesis working to drive a wedge between beijing and new deli. washington is very disturbed about the formationof brics, they're disturbed about the recent trade deal made between putin and india, andthey certainly don't want india pulled in

to that chinese/russian alliance. so yes this is an effort to disturb the relationshipsbetween india, china, and russia. it's fairly interesting you know presidentnixon as you know was the first u.s. president to visit the people's republic of china. nixon and kissinger did not like india atall. now listen you brought this up a minute ago,we've heard very little about india until recently, but we see the u.s. kind of fightingthis uphill battle because india is part of that brics alliance: brazil, russia, india,china, south africa. how significant is brics right now in termsof a threat to, kind of, the u.s. place on

the world scene? well, the populations and the land mass ofthose areas are enormous, and certainly china has taken over the lead of economic developmentfrom all other countries, and india has had a good bit of development, and professionaltradable skills, and so it does have the potential of abandoning the use of the (u.s.) dollar,of leaving the western financial mechanisms and clearing mechanisms, and this then isa direct threat to the exchange value of the dollar. so i think it is a... it does have the potential of forming a kindof trade relationship that undermines the

ability of the united states to control allthe outcomes. you know, washington is very control-orientated,and it has a lot of control because of the collapse of the soviet union, because of thetendency of the european countries to follow washington's lead, and so it sees the bricsas a real challenge to washington's ability to control outcomes. and so it will do whatever it can to breakit up. the word 'control' that you're using thereis an interesting word i think it's a very accurate word. simply because for so many decades the unitedstates kind of strong-armed a lot of these

other nations, and that includes through avariety of means including: trade, including our willingness to import goods, or to, allowcheaper goods to be sold here. as well as when we talk about, you know, someof these issues specific to emerging nations like india, and like china, um, this ideaof controlling foreign aid that goes out - brics is in direct contrast to that, creating itsown system of trade as you talked about, and financial system for helping smaller developingnations so that they're not reliant on the united states. are we watching u.s. control of a lot of theseissues kind of falling through our fingers at this point?

well, that's the potential, it's beginningto happen because washington is picking on russia, is picking on china, and this is amistake because they're very large and powerful countries. and so it does show that washington is worriedthat it is going to see the world develop into, more, than a ''unipolar'' place. moving on now, russian president vladimirputin has warned against attempts by certain countries to dominate the world. in the past decades basic principles of internationalcooperation have been increasingly ignored. principles won in pain by mankind after thehardship of war.

we have seen attempts to create a unipolarworld. we see a military-bloc mentality expanding,all this undermines the stability of global development. putin made the remarks in his address commemoratingthe 70th anniversary of the soviet union's victory over nazi germany. u.s. president barrack obama has boycottedthe festivities, as have the leaders of britain and france - russia's other key allies duringthe second world war. ties between washington and moscow have reachedan all time low over the crises in ukraine. well, to discuss this more, let's got to leesburgand talk to mike billington with the asia

desk at the executive intelligence reviewwelcome sir. mr. billington, i think the russian presidentwas alluding to the united states when he denounced any attempts for a unipolar world. do you think that the era of a unipolar worldhas come to an end? or are there signs that it has come back? there's no question that the anglo/new yorkaxis is functioning as the unipolar world, as sort of like the gods of olympus sittingon top of olympus throwing their thunder bolts out, while in fact the mountain is crumblingout from under them. ah, besides what mr. putin said in moscowtoday, the reality is that not only did the

russian army, all services, parade throughbeautiful square (which is called 'red square' but it's actually beautiful square)... um, but also the whole chinese military wasthere. ah, and on the podium was mr. shi jinpingsitting next to mr. putin, along with mr. nazarbayev from kazakhstan, pretty much nextto them. this is a new world order, ah, we are watchingthe brics nations lead largely by china, and russia, and india, in a situation where theyhave begun to put together an entirely new world order. and the demonstration today of the chi...

for the first time ever, the chinese militarymarched through beautiful square (red square). this was a very clear demonstration, thatthe attempt by obama and his british-backer, mr. cameron, who unfortunately apparentlyused vote fraud to get back in for five years, are, who are planning on continuing theirpolicy of wagging war wherever they want when ever they want, and using ukraine and themiddle east as excuses for provoking a war with russia. willing to go to war with russia, preciselybecause they see that russia, china, and india through heading up new world financial systems,the asian infrastructure investment bank, the brics new development bank, and demonstratingthat they are not going to back down to the

military threats, represents a threat to thecollapsing western financial system. they know that it's collapsing, they knowthat the european and american financial system is 'kaput' - it's going under. mr. larouche today was interviewed by sputniknews (the old ria novosti), congratulating russia on, and the chinese on celebratingvictory day, and making the same point really that putin did. which is that they are not only standing upfor the defense against fascism in the 1940s (30s and 40s), but the reason that the westernnations have boycotted victory day in moscow, is that they are supporting the revival offascism in europe, in ukraine.

that the svoboda party, and the azov battalioncarrying the swastikas opening praising stepan bandera (the hitler collaborator in ukraine),represents the revival of fascism, openly supported by the obama administration, throughvictoria nuland, and others. and not only in ukraine. but in other parts of eastern and westerneurope. this is a threat to civilization, it's notjust a threat to ukraine or to russia - it's a threat to civilization. a threat of thermonuclear war. which is not far off if we do not reversethe process immediately, in the united states,

and in europe, and restore, the, what wasonce well known as the american system. have europe and the united states join withthe brics on great development projects, rather than confronting them with threats of war.. and so... do you think that the united states will givein to this 'new world order?' to a multipolar world order? i think that's up to us here in the unitedstates. the larouche movement is wagging a fight,mrs larouche is now touring europe, ah, demanding that they give up this insane confrontationwith russia, and with china, and join with

the brics, this is the other paradigm thatexists for mankind today. even, and many in europe are now recognizingthis, you might know that mrs merkel, even though that she was arm-twisted not to goto victory day, is going to be there tomorrow. and steinmeier, the foreign minister fromgermany was there for the parade and very clearly said: we have to restore relationswith russia, this confrontation between nato and russia has no reason, no basis, it's insane,and it's leading us to war. mr berlusconi (the former president of italy)said today that the empty seats in moscow, the seats where the entire west, other thanmr. tsipras from greece who is there, and of course the greeks are very close to joiningwith the brics, they probably will be the

first european nation to join with the brics. but the empty seats from the u.s., from britain,from russia, from france and so forth, represents a failure of the west, not a boycott of russia,but a demonstration of the collapse and the failure of the west, financially, economically,strategically, and threatening a war - we have to turn that around, and that's whatour policy here is in the larouche movement is, to turn this around, to get this lunaticout of the white house, quickly, not in the next election, now, before world war 3 breaksout, and before the collapse, far greater than the 2007-2008 collapse hits. this is wide responsibility, it's a responsibilityto the human race.

there are two paradigms in the world, andwe have to make sure that america restores it's historic role as a nation builder, andnot as a british-style imperial warlord. alright, we'll leave it there for the timing. many thanks there to mike billington withthe asia desk of the executive intelligence review from leesburg, thanks for your thoughtsthere sir! so what are the facts? just a few months ago the rightful presidentof ukraine viktor yanukovych was ousted by molotov cocktail wielding terrorist, wearinggas masks, backed by the united states and western interests.

this would be the equivalent of vladimir putinarming 'occupy wall street' with grenade launchers and machine guns to overthrow the obama administration here in the u.s. this new puppet government has since taken over,and is not the rightful or legal government of the ukraine, and putin has not invadedthis part of the world in any way. simply, he has responded to an attack by theunited states. this point is extremely important. russia hasn't invaded anything, they haven'tinvaded the ukraine, nor has putin's military build-up on the border been an invasion. it's russia that is under attack, the peopleof ukraine, and those who have been ousted

by a violent coup, that are the real victims. we know based on intelligence leaks providedby estonian foreign minister urmas paet, and eu foreign policy chief catherine ashton forinstance, that the snipers behind the attacks in ukraine during the recent terrorist attack,were not snipers of the yanukovych government as the u.s. mainstream media want you to believe. but instead, the western-backed insurgentsthat have recently overthrown the ukrainian government. not only have they been killing innocents,but the insurgents have been shooting at both sides of the conflict.

breaking news, a leaked phone call revealsthe same snipers were shooting at both protesters and police in kiev. rt's marina kosareva joins us now live withmore on this. who was behind those snipers? absolutely, well all this information is infact becoming public after a phone conversation was leaked and is now accessible to everyonewho wants to listen in, and it is on youtube, and that conversation in fact is between theeu foreign chief catherine aston, and also we have the estonian foreign affairs minister. and catherine ashton in that phone conversationis in fact asking him about his impressions

of ukraine where he just returned from, andhe said that the picture is looking sad, and more importantly, and it's quite an eye opener,this one, is that fact that snipers were as you said marina were shooting both at protestersand officials, both sides really. so let's listen in to what he had to say: paet: ..that, well, all the evidence showsthat people who were killed by snipers, from both sides, among policemen and then peoplefrom the streets, that they were the same snipers, killing people from both sides. aston: well, that’s … yeah. paet: so that, then she also showed me somephotos.

she said that as [a] medical doctor she can,you know, say that it is the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it’s reallydisturbing that now the new coalition, that they don’t want to investigate what exactlyhappened. so that there is now stronger and strongerunderstanding that behind [the] snipers, they were … it was not yanukovych, but it wassomebody from the new coalition. this is damming information, and it contradictsthe western narrative that the ukrainian people have been supportive of a western coup. not only does this conflict with reports fromwestern media outlets like cnn, but it delegitimizes an already illegitimate puppet government.

it also means that the ukrainian people areno safer under western control than they were under the previous administration. and what is the health of the ukrainian peopleat this given moment? you know, not only has there been bloodshed,but civilians are being murdered at an ever increasing rate, and the region is engagedin a violent civil war. is this the peace and democracy secretaryof state john kerry and others in washington d.c. have been talking about? and what about democracy? the people of crimea, a largely russian speakingpopulation, just voted with over a 95% popular

vote, in referendum to join russia. why doesn't the united states respect thewill of the people? reports from the jerusalem post indicate thatthe odessa jewish community is contemplating an emergency evacuation from the region shouldthe violence in the western ukrainian city get significantly worse. but once again, the mainstream media is playingthe jew card, note the publisher, in order to paint putin as the next hitler and alienatehim from the international community. this of course is bullshit, and it's a lie. putin hasn't invaded ukraine, the u.s. andeu have through their proxy the imf, the world

bank, and the united nations. 1953: us. overthrows prime minister mossadeq of iran. [declassified] the cia bombs a cleric's home and framesmossadeq to turn muslims against him. u.s installs shah as dictator. chief cia analyst states that the cia teachesnazi torture techniques to the iranian secret police (savak). guatemala 1954: u.s. overthrows democratically-electedpresident arbenz of guatemala.

200,000 civilians killed. the u.s. diplomatically blocks vietnameseelections because "80% would vote for communist, ho chi minh." 1963: u.s. backs assassination of south vietnamesepresident diem. 1963-1975: american military kills 4 millionpeople in southeast asia. the other 9/11: chile: 1973[classified] september 11, 1973: u.s. stages a coup inchile. democratically-elected president salvadorallende assassinated. dictator augusto pinochet installed.

5,000 chileans murdered. afghanistan 1980's: u.s. trains osama bin laden and fellowterrorists to kill soviets. cia gives them $3 billion mujahedin leaders use cia-supplied trucksto transport opium to the pakistan border. cia gives them $3 billion. nicaragua 1981: reagan administration trains and funds"contras." 30,000 nicaraguans die.

iraq 1982: u.s. provides billions in aid to saddamhussein for weapons to kill iranians. iran 1983: white house secretly gives iran weaponsto kill iraqis. u.s. documents report that israel is selling"chemical products" to both iran and iraq. 1989: cia agent manuel noriega (also servingas president of panama) disobeys orders from washington. u.s. invades panama and removes noriega. 3,000 panamanian civilian casualties.

what i believe is absolutely inadmissibleis the resolution of internal political issues in the former ussr republics, through 'colourrevolutions', through coup d'ã©tat, through unconstitutional removal of power. that is totally unacceptable. our partners in the united states have supportedthose who ousted yanukovych. you believe that the united states had somethingto do with the ousting of yanukovych, and he had to flee to russia? i know that for sure. i know those people who live in the ukraine,we have thousands of contacts with them.

we know where, and when, and who met withsomeone, and who worked with those who ousted yanukovych, how they were supported, how muchthey were paid, how they were trained, where, in which countries, and who those instructorswere. we know everything! and our american partners don't try to concealthat anyway, they said: yes well we did, we did train them, and we spent that much money,and it's now, it amounts to $5 billion dollars, so there's no secret about it. yeah but i mean you're suggesting that this.. nobody is even arguing against that.

do you respect the sovereignty of ukraine? sure, but we want other countries to respect thesovereignty of other countries and ukraine in particular. respect for sovereignty means to not allowunconstitutional action and coup d'ã©tat - the removal of legitimate power. how will the renewal of legitimate power takeplace in your judgement? how will that come about? and what role will russia play? russia has not taken part and is not goingto take part in any actions aimed at removing

the legitimate government. what i'm saying is that if somebody does that,the result is very difficult to deal with. in libya we've seen the disintegration ofthe state, in iraq we've seen the territories been filled with terrorists, in syria thesituation is unfolding in the same way, in afghanistan you very well know what the situationlooks like. what happened in ukraine? the coup d'ã©tat led to a civil war. many citizens of ukraine did not have trustin yanukovych that's true, but they should have gone to the elections and elected a newleader, not commit the removal of power.

but after the coup d'ã©tat, somebody supportedthat, somebody liked it, but somebody did not. and those who did not like it were treatedfrom the position of force. about ten days after 911 i went through thepentagon, and i saw secretary rumsfeld and deputy secretary wolfowitz. i went downstairs just to say hello to someof the people on the joint staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals calledme in and he said: ''sir you gotta come in and talk to me for a second.'' i said 'well you're too busy!'

he said: ''no, no!'' he says: ''we've made the decision, we'regoing to war with iraq!'' this was on or about the 20th of september. i said: 'we're going to war with iraq? why?' he said: ''i don't know!'' he said: ''i guess that they don't know whatelse to do!'' so, i said: 'did they find some informationconnecting saddam to al qaeda?' he said: ''no no!'

he says: ''there's nothing new that way, they'vejust made the decision to go to war with iraq.'' he said: ''i guess it's like we don't knowwhat to do about terrorists, but we got a good military and we can take down governments.'' and um he said: ''i guess if the only toolyou have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.'' so i came back to see him a few weeks later,and by that time we were bombing in afghanistan, i said: 'are we still going to war with iraq?' and he said: ''oh, it's worse than that!' he said, (he reached over his desk he pickedup a piece of paper), he said: ''i just got

this down from upstairs (meaning the secretaryof defense's office today) and he said: ''this is a memo that describes how we're going totake out seven countries in 5 years. starting with iraq, and then syria, lebanon,libya, somalia, sudan, and finishing off with iran.'' (the truth about the middle east) the truth is about the middle east is: hadthere been no oil there, it would be like africa. nobody is threatening to intervene in africa,the problem is the opposite. we keep asking for people to intervene andstop it, and there's no question that the

presence of petroleum throughout the regionhas sparked great power involvement. whether that was the specific motivation forthe coup or not i can't tell you, but, but there was definitely, there's always beenthis attitude that somehow we could intervene and use force in the region. so you're in a little bit of a dilemma onthat, we need to leave that kind of fuzzy on this, but we need the authorization tofollow the leads, put the troops in, and play this. look, isis got started through funding fromour friends and allies because as people will tell you in the region.

if you want somebody who will fight to thedeath against hezbollah, you don't put out a recruiting poster and say, you know: 'signup for us and we're going to make a better world!' you go after zealous, and you go after thesereligious fundamentalist, that's who fights hezbollah.. but general i'm hearing you on.. it's like a frankenstein! i'm hearing you on keeping syria fuzzy but,i mean they've been very clear in wanting to destroy and dismantle isis, so that's notfuzzy to me at all, that the question would

be, if they wipe out isis in syria, whichis the goal, then what? with bashar-al assad? there has to be a plan for that phase. well, some things you can't exactly plan thatclearly because you're dealing in the realm of politics. so part of it is: can you get the russiansto withdraw their support from bashar-al assad? how would you do that? well, you're dealing with the russians inukraine right now, and they're not being helpful, in fact from putin's prospective, he probablysees it as a, the opposite play, he says:

that because the americans need us to helpon iran, because they don't have a ground force in syria, they're actually relying onus, therefore, we can push ukraine further and the americans won't stop us because they'reafraid that they'll lose our cooperation elsewhere in the world. isis, created by the u.s. and her allies accordingto general wesley clark. i mean this is amazing, this is a very wellrespected general. he was the commander and head of all natoforces, not just american but, nato forces. saying that isis was created by her allies. you know countries like saudi arabia, thatare in cahoots with the united states right

now, not just to put pressure on u.s. frackingcorporations, but to drive oil prices to zero, to put pressure on vladimir putin, and russia,and to bring iran to the nuclear dealing table so that we can negotiate with them. those same allies... those same people, responsible for creatingthese groups to fight allegedly hezbollah, to fight the other radical elements. you see the united states does this time andtime again, it's how we throw countries, it's how we overthrow places like egypt, it's like,how we murder people like muammar, leader, muammar gaddafi in libya.

who gave coalition forces in libya the rightto eliminate gaddafi? well that's the question vladimir putin hasbeen asking during an official visit to denmark. the russian premier also said nato's effectivelyjoined one of the warring sides in the conflict and more responsible action should be takeninstead. rt's daniel bushell joins us now live forthis in brussels. ah, daniel so um, the russian prime ministerhas effectively lashed out at the operation there in libya? yes, he's made a speech in denmark, and hewas very angry, he says that: gaddafi is not the best person in the world, sure, he's mademany mistakes, done many bad things, but that

does not give the coalition the right to bombindiscriminately, his words were that: 'they are bombing gaddafi's palaces in tripoli everynight!' now the coalition said that their plan wasnot to get rid of gaddafi, so his question was, mr. putin's question was: why are thecoalition forces obviously making this effort to go after colonel gaddafi himself? now we also heard that the experts here inbrussels have confirmed that there is bombing going on by the coalition forces, which isnot being covered by the media, here in the european union. mr. putin added that oil was a key interestfor the western powers, for the european powers,

who have gone into libya, that they want toget rid of gaddafi, and install people who are more favourable to the european union,so the european companies can control the oil reserves. let's have a listen to exactly what mr. putinhad to say. the coalition said destroying gaddafi wasnot their goal, then why bomb his palaces? now some officials have claimed that eliminatinghim was in fact their goal. who gave them that right? did he have a fair trial? returning to the no-fly zone, the bombingsare destroying the country's entire infrastructure.

when that the so-called civilized world usesall its military power against a small country destroying what's been created by generations,i don't know if that's good... mr. putin said that they have to give thelibyan people time to sort out their own problems, and there's really double standards here headded. there are several other parts of the regionin the middle east and north africa which is facing pretty much civil war situations,but which the west is either ignoring, or not really paying the same amount of attentionto. well daniel, there have been reports aboutan eu plan to send army convoys to assist humanitarian aid there in libya, of course,there will be those who say: well this is

really the start of a military ground operation,something of course that allies were adamant wouldn't happen. yeah, absolutely, i heard these rumors forthe first time a few weeks ago, that the eu plans to send up to a thousand troops, underthe guise of so-called 'humanitarian aid.' russia fears that this will be used to planan invasion and to carry out an invasion of libya on the pretext of supporting humanitarianaid to the libyan people. the draft plan is called: eufor libya. it's supported by the 27 member states ofthe european union, prepared by them and it provides for them ground troops in fact tobe deployed by the western coalition.

in the port city of misurata which is currentlyunder siege by forces loyal to muammar gaddafi. here in brussels micheal mann the chief spokesmanto the european union high representative, catherine ashton said that they would onlysend up to a thousand troops and the troops would only be used if they came under attack,otherwise, they would only defend aid. now russia has said that it will only supportanother un resolution if it explicitly says that it will not continue the violence, thatif it ends the violence and starts negotiations then that is the only condition under whichthey would support that. now i've been speaking to military analystshere in brussels, and they confirm that ground troops are already in operation in libya,this is not being covered by the media, in

the european union. but troops are already in operation, and theyare pushing forward in libya, with colonel gaddafi as the target. daniel thanks very much indeed for that. that's daniel bushall live there in brussels. well more speculation has been has been raisedon the reasons for nato's intervention in libya, and as rt's laura emmett reports; theorganization may have been trying to prevent gaddafi from burying the american buck. according to some it's about protecting civilians.

we must not tolerate this regime using militaryforce against its own people. others say it's about oil. the only reason they're interested with libyais about the oil. you think we'd be in iraq if the major exportwas there was broccoli? but some are convinced intervention in libyais all about currency, specifically gaddafi's plan to introduce the gold dinar, a singleafrican currency made from gold; a true sharing of the wealth. it's one of these things that you have toplan almost in secret. because as soon as you say you're going tochange over from the dollar to the: something

else, you're going to be targeted. there were two conferences on this; one in1996, and another one in the year 2000 called the world mathaba conference organized bygaddafi, and everybody was interested, and i think that most countries in africa werekeen. gaddafi didn't give up. in the months leading up to the military interventionhe called on african and muslim nations to join together to create this new currency,that would rival the dollar and euro. they would sell oil and other resources aroundthe world, only for gold dinars. it's an idea that would shift the economicbalance of the world.

countries' wealth would depend on how muchgold they have, not how many dollars they trade. and libya has 144 tonnes of gold. the u.k. has double that but ten times thepopulation. if gaddafi had an intent to try to repricehis oil or whatever else the country was selling on the global markets and accept somethingelse as a currency, or maybe launch a golden currency... any move such as that would certainly notbe welcome by the power elite today who are responsible for controlling the world's centralbanks.

so yes, that would certainly be somethingthat would cause his immediate dismissal, and the need for other reasons to be broughtforth for removing him from power. it's happened before. in 2000 saddam hussein announced that iraqioil would be traded in euros, not dollars. sanctions and an invasion followed. some say because the americans were desperateto prevent opec from transferring oil trading in all its member countries to the euro. the u.k.'s gold is kept here in a secure vaultsomewhere in the depths of the bank of england. as in most developed countries there's notenough to go around.

but that's not the case in places like libyaand many of the gulf states. a gold dinar would have given oil rich africaand middle eastern countries the power to turn around to their energy hungry customersand say: 'sorry the price has gone up! and we want gold!' some say the u.s. and its nato allies, literallycouldn't afford to let that happen. laura emmett, rt, london. last week when i ordered our armed forcesto protect the libyan people from the brutality of muammar gaddafi, i pledged to keep theamerican people fully informed. since then i have spoken about the limitedscope, and specific purpose of this mission.

today, i can report that thanks to the bravemen and women in uniform, we've made important progress. as commander-in-chief, i face no greaterdecision than sending our military men and women into harm's way. the united states should not, and cannot interveneevery time that there is a crises somewhere but i firmly believe, that when innocent peopleare being brutalized; when someone like gaddafi threatens a bloodbath that could destabilizean entire region. and when the international community is preparedto come together to save many thousands of lives; then it's in our national intereststo act; and it's our responsibility.

this is one of those times. our military mission in libya is clear andfocused. along with our allies and partners, we'reenforcing the mandate of the united nations security council. we're protecting the libyan people from gaddafi'sforces; and we've put in place a no fly zone and other measures to prevent further atrocities. we're succeeding in our mission. we've taken out libya's air defenses; gaddafi'sforces are no longer advancing across libya. in places like benghazi - a city of some sevenhundred thousand, that gaddafi threatened

to show no mercy, his forces have been pushedback. so make no mistake; because we acted quicklya humanitarian catastrophe has been avoided, and the lives of countless civilians, innocentmen, women, and children have been saved. it's been described as the final chapter forgaddafi but whilst the end to the war in libya seems sooner, the realization now settingin that there still remains a long, tough battle ahead. we're joined now by yvonne da vito who's justcome back from libya where, you were compiling an independent dossier on what was happeningon the ground there. so thank you very much for joining us.

now you've been saying that it's because,certainly here in italy, the news reports about what was happening in libya, were veryconfusing, a lot of conflicting information, so can you tell us what you saw, and whatyou found whilst you were there. we went to libya on the 28th of july, andwe came back on the 7th of august, and we found a totally different situation, becausenato was bombarding civilians. the bombings were not only carried out onmilitary targets, but they also hit houses, hospitals, schools, television centres, andthis was totally against the humanitarian reasons they said that they were there for. i believe that were doing this to bring panicin the city.

that's why they were bombing the things thatpeople use daily; like places with food, and essential utilities like hospitals. this was also a difficult period for muslimsbecause of ramadan, and that is why that in the day time they are in their houses. we went to tripoli, and to zliten and we sawhuge protests with thousands of pro gaddafi supporters turning out against nato, and allthese demonstrations were not shown in italy. we also visited tajura and janzour and founda lot of women that we screaming at us, asking: why you italians are bombing us? what didwe do to you? why are you killing our children?

that was the main question. we went to zliten the same day they bombeda house, and in this house two children were killed. we tried to show the pictures of these childrenthat were dead, but apart from us, no one else did the same. except the things that we saw with our owneyes visiting these places that were bombed. we have so much material that press officersand journalists from libya gave to us as testimony to all the dead from the nato bombings. we've frozen tens of billions of dollars ofgaddafi's assets that can help meet the needs

and aspirations of the libyan people. and every day the pressure on gaddafi andhis regime is increasing. our message is clear and unwavering: gaddafi'sattacks against civilians must stop. his forces must pull back, humanitarian assistancemust be allowed to reach those in need. those responsible for violence must be heldaccountable. muammar gaddafi has lost the confidence ofhis people, and the legitimacy to rule, and the aspirations of the libyan people mustbe realized. after all the things that we saw, we haveone question: is this a humanitarian war? are they really helping the civilians?

because i believe that all this is becauseof economic reasons, or at least there are other reasons why this war happened; petroleumor other things. western powers have frozen the assets of muammargaddafi and other senior figures in the libyan they say the aim is to help bring down thegovernment refusing the will of its people, but as rt's lauren lyster reports, historysuggests libya may never see its money again after the international wealth grab. as violence continues in libya, the u.s. sendswarships and more troops in that direction, fueling speculation of a military intervention. meanwhile western countries may have alreadylaunched a war against colonel muammar al-gaddafi's

north african regime. most countries consider the freezing of theirassets as an act of economic warfare. the weapons here: the foreign assets of eitherlibya the country, or gaddafi and his family, that some estimate to be almost $100billion dollars. it's believed to be spread across the globe;oil money invested through the country's sovereign wealth fund. everything from a stake in the company thatowns the financial times newspaper, to land near the spanish resort town of marbella beingdeveloped into homes and a gulf course. to the oil company vironex, and billions ofdollars of cash in banks throughout europe

and the u.s. the question now is what happens to all ofthis money? especially the $30 billion dollars the unitedstates has frozen, the most ever in the history of this country, in this type of situation. it essentially cuts libya off from the entireu.s. banking system. for now it stays put while the situation isstill uncertain, but what is certain; the president of the united states is now in controlof this money, which gives him a powerful tool. look, maybe we will make a deal, about thismoney or some of this money.

um, but it means that you have to do the following;and whatever the u.s. at that point is trying to accomplish, presumably that he leaves. it's all about control, and profit, and domination. this is the center of an empire, and it'san empire where the greatest profits come from the military contracts, and the oil contracts. so, they will work overtime to aid those corporationsand their interests. to enact these sanctions the u.s. presidentdeclared the situation in libya quote: 'an unusual and extraordinary threat to u.s. nationalsecurity, and foreign policy.' that's not typical considering there's nota clear aggressive action libya has taken

against the u.s. as for libya's financial interests, analystssay that you could look to the history of countries such as iran; their assets werefrozen in the wake of the 1979 hostage crisis. their money, that was seized from iran backin 1979 has still, you know, not been returned to the iranians, so it's basically time fora plunder play, you know; if we can take it away from them, we will. the money is used most often to pay for thesettlements of lawsuits against a leader or a government, or to recoup loses. gaddafi can likely kiss the money goodbye.

we took their nuclear capacity away, madepromises, didn't live up to them, claimed that was a great victory for peace, and nowwe're in the situation where it's clear that oil is at stake. the future of the massive sums of money reapedfrom libyan oil, is now as uncertain as the divided country it came from. lauren lyster, rt, new york. now international bankers have reportedlywasted billions of dollars invested by libyan leader colonel gaddafi. the financial times says giants like goldmansachs were dealing with the dictator's investments

when it needed to 'plug a hole' during the crises. most of the money has been lost, but withwhat's going on in libya any repayments seems unlikely, rt's daniel bushall has more fromberlin. it has emerged that western banks have beenhappy to invest and work with libyan dictator muammar gaddafi, and picking up huge sumsin the process. as you say france's sociã©tã© gã©nã©rale wasadvising it to make a billion dollar bet on its own shares, it told gaddafi to make abillion dollar bet on its own shares, which then lost practically all their value by lastyear, sociã©tã© gã©nã©rale pocketed huge sums, huge fees in the process.

american lender goldman sachs, made a billiondollar investment for libya, which then lost over 98% of its value, and many other westernlenders have made disastrous investments for libya's national investment fund. now the interesting thing is that; these banksare claiming they won't have to pay any of that money back, because the west's currentwar with libya means that gaddafi is an illegitimate ruler. this is how the international community shouldwork: more nations, not just the united states, bearing the responsibility and cost of upholdingpeace and security. this military effort is part of our largerstrategy to support the libyan people, and

hold the gaddafi regime accountable. okay now you have personally met gaddafi yourselfon a number of occasions, what do you think post war, and post gaddafi libya is goingto look like? even if all television stations are showingpeople fighting and demonstrating against gaddafi, i personally saw many people demonstratingfor gaddafi. i don't know why so many journalists are notshowing this, because they are manipulating the situation. independent media show these videos on theinternet because there is more freedom. from what we saw personally when we were inlibya, and from the documents we brought,

we saw the rebels as disorganized groups. are there fears amongst the people that therebels coming to power will prove an ongoing continuation of the volatile situation there? i believe that the rebels will not be ableto do a good job after gaddafi. amoungst them there are many extremist groups,islamists, tunisian people. i don't know why they're there; al qaeda,rebels from libya that just wanted a change. but there is too much disorganization to makea good job. the people who were interviewed were veryafraid to imagine that rebels could take power. because they think that they are not ableto govern the country, or to take control

in the proper way. the chiefs of these groups of rebels are ex-politicians,former politicians, that before were with gaddafi, and then they completely changedtheir face; they went with the wind as they say in italy. in recent days we've heard the voices of libyansexpressing their gratitude for this mission. "you saved our lives!'' said one libyan, said another: ''today thereis hope.'' "let those dogs strike us. they are bombing our country, they are destroyingout country.

muammar is their father... why are they cursing him and bombing him? allah and libya and muammar only.. those dogs, those rats... what did we do to them? what did we do to them to make them bomb usthose dogs? they airstrike us all day and night, peopleare all asleep in dawn and they bomb them with their planes.. ...that's cruel what did we do to them?...

they say they are protecting civilians, butno they are bombing them! when did they protect them???" when we talk of the nato mission for humanitarianreasons, do you think that justification for the war in libya stands up to scrutiny now? i believe it's not a valid justification,because most of the targets were civilian ones, and many people say the people weretargeted on purpose to create panic on the ground. how much of a discrepancy did you see on theground between what nato was saying, and what you were seeing?

many many discrepancies every day, the firstday nato bombed a civilian target, i apologized to people saying it was a mistake. but the day after they kept bombing civiliantargets, and when the libyan government was asking: why are you bombing civilians? nato were denying it, saying it was gaddafipropaganda, that wasn't true, we saw it. this is the first time that a country wasattacked, even though they asked for a commission to go into the country and to investigateand find facts, that didn't happen; they just attacked. this was started with false pictures sentby al jazeera through the media.

other media took these pictures, and confirmedthem as true, and the war was on. the most important thing is that the governmentsaid that it was open to negotiations, but nato didn't want that. later at a town hall-style gathering, thesecretary spoke of former dictator muammar gaddafi, still a fugitive, in decidedly non-diplomaticterms. ''we hope that he can be captured or killedsoon'' she said ''to prevent him from disrupting the new libya.'' we came, we saw, he died... did it have anything to do with your visit?

no, i'm sure it didn't.. ah, but the people at the top of this so-calledislamic revolution, the muslim brotherhood leaders, and al qaeda; they're all hard coresocialist, and they're international socialist. they're working also for the new world order. so everything that you see is an illusion. ah, and that's why you have this president,over there, pouring money into the muslim brotherhood - secretly giving missiles, surface-to-airmissiles to the al qaeda group like in mogadishu, or benghazi. you know this is what the whole attack therewas about [at] benghazi, was the navy seals

in the cia were trying to find out where allof these missiles, that came from the united states, who they were going to, and they haddiscovered it, and so they had to destroy all of the records. so they had this raid; burned all of the records,killed the ambassador, killed the navy seals, and destroyed all of the records in the ciaoffice. in fact it came out during an investigation:well why was the cia next door to the ambassador's office? what is this about? and why were navy seals assigned to it?

but then when it came time to defend thatcia office and the intelligence... obama and hillary clinton ordered them notto defend them, so they were slaughtered... interestingly, gaddafi almost ten years before,had warned, the reporter arnaud de borchgrave and told him that in fact that benghazi wasthe headquarters of al qaeda, and he needed help from the united states to stop them. he was terrified of them. so for ten years he was trying to get theunited states, he wanted to work with the cia, what he didn't know, was that he wasbeing set up to be assassinated. and um, what happened is: he decided thathe was going to separate from the world bank,

he was going to create his own currency, hewas going to back it with gold, and he told the world bank and the international bankersthat he wanted nothing to do with them, and he wanted them out of his country. and of course, very quickly they killed him. so he knew too much, and he was separatingfrom the world bank, which is not allowed, and the international banking cartel, said:"that's not allowed, and you'll be overthrown!" that's what happened to gaddafi.. and that's what's happening in syria, andthat's what's happening in egypt.. three major changes in the american monetarysystem have occurred, in the last one hundred

years. the first change was the creation of the federalreserve in 1913; the second change was going off the personal gold standard in 1933; thethird change was going off the national gold standard in 1971, and onto the petrodollar;an extortion racket concocted by kissinger forcing saudi arabia to sell oil for dollars. we'd give the oil producing countries militaryprotection if they obeyed, but kill them if they didn't. does saddam hussein and gaddafi ring a bell? the goal of the petrodollar was to keep thedollar as the world reserve currency.

the power that has the reserve currency getsto print money in exchange for real goods. that's why our stores are filled with cheapgoods, even though we don't produce anything in exchange. and that's why prices would shoot up if thepetrodollar was replaced. we're now at a point where the monetary systemis going to change again, but this time, the jews aren't in control. the game-changer was launched last month bythe brics, by creating a rival to the imf and world bank - jewish apparatuses of globalfinancial, and political control. the new game in town is the brics new developmentbank, and it will change the way the world

works. putin told reporters, quote: ''the internationalmonetary system depends on the u.s. dollar, to be precise, on the monetary policy of u.s.authorities; brics wants to change this!'' unquote. these are fighting words, for theyuan, the rupee, and the ruble will start replacing the dollar as the world reservecurrency. countries won't need dollars to buy oil anymore, and developing countries like ukraine won't need to borrow money from the fed andthe imf -- they can borrow it from the new development bank, and at much better terms. the imf is a death trap, it only lends forspeculation, takeovers, and control.

but the brics: to develop infrastructure,and cooperation between nations. that's their stated goal. how does this affect the average american? this transition from one currency, the dollar,to multiple currencies, will turn wall mart into a neiman marcus. prices will soar, and what remains of americanproductivity, especially agricultural, will export goods chasing the stable currencies. this will cause fewer goods produced hereavailable to americans, and scarcity will skyrocket.

and do you think that sanctions against russia,are really the cause of ''russian aggression?'' not a chance, the sanctions are a desperateresponse to the threat posed by the new development bank to the dollar reserve currency. no sooner was the bank announced, the stoogeregime in kiev shot down the plane. the demonizing of putin went into a high gear,and sanctions were ramped up. explain how the sanctions, particularly, theamerican sanctions, you know, that are really sanctions that do not allow these companies,russian companies, to in some way participate in the american financial system. why do you think, they're so effective?

well, they're very effective because the dollaris the dominant currency, in which all international trade occurs. and when we impose a sanction on a company,that means that they cannot have access to u.s. financial institutions, to u.s. businesses,or really to trade in the dollar.. yet businesses in america and germany opposethe sanctions. if the new world order is just a corporatocracy,then the businessmen would have prevailed. but the quick marshaling of american and europeansanctions, even though against their business interests, shows the existence of a supranationalglobal governance, that supercedes corporatocracy. and it shows that the character of that globalgovernance is more political than it is commercial,

it's about who controls the world. who do we know that fits this description? and can enforce a sudden global reversal ofpolicy? the international jewish money power, that'swho.. and jacob lew, and david cohen of the u.s.treasury act in behalf of that power. washington is not stupid, as paul craig robertssays: it's sinister; it's a total of international jewry, whose current monetary system is fadedto hit the skids. the brics new development bank has fired thefirst shot. thank you for your questions [to u.s. journalist]

you mentioned that russia played its partin the development of tensions that we are seeingin the world. russia did play its part, in the understandingthat it is standing up for its national interests,more firmly in so far as the situation calls for it. we are not attacking anyone, in the politicalsense of that word. we are not invading anyone. the disdain of our western friends comes fromthe fact

that we are doing just that: standing up for our national interests. it does not come from us initiating somethingthat instigates these tensions in the world. let me explain. you mentioned our aviation. geo-strategic aviation, that is. is it known to you that, russia, in the 90's halted completely (as did the ussr)

any strategic aviation in the 'further afield regions of patrol' i.e. not in the closerabroad. we halted such activity completely. u.s. geo-strategic aviation however, with nuclear weapons on board! they continued to encircle us. what for? who are you concerned about? or why are you threatening us? we continued with the non-patrol, year after year

it's only since about 3 years ago that we restarted aviation patrol furtherabroad. which party is the provocateur here? is it us? we have only 2 military bases abroad. they are in areas of known terrorism dangers. one in kyrgyzstan, and only after rebels fromafghanistan started operating in that territory. we were asked to be there by the kyrgyz authorities,

akayev was president then. the second one is in tajikistan, also on theborder with afghanistan. it is even in your [american] interests to know that everything is calm there. u.s. bases on the other hand are all overthe world. and you are telling me that i am the aggressor? have you any common sense? what are the u.s. forces doing in europe?

including nuclear weaponry?! what business have they got there? listen to me... our military budget, while increased slightlyfrom last year, in the dollar equivalent is about $50 billion. the military budget of the pentagon is almost 10 times that amount. $575 billion, i think congress signed offon.

and you're telling me that i'm the aggressorhere? have you no common sense at all? is it us putting our forces on the borderof the u.s? or other states? is it nato, or who, that is moving their bases closer to us? military infrastructure! it's not us does anyone even listen to us?

or try to have some kind of dialogue withus? the repeated answer we get is: 'mind your own business', and 'each countrycan choose its own security measures.' very well, so will we. why is the same forbidden to us? and finally... on the anti-ballistic missile-defense system... who was it that exited from the treaty that was vital to the

entire system of international security? was it us? no. it was the states. in a one-sided way. they simply withdrew from the treaty. now they are threatening us. turning their missiles towards us. not only from alaska, but from europe too. in romania, in poland...

we are right next door! and i am the aggressor here? do we want a fairer relationship? yes we do, with our national interests taken into account. both in matters of security, and in economics. we held talks with the wto for 19 years. we agreed to many compromises. we proceeded on the understanding that wto

conditions are set in stone upon joining. and then... i won't get into the ukrainian question today, of course i consider my position to be thejust position, while our western friends are in the wrong,but we will leave that for the purposes of this discussion. so we joined the wto. there are rules. in contravention to them, and in contravention to international law.

sanctions have been imposed on the russianeconomy. this is illegal. is it us that's in the wrong again? we want to develop normal relations in the sphere of security, in the fight againstterrorism, in the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. we want to work together with you on threatssuch as drug-trafficking, organized crime, the spreadof infectious diseases, including ebola.

we want to work together with you. as well as in the economic sphere. so long as you want that too. today, and building on the measures we announcedtwo weeks ago; the united states is imposing new sanctions in key sectors of the russianeconomy: energy, arms, and finance. we're blocking the exports of specific goodsand technologies to the russian energy sector, we're expanding our sanctions to more russianbanks and defense companies, and we're formally suspending credit that encourages exportsto russia, and financing for economic development projects in russia.

at the same time the european union is joiningus, in imposing major sanctions on russia.. europe's new sanctions against russia overits alleged role in the ukraine crisis have come into force. that's despite a week old ceasefire deal whichappears fragile, but is largely holding. the measures affect ordinary russians. imposing sanctions other countries is verygood he said. we need to develop industries of our own here. alisa said: what really worries me is notthe measures imposed from europe, but the ones that were announced in return from ourside; because they affect individual people.

..its most significant and wide-ranging sanctionsto date. in the financial sector, the eu is cuttingoff certain financing to state-owned banks in russia. in the energy sector, the eu will stop exportingspecific goods and technologies to russia, which will make it more difficult for russiato develop its oil resources over the long term. in the defense sector, the eu is prohibitingnew arms imports and exports and is halting the exports of sensitive technology to russia'smilitary users. and because we're closely coordinating ouractions with europe, the sanctions we're announcing

today will have an even bigger bite. now russia's actions in ukraine and the sanctionsthat we've already imposed have made a weak russian economy even weaker. foreign investors already are increasinglystaying away, even before our actions today nearly $100 billion dollars in capital wasexpected to flee russia. russia's energy, financial, and defense sectors are feeling the pain. projections for russian economic growth, aredown to near zero. the major sanctions we're announcing todaywill continue to ratchet up the pressure on

russia including the cronies and companiesthat are supporting russia's illegal actions in ukraine. in other words today, russia is once againisolating itself from the international community, setting back decades of genuine progress. and it doesn't have to come to this, it didn'thave to come to this. it does not have to be this way. this is a choice that russia, and presidentputin in particular, has made. the new sanctions target five state banksand curb eu business deals with energy and defense firms.

russian president vladimir putin said: thenew sanctions look ''strange.'' given his support for peace efforts in enbattledeastern ukraine. using these mechanisms seems somewhat ''strange''even against the whole strange background he said. i don't even understand what these new sanctionsare related to, maybe somebody doesn't like that we've started to follow a peace process. russia's foreign ministry said: it would hitback quickly against what it described as another hostile step. many in the eu are anxious about that revengefrom russia, the block's biggest energy supplier.

what is a unipolar world? however one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation namely one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making. it is a world in which there is one master, one sovereign, one state

and, of course, first and foremost the united states has overstepped its national borders in every way. this is visible in the economic, political, cultural, and educational policies it imposes on other nations. well, who likes this? who is happy about this?

this is syrian girl. i want to talk to you about why the new worldorder hates syria, and why they are attacking the country now. the new world order is a plan to bring allnations under the control of one power. people might argue about who the real poweris behind this agenda, but those who are observant will notice that this new world order, ornwo, is the endgame. syria has always resisted, and is the frontlines against the new world order. one of the ways that syria resists is thatsyria does not have a rothchild central bank. a rothchild central bank is a bank that hasbeen bought by the rothchild family; one of

the richest, and most powerful families inthe world. it is a bank which is under the control of:''the bank of international settlements'' which decides how much money is worth in anation, and how much debt a nation has. in libya one of the first things that happenedafter nato took over that country, is that their central bank was turned into a rothchildcentral bank. another way in which syria resists the newworld order, is that it has no loans to the international monetary fund, or imf. syria before the crisis began was a totallydebt-free country. if it has ever taken out loans, it was notto the imf, but to a trusted ally, like russia.

the first thing that egypt's new presidentmorsi did when he came to power, was sign egypt with 4 billion dollars worth of imfdebt. even though he claims to be a muslim, andislam is against debt and interest. because syria owes no money to world powers,and her bank is free from foreign control, she is able to choose her own foreign policy. this is why syria can impose imperialism,like in palestine, libya, and iraq, and ban genetically modified foods. syria has never had genetically modified food,and has recently formalized this into law. companies like monsanto, are among the warprofiteers, or ''dogs of war.''

when iraq was invaded, one of the first thingsthat the u.s.s bremer changed in the iraqi constitution was to make it illegal for farmersto store their own seeds and force them to buy genetically modified seeds from monsanto. genetically modified seeds are very sensitiveand carry a promise of being better than natural seeds. many indian farmers who bought the seeds andhad their crops fail that year committed suicide because they had no money to buy new seedsfrom monsanto, and couldn't have saved their own seeds because they had entered a contractualagreement to purchase seeds from monsanto. famine reigned as a result.

controlling food supply, is yet another constraintthe new world order uses to keep countries in check, and bring them under the controlof the one world government. syria resists these steps to control her. syrian state media doesn't shy away from discussionsof secret societies. in syria talk of secret societies is not seenas a fringe conspiracy, but mainstream. those that tell you it is not significantthat two u.s. presidential candidates: bush and kerry, were both members of the same tinysecret society: the skull and bones, are willingly blind. oil and energy flow is yet another way inwhich the world powers bring nations to their

knees. and yet another reason why syria is a target. syria recently discovered gas off its coast,and she was working on a new pipeline going through iran, iraq and syria to europe thatwould rival the btc pipeline currently going through israel. forcing oil to pass through israel throughthe btc pipeline is the way in which the new world order uses israel as their hub of controlof the oil flow between europe, asia and they can turn off the tap whenever they want,and that brings nations under their umbrella. syria's attempts to give the world an alternativeroute for oil and gas could have been a way

to free the world and put a wrench in theplans of the global dominators. and i have spoken about this at length - thatsyria is one of the last countries left that does not recognize the apartheid state ofisrael and resists the zionist agenda, which is a large part of the new world order. it is one of the main reasons the new worldorder sees syria as an obstacle to its plans, and this point requires an individual video. another reason why the new world order hatessyria, is that it is a secular country in the middle east. afghanistan, libya, iraq, and much of northafrica were secular nations - but after the

iraq war, iraq was given a more geocraticshiite government. after the arab spring, and nato bombardmentof libya, it was given a wahhabi extremist and recently, egypt became a muslim brotherhoodnation, another theocracy. and with israel being an extremist jewishtheocracy in this region; syria is really the last secular country left in the middleeast. in syria asking someone what their religionis, is insulting. and if an outsider asks you what it is: youcan't help but feel a little bit defensive, and the common answer is: ''i am syrian..'' all the prime religions have lived there inpeace for hundreds of years, and with freedom

to practice. divide and conquer is a strategy which theworld powers use to control nations, and syria's unity has been a way to resist that. syria has a very strong national and culturalidentity. if you have ever traveled the world, you willnotice that you can find the same shops and the same culture being spread everywhere. you can find the same clothing items in ashop in dubai as you can find in a shop in france. this is not the case in syria, syria holdson to its uniqueness, and its own productions.

coca cola and other foreign companies usedto be banned in syria, but years ago the current president unbanned them, which, i believewas a huge mistake. syria has its own cola production companies,that were even more delicious, that had to close down as a result of coca cola beingunbanned. but these reforms only really went so farto open up syria's economy, and syria still resisted entry of foreign companies. and i think that this is one of the otherreasons that syria is hated by the new world order. syria is one of the last countries that remaindistinct from everywhere else, and i believe

that there is a clear new world order agendato make everywhere look pretty much the same and thereby create no more nations, andone world government - what a boring world that would be. the new world order hates syria because syriais free.. so orwellian it is that they shout ''freesyria'' when they really try to enslave her. if syria falls, it will be a tipping pointthat ends up in victory for the new world order, like, stalingrad was the tipping pointbetween germany and russia in world war two. syria resists in spite of all the massivepower of the nations against her. she resists not just for herself, but forevery free person.

as i said earlier syria is the front lineagainst the new world order, so fight along side us, until the end. i guess my question is: how many times dowe have to prove that these people are blowing up people, now, never mind if they get a nuclearweapon. when do we send them an airmail message totehran? you know that, that old beach boys song ''bombiran?'' haha bomb bomb bomb, bomb, ah anyway.. in may of earlier of this year senator johnmccain republican of arizona went on a secret trip to syria to meet with rebel leaders ofthe 'free syrian army' - fighting in opposition

to bashar al-assad's syrian government. once mccain returned home, photos surfacedof his trip claiming that he had met with known terrorist, members of the rebel group'northern storm brigade'; some say an adjunct of the 'free syrian army' itself, and responsiblefor kidnapping 11 lebanese shiite pilgrims in syria. lebanon's al jadeed tv station - which is viewed as sympathetic to hezbollah - a shiite militant group fighting for assad in syria broke theoriginal story. 9 of the 11 shia kidnapped are stillbeing held, but one of the released captives identified mohammad nour, chief spokesmanand photographer, and ammar al dadikhi as

part of the northern storm's leadership andagain as the two men standing beside john mccain in this picture.the story made headlines in the united states and tough questions awaited. senator mccain, you were recently in syria, and as a result of that trip there were several reports, that claim that you had a photograph taken with a notorious kidnapper named mohammad nour, your spokesman says if that was the case it was regrettable, but, senator rand paul picked up on that and essentially said: if you don't know who you are having your photo taken with, how do you know who you're giving weapons to? well i know, i know who i met with, and i, in fact i met with a group of syrians, ah.. ah... yesterday.. obviously the question wasn't answered. so on friday of last week, september 6, christopher greene and i went

to prescott arizona for a town hall event and followed up with the senator from arizona. i've been in syria, have you been in syria? i have not... no ya have not! i have been. it's also clear that the american people overwhelmingly do not support a war in syria. a research poll said 91% of americans, do not support it... sir your statement was false, so i, don't have any response to a false statement. senator mccain, ah, what do you say about your judgement on how to pick, the good and evil in syria, when you yourself were photographed... how do we trust your judgement? picking the good and the evil in

syria.. ...that i was photographed with someone because it appeared in an al-qaeda newspaper in lebanon? you obviously know what i'm talking about.. how are we supposed to trust your judgement if you're photographed with known terrorists?.. i don't... i... i have never had anything to do with known terrorists and i am offended by your question.. senator some people believe that... the allegation came for an al-qaeda newspaperin lebanon? while al jadeed tv might been known has sympathetic,the story was also contributed to by the daily star, a lebanese newspaper, who is from 2000-2009a representative of the new york times in

the gulf region; hardly an al-qaeda affiliate. but more importantly al-qaeda was foundedby, one time cia asset osama bin laden: a sunni muslim of saudi arabia. al-qaeda, is a radical sunni muslim movement,and still heavily funded and trained by the sunni gulf states and saudi arabia to thisday. mccain obviously confuses the two. now whether it was intentional using al-qaedaas an umbrella term which many unfortunately do in america for all terrorists organizations,including hezbollah, or a flippant reminder mccain as no idea what he is talkingabout, is unclear.

nonetheless he has conflated the two. sunni wahhabist and shia militants, as ifthey are one in the same, they are not, and are in fact in bloody opposition, in the warover syria. what mccain is doing is tantamount to confusingprotestants and catholics in 17th century religious wars in europe. this either speaks volumes of his ignorance,or indifference to the fact that al-qaeda and its affiliates in syria are doing mostof the fighting, are strategically aligned with assad's enemies, including the west,and stand the most benefit from a u.s.-led strike against assad's assets..

not the 'free syrian army' who john mccain metwith clandestinely just a few months ago. the daily star thankfully cleared the airon one name ammar al dadikhi or a abu ibrahim, the former leader of the 'northern storm brigade',was actually wounded and allegedly died in turkey months before the photo was taken. and mouaz moustafa executive director of thesyrian emergency task force (an american non-profit) that helped organize the mccain trip saidnobody self-identified as nour, and none of the guys who were standing outsidewere in the meeting with john mccain. the only problem is while abu ibrahim, theold leader of northern storm was missing and presumed dead as the daily star reported,it's new leader samir alwan whose organization

still holds the 9 shia muslims, was in themeeting with senator mccain. and as far as mohammad nour and his lack ofself-identification are concerned, it's hard to envision a scenario in which he would betoting around his: ''i am a known terrorist'' badge. this is of course not the first time johnmccain has been caught, "literally palling around with terrorist" as the daily show'shost john stuart put it comically. for years as 'global research' notes, mccainhas advocated, as he is in syria for groups either directly affiliated with, or tacitlyconnected to al-qaeda franchises, and arguably in blatant violation of international law,as well as in breach of u.s. terrorism legislation.

in april 2011, on a visit to benghazi, libya,john mccain claimed that the brave fighters he met there, were not al-qaeda, to the contrary,they were 'libyan patriots' who wanted to liberate their nation. in an mpr interview that same month mccainsaid: ''they are my heroes!'' afp reported not a year later after gaddafiwas overthrown and libya was in shambles, that senator mccain, and lindsey graham meetwith abdelhakim belhadj one of the rebellion's leading figures and then head of the tripolimilitary council. belhadj, prior to and during the revolutionin libya, lead the now defunct libyan islamic fighting group, a confirmed affiliate of al-qaedaand responsible for the deaths of u.s. military

personnel in iraq during the u.s. occupation. according to an authoritative 2007 u.s. militaryacademy report. lfig is a terrorist organization on both theun security council, and the u.s. state department list. and as tony carlucci points out: mccain wasnot only rhetorically supporting illicit terrorist, but calling for material support, includingweapons, funds, training and air support; in direct violation of usc sub paragraph 2339a& 2339b: providing material support, or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations. now this material support mccain has soughtfor libyan rebels, most of whom were from

benghazi, a hotbed of islamic militancy, ofwhich claimed the lives of three americans and a u.s. ambassador, a little over a year,after john mccain gushed about his new found friends. in the end claiming ignorance is no excuse. but it is a clear example of the prevailingwisdom, or lack thereof in washington. and why american foreign policy is in perpetualfailure. but john mccain's trip also reveals a largermore interested-powers behind the effort to oust the regime of bashar al-assad. the ngos involved in libya and syria, arejust the tip of the iceberg.

first point i never said that i view the u.s. as a threatto our national security. president obama, as you said, views russiaas a threat, but i don't feel the same way aboutthe u.s. what i do feel is that, the politics of thosein the circle of power, if i may use those terms... the politics of those in power in the u.s.is erroneous. it not only contradicts our national interests,

it undermines any trust that we had in theunited states, and in that way it actually harms the unitedstates as well. undermined trust, with the understanding thatthey are one of the global leaders, in politics and in matters of the economy. i can stay silent on may things... but, as i always say, and dominic here hasjust mentioned it. one-sided actions, in the continuous searchfor the next "alliance" and coalitions, which are predetermined... this is not a method that seeks to discussand agree on mutual grounds of understanding.

these are one-sided actions. they are carried out all the time. they lead to crises. i've said this before. another threat that president obama mentionedwas isis. well, who on earth armed them? who armed the syrians that were fighting withassad? who created the necessary political/informationalclimate that facilitated this situation? who pushed for the delivery of arms to thearea?

do you really not understand as to who isfighting in syria? they are mercenaries, mostly. do you understand they are paid money? mercenaries fight for whichever side paysmore. so they arm them, and pay them a certain amount. i even know what these amounts are. so they fight, they have the arms, you can'tget them to return the weapons of course, at the end... then they discover elsewhere pays a littlemore...

so they go fight there. then they occupy the oil fields. wherever; in iraq, in syria. they start extracting the oil - and this oilis purchased by somebody. where are the sanctions on the parties purchasingthis oil? do you believe the u.s. does not know whois buying it? is it not their allies that are buying oilfrom isis? do you think the u.s. has the power to influencetheir allies? or is the point that they indeed do not wishto influence them?

then why bomb isis? in areas where they started extracting oiland paying mercenaries more... in those areas, the rebels from 'civilized'syrian opposition forces immediately joined isis, because they are paid more. i consider this absolutely unprofessionalpolitics. it is not grounded on facts, in the real world. we must support civilized, democratic oppositionin syria. so you support, arm them, and then tomorrowthey join isis.

can they not think a step ahead? we don't stand for this kind of politics ofthe u.s. we consider it to be wrong. it harms all parties, including you [usa]. when it comes to the consideration of ournational interests, i would really like it if people like you[u.s. journalist] who posed the questions, would one day head your government. maybe then we can somehow reverse the situation. if that doesn't happen, i will at least askyou to deliver my messages to your government.

to the president of the united states, thevice-president, and all other relevant people. tell them that we do not want, or look for,any confrontation whatsoever. when you start to consider our national interestsin your actions; any other disagreements we may have - theywill self-regulate. this needs to be done, not just talked about. you must consider the interests of others,and you must respect other people. you cannot "squeeze" others, having consideredonly the benefits that you require from whatever... in economics, in your military activities,in everything. look at iraq, the situation is terrible.

look at libya, and what you did there, thatgot your ambassador murdered. was it us that did this? you even had a security council decision forthis. to establish a no fly zone. what for? it was so that gaddafi's air force couldn'tfly over and bomb the rebels. this wasn't the smartest decision. but okay... what did you proceed to do yourselves?

you started bombing the territory. this is in clear contravention of the securitycouncil resolution. it is even outright aggression over a state. you did this with your bare hands. and it ended with the murder of your ambassador. whose fault is it? it is your fault. is it a good result that your ambassador wasmurdered? it is actually a terrible catastrophe.

but do not look around for somebody to blame, when it is you making these mistakes. you must do the opposite: rise above the endlessdesire to dominate. you must stop acting out of imperialisticambitions. do not poison the consciousness of millionsof people; like there can be no other way but imperialistic politics. we will never forget our relationship whenwe supported the u.s. in the war of independence. we will never forget that we collaboratedin both world wars as allies. i personally believe that the geo-strategicinterests of russia and the u.s.

are essentially the same. we must focus on this interrelationship. the lies are flying out of washington, spinningthe take down of malaysia flight mh-17 over ukraine. and the liar in chief launched: russia's toblame right from the start. the evidence indicates that the plane wasshot down by a surface-to-air missile, it was launched from an area that is controlledby russian-backed separatists inside of ukraine. moreover, we know that these separatists havereceived a steady flow of support from russia. this includes: arms, and training - it includesheavy weapons, and it includes anti-aircraft

weapons. hold on! russia says that it would have been impossibleto transport a huge mobile anti-aircraft missile system across ukraine's eastern border secretly. it would have been like driving a tank throughtsa. but hillary says that it's obvious who hadsuch a system. the ukrainian government has been quick toblame it on terrorists which is, you know, their name for the russian insurgents, andthere does seems to be some growing awareness that it probably had to be russian insurgents.

the equipment had to have come from russia.. let's rewind, and see what is obvious, evento a 5th grader. number one, who could have shot it down? kiev! who had the, equipment? it's obviously an anti-aircraft missile... yep! who could have had the expertise? it's a 5th grade homework assignment.

look hillary, kiev lied that it couldn't havefired a missile at the plane because it had no buk missile launchers deployed in the region. that's a lie that you, obama, and the jewish-ownedmainstream media are pushing. here's a kiev buk battalion moving into theregion of donetsk in eastern ukraine, filmed during the crimea crisis. during last week's take-down the russian defenseministry recorded evidence of kiev's buk-m1 system operating within the zone of operationof the ukrainian forces. but it's putin's missile! says murdoch's tabloid; and he'll have hellto pay!

says insane mccain. if it is, the result of either separatistsor russian actions, i think that there's going to be hell to pay and there should be. here's what happened: the flight path of theplane was moved over the war zone by ukraine's air traffic control. ukraine's missile battery was in place waitingfor its prey.. jewish oligarch igor kolomoisky who yats theyid appointed as governor of the dnipropetrovsk region in eastern ukraine has is own hiredmilitia, which most likely manned the battery, and launched the missile that shot the planedown.

you see, once the plane passed out of kiev'sairspace it was handed to dnipropetrovsk's air traffic control. remember kolomoisky is a dual citizen of ukraineand israel. with malaysia's capital kuala lumpur recentlycharging israel with war crimes, this would have been kolomoisky's chance for revenge. the whole thing is a 911-style false flagoperation to get nato military support for ukraine forces who are losing the ground waragainst the pro-russian separatists. it's a mock-up emergency so that a quick emotionaldecision can be made. just like pearl harbor, just like the gulfof tonkin, just like 911.

who benefits? the jewish neocons for sure, headed by nulandand gang, who has been thirsting for escalations since they engineered the overthrow of thelegitimate government of ukraine. christian russia wants peace, and that's thebiggest threat to the jewish neocons who want war. it's putin's missile! it's putin's inferno! it's putin the evil czar! plastered all over the jewish-owned press.

but russia's a bear whose cubs will fearlesslydefend the territory and honor of the motherland. we'll all have hell to pay, if warmongeringjews have their way. shot in the back four times, just before midnightmoscow time. boris nemtsov was walking with a woman ona bridge close to the kremlin. a witness says a car stopped and several peopleshot him. nemtsov, 55, was a prominent opposition leader. in politics more than 20 years, rising todeputy premier in boris yeltsin's government, and considered a possible successor. more recently nemtsov had founded the people'sfreedom party, and was mounting a large opposition

rally this sunday in moscow. tonight president putin condemned the killing,but many will believe this was the work of assassins close to the government. nemtsov was a sharp thorn in putin's side,telling cbc in 2013 that corruption in the olympics was rife. the sochi olympic games is the biggest fraudin putin's time - the biggest. his fight with president putin covered a decade. travelling abroad, including to canada, tovoice opposition. in 2011, shut out of running in the elections,he said that putin stole: ''putin stole about

13 million votes.'' just a week ago, at a rally supporting thekremlin a picture of nemtsov was held high saying that he helped organize ukraine's uprising. nemtsov himself told a russian journalist:he feared that putin would kill him because he opposed the war in ukraine. in one of his last interviews he said: ''threeyears ago we were an opposition, now we're just dissidents, we have to rebuild..'' hey everybody i'm christopher greene, you'retuning to to amtv: alternative media television, it's march 2nd, 2015.

and welcome! to the revolution. allegedly a putin critic was shot dead ona bridge, he was gunned down by putin, ''allegedly'' according to the mainstream bullshit media;that by the way has been trying to oust putin over the past several years. has even gone to the lengths of moving incahoots with saudi arabia to drive down oil prices to put pressure on the kremlin. to crash, and collapse the ruble, to sendthe economy into chaos. now question this for a minute: why wouldputin shoot openly a well-known opposition

leader, only to embolden, and create a martyrfor his own opposition. again, the same thing happened with basharal-assad in syria when they tried to position the ghouta chemical attack, but failed - itcame out later from the united nations' carla del ponte saying and accusing that it wasactually the rebels armed and backed by the west on the ground not the bashar al-assadgovernment. just like bashar al-assad wouldn't wish hisown demise, nor would putin. allegedly an opposition leader was kill byvladimir putin, the president of russia. which we know is total and utter bullshit. again there's no motive to do it; the mainstreammedia says that it's because: ''putin wants to instill fear

in his people.'' well i've got a newsflash for you, he doesn'tneed to instill fear in his people, his people actually, i think are fearful of him, andalready do respect his leadership. in fact he has overwhelming support in russia,not just from the oligarchs he represents, kind of like here in the united states ofamerica, but also his people, that by the way hate the united states of america. so, again, get your detectors out, your bullshitmeters, total and utter bullshit. in fact this hurts putin, it's exactly whythe west has positioned this. ah, for example!

let me give you an example! specific one, the president of the unitedstates barack obama here in the good old ussa, has been openly assassinating and murderingiranian nuclear scientists for some time now. it happened recently; a lot of these peoplejust go missing or they wind up dead, because the united states goes and kills them. while at the same time the president of theunited states is negotiating with iran so that they can get a nuke. so that they can get a bomb within ten years... as long as they're good!

yeah! that's right! obama's gonna give them a nuke. while at the same time he's openly murderingtheir scientists, again, all these just plan and utter facts. kinda like frank underwood, you know they releaseda, the ah, what's the show on netflix? 'house of cards'' - over the weekend herelast friday, he asked a question before drone strikes: ''are there any kids in that vehicle?'' and his, you know, defense minister says:"yes there are..'' 'okay then pull the trigger!'

and he just wacks all of them, murders allof them! it's a total double standard how we try topaint putin into a corner here, the western bullshit media as some kind of satan devil worshiper,while at the same time the president here in the united states is openly murdering scientistsin iran. drone striking children, bombing schools asresult of these drone strikes in places like iraq, afghanistan, and newly found syria. so again total bullshit, this would only hurtputin, there's no motive for putin to kill openly an opposition leader, to gun him downin the broad daylight while he's walking with his model girlfriend on a bridge; becauseit only builds support for the opposition,

and putin is smarter than that. and again, the people already respect, andfear him; so there would be no reason to do this... i... i don't think putin is a complicated man;he is a kgb thug.. in his view the greatest geopolitical disasterof modern times, is the dissolution of the soviet union.. hey cruz, before you start calling a man ahundred times better than you a 'thug', try dealing with facts: putin's distress aboutthe dissolution of the soviet union is the

economic disaster and crushing hardship therussian people endured in the 90s. and he's alarmed over the west's intrusioninto former soviet republics like ukraine. as for putin being a kgb thug, it's just anotheranti-putin buzzword. putin served in east germany, not as a thug,but as some historians say: to recruit new blood, who would pledge to gobachev's reformsof perestroika and glasnost - look it up! putin was considered an outsider by the kgbold guard. we all know that you're sucking up to thejews cruz so you can be next president. you pretend to be a christian, but if youreally were, you would applaud putin for promoting the orthodox church in russia, and christianvalues among the youth.

putin's a peacemaker, just as christ commanded. instead, jewish neocons like your friend kristol,promote continual wars and political unrest. whose side are you on mr. cruz? it's time we all pick up sides! will we side with warmongering jews pushingus into a nuclear war with russia? or will we side with peacemakers around theworld, who've had enough of jewish murders and genocide. you also have said: that the worst thing happenedthe last century was the collapse of the soviet empire.

there are those who look at ukraine, especiallyukraine, and georgia, and they believe that you do not want to recreate the soviet empire,but you do want to recreate a sphere of influence which you think russia deserves because ofthe relationship that has existed... why are you smiling? why? you're making me happy because we're alwayssuspected of some ambitions, and they always try to distort something, or hint at something... i indeed said that i believe that the collapseof the ussr was a huge tragedy of the 20th century... you know why?

because first of all in a single instant 25million russian people found themselves beyond the borders of the russian federation. here they had been living within the bordersof a unified state, and always traditionally the soviet union had been called russia: sovietrussia. well, this was greater russia, then all ofa sudden the ussr collapsed, just overnight in fact, right? and it turned out that in former soviet republicsthere were people, russian people, numbering 25 million. they had been living in a single country,and all of a sudden they turned out to be

abroad. you can imagine how many problems arose: firstof all there were everyday problems; economic problems; social problems; the separationof families; you can't list them all... do you think that it's normal that 25 millionpeople, russian people, wound up abroad all of a sudden? russians turned out to be the largest dividednation in the world today... is that not a problem? well, not for you, but it's a problem forme... but do you have to use and show military forceto accomplish that objective?

no of course not! you have a military presence of the borderof ukraine and some even argue that there have been russian troops in ukraine. well, you have military presence in europe. the tactical nuclear weapons of the unitedstates are in europe, let's not forget that. what does that mean? does it mean that you've occupied germany? or that you renounced the occupation of germanyafter world war 2, and then you have only transformed the occupation forces into natoforces?

one could put it that way... but we're not putting it that way... and if we have our military forces on ourborder, on our territory, on the border with some state, you believe this is a crime? it's been called frankenstein food, whilethe science behind it is accused of dangerously toying with nature, and in russia it couldbe branded 'terrorists', genetically modified food and its potential negative health affects,are making russia take steps. rt's egor piskunov explains what's behindthe harsh measures to criminalize produces. pictures like these are becoming common indifferent parts of the globe.

in the u.s., canada, brazil, germany and china,gm foods are beginning to dominate entire sections of the market. for instance up to 85% of corn, and around90% of soy beans, are genetically modified in the states alone. after entering the world trade organizationrussia was also planning to widen its gm foods market, but now the country is making a u-turnon the policy. ''we have to protect our citizens from gmoproducts, and we can do it without violating our obligations to the wto...'' according to prime minister dmitry medvedevmoscow isn't going to allow planting genetically

modified seeds this summer like it was plannedbefore. parliament has also weighed in on the issue. the legislators are currently looking at increasingthe punishment for breaking gmo-related laws, including hiding or distorting informationon gm products which could cause physical damage. their idea is to equal such an offence toterrorism with maximum jail time of 20 years. gm products are still available in russianstores, but perhaps what we're witnessing now are the first steps for their completeban altogether. egor piskunov, rt, moscow.

i must question the government of america:are you committing the killing of american people, by signing into law, making monsantoexempt from prosecution? written by monsanto senator blunt for theuse of genetically modified organisms. well, evidently, we are not your own people. and maybe the poor are not your own people. russian president putin angrily refused tosee secretary of state john kerry, and kept him waiting about 3 hours, and when he didsee him , it was reported that president putin was so enraged that he sent a message to presidentobama condemning his obvious support of genetically modified organisms, and the giants who producethem: syngenta, du pont, monsanto, and dow.

putin and other leaders believe firmly thatthese genetically modified organisms, and a class of pesticides called neonicotinoidsis what is killing the bee population. putin said: ''this mean war, because killingthe bee population ultimately produces famine, and soon we will not be able to produce thefood to feed the people..'' according to the eu times report: the europeanunion following the lead from russia; switzerland, france, italy, slovenia, and ukraine havepassed a law to ban the use of neonicotinoids in europe. but in spite of all the pesticide-caused beedeaths, the u.s. refuses to do so. so he warned president obama through kerry:that this could trigger a global war; world

war 3. and so america has refused to stop introducingthese neonicotinoids into the american scene. and so america, you are killing your own people... he used to think that for gay and lesbiancouples, civil unions would suffice. but now president obama has concluded that'snot enough. in an abc news interview, he became the firstpresident ever to support gay marriage. for me personally, it is important for meto go ahead and affirm, that, i think same-sex couples should be able to get married. the religion of vladimir putin is based onthe idea of orthodox christian civilization.

christ is present, and pleased when men seekto build the kingdom of god on earth. this is according to the orthodox traditionof 'symphony of church and state.' where the church is the soul, and the stateis the body. the church prepares men for heaven, whilethe state preserves the culture as transformed by the church. it's a partnership building a strong russiannation! it is also important that at the new level the relations between church and state are developing.

we are true partners with joining our efforts in resolving relevant internal and globaltasks. we are implementing joint endeavors for the benefit of our homeland and people. for many years russia has become stronger. as head of the nation's body, putin is knownby his people as a key member of the russian orthodox church. only a born again type would say: ''a maninside a church doesn't make him a christian anymore than a man inside a garage makes hima car..''

but orthodoxy teaches that if one is not amember inside the church, then he is not connected to the church's head - the lord jesus christ. after a phone call with putin on the ukrainecrisis, the jewish press reported that merkel said that putin was: ''in another world!" "out of touch with reality!'' that's not what she said. what she said was: ''putin has a completelydifferent view of the world...'' indeed he does... these days the russian orthodox church

and the whole orthodox world are commemorating the 1,025th anniversary of the baptism of russia. the christianization of russia predetermined the destiny and civilizational choice of russia. orthodoxy has become a spiritual pillar. it bound, by close ties of kinship, russia, ukraine, and belarus.

the west though has lost its vigor. it's now the haunt of jewry which has devastatedits culture with depravity. it's at the end of history - a ghost of oldforms bereft of the soul it once possessed. it's swept clean, and 7 demons have enteredin its place. this is not the case with russia. after 70 years of jewish bolshevik oppression,russia is pulsing in the womb of rebirth and renewal... where orthodox churches with its golden domesand sky-blue cupolas, christian schools, and holy monasteries are sprouting throughoutits cities and dotting its countrysides.

''god and the devil are at war,'' said dostoevsky''and the battlefield is the heart of man..'' putin has drawn the battle lines. he rebuked the west for its deviant sexualmores and sick spirituality. today, many nations are revising their moral values and ethical norms, eroding ethnic traditions and differences between peoples and cultures. society is now required not only to recognize everyone's right to the

freedom of consciousness, political views, and privacy, but also to accept without question the equality of good and evil. but obama with jewish children at his sideselling sodomy extols homosexuals for charting a course for a sick new world. third we ask the president for his supportof gay marriage... we're almost done..

because we have two moms, and they are justas good as other parents. welcome all of you to the white house forpride month. we got some outstanding members of congressincluding a record number from the congressional equality caucus. major general patricia rose and her wife retiredlieutenant julie roth are here; we've got fred hochberg, and elaine kaplan, two outstandingmembers of my team, who are here. i want to congratulate nitza quinones alejandro,who just a few hours ago was confirmed by the senate, making her the first openly gayhispanic federal judge in our country's history... you know, i can't answer the part of yourquestion about whether homosexuals are born,

or made, that is beyond my professional interest,i am just not qualified to respond. i would like to draw your attention to thefact that in russia, unlike in one third of the world's countries, being gay is not acrime. in 70 countries there is criminal liabilityfor homosexuality, and in 7 of those countries they have the death penalty for homosexuality. we have recently passed a law prohibitingpropaganda, and not of homosexuality only, but of homosexuality and child abuse, childsexual abuse. but this is nothing to do with persecutingindividuals for their sexual orientation. there is a world of difference between thesetwo things, so there is no danger for individuals

of this non-traditional sexual orientationwho are planning to come to the games as visitors or participants. what about the russian church people who havecalled for the return of criminal law against homosexual people? do you support that? are you horrified by it? what's your attitude? in law the church is separate from the stateand has the right to its own point of view. i would also like to point out that almostall traditional world religions agree on this

topic. is the position of the policy different fromthat of the russian orthodox church? does islam treat individuals with non-traditionalsexually orientation differently? actually, it's even tougher. read our law carefully, and pay attentionto its name, it's called: ''ban on the propaganda of pedophilia and homosexuality. ban on thepropaganda of pedophilia and homosexuality.'' there are countries including in europe wherethey are debating the possibility of legalizing pedophilia - publicly discussing this in parliament, they can do what they want, but the people of russiahave their own cultural court, their own traditions.

it seems to me that the law that we have adapteddoesn't harm anybody. what's more people, homosexual people, can'tfeel inferior here, because there is no professional career or social discrimination against them. when they achieve great success, for example:elton john is an extraordinary person - a distinguished musician, and millions of ourpeople sincerely love him, regardless of his sexual orientation. while everyone was obsessing over caitlynjenner, cecil the lion and donald trump; the united states was accelerating its plan toprovoke a color revolution in russia, that could lead to a toppling of putin's government,and a complete reordering of the international

power structure. as i first highlighted last month, russianparliament member yevgeny fyodorov, went public to reveal a plot on behalf of the u.s. statedepartment to contrive a staged kiev-style revolution that would force putin to stepdown, and lead to the collapse of the russian federation within two years. they are conducting a negotiation process with the russian elites for the extradition of putin. the same negotiation process was conducted, for example, in ukraine for yanukovych. fyodorov asserts that russian oligarchs havebeen paid off to facilitate this coup, which will involve hundreds of thousands of peopleflooding the streets of moscow to start a

violent rebellion against putin after a furthercollapse in the russian economy causes food prices to soar. after august, through the winter, i think, by the drop of living standards, they will manage to bring out several hundred thousand people onto the streets, as in armenia. simply because, with the help of the government, they will severely crash people's living standards. this will be especially felt after the winter, in order to start a rebellion is simply need 100,000-200,000 hungry people, as in armenia, of whom 90% could be blindly exploited, while at the same time organized. they are not told they're acting for the benefit of the americans,

they are simply told: "you're hungry? then come out against the government." that's all. fyodorov's revelations were confirmed by thefact that moscow is now banning organizations from russia that were involved in the ukrainiancoup d'etat, including the nation endowment for democracy, and freedom house. as f. william engdahl notes, the ned alongwith freedom house has been at the center of all u.s. state department-financed colorrevolutions in the world since 2000 when it was used to topple milosevic in serbia. this action was taken after putin signed intolaw a measure which effectively criminalizes the activity of non-governmental organizationsthat threaten to undermine russia's constitutional

stability. china also recently passed a new law whichrestricts the activities of foreign ngos. the two superpowers are finally waking upto the fact that regime-change plots in the modern age are achieved not via bombs andtanks, but via mass subversion. expect to see an intensification of the propagandacampaign against russia over the next few months, starting with the blame-game beinglaid at moscow's door for the downing of flight mh17. some will be sceptical as to how a presidentwith an approval rating in the high 80s could possibly be overthrown, but the very factthat nato and the white house are even considering

this illustrates their staggering disconnectwith reality, which, blinded by neo-colonial imperatives threatens to place the world inthe most dangerous jeopardy since the height of the cold war. can you tell us what you meant by callingit 'revisionist' russia? revisionist russia? yeah, what does that mean? well, the secretary? yeah, secretary hagel i think that what he is referring to thereis that there appears to be in their intentions,

and their motives, um, a calling back to theglory days of the soviet union. he also used the term ''it's army'' meaning"'russia's army'' on nato's doorstep. um, why is that? is it not logical to look at this, and saythat the reason that the russian army is at nato's doorstep is because nato has expanded,rather than the russians expanding? in other words: nato has moved closer to russia,rather than russia moving closer to nato... is that not an accurate way to look at this? i think that's the way president putin probablylooks at it, it's certainly not the way that we look at it..

you don't think that nato has expanded eastwardtowards russia? nato has expanded, and the expansion has beena good thing for... so the reason that the russian army is atnato's doorstep is not the fault of the russian army, it's not the russian army that's doneit, it's nato who has moved closer to the east. i'm pretty sure that it wasn't nato who wasordering upwards of 15 battalion tactical groups to within 10 kilometers of the borderwith ukraine, and i'm pretty sure that it wasn't nato who put little green men insideukraine to destabilize eastern cities. well, i'm pretty sure that ukraine is nota member of nato.

so unless that has changed, it's not changed, but i'm pretty sure thatthe movement by russia is russia's decision... if nato is moved east, the reason that therussian army is closer or on nato's doorstep is because nato moved not... nato is not an anti-russia alliance. nato is a security alliance... for 50 years, it was an anti-soviet alliance. so do you not understand that... do you not understand how or can you not evensee how the russians will perceive it as a

threat. and the fact that it keeps getting closerto their border, while their troops... i mean the places where their troops or yousay their troops are, and may have been in ukraine and georgia are not nato members... i'm not going to pretend to know what goeson in president putin's mind or russian military commander's.. i mean i barely got a history degree at theuniversity of south florida... what i can tell you is that nato is a defensivealliance, and it remains a defensive alliance.. fair enough!

but it has moved east, correct? i mean that's just a fact. it has expanded, absolutely! right exactly! but there's no reason for anybody to thinkthat the expansion is a hostile, or threatening move. and we've been saying that throughout thelast 15 years man... you're moving closer to russia, and you'reblaming the russians for being close to nato... no, we're blaming the russians for violatingthe territorial integrity of ukraine and destabilizing

the security situation inside europe.. which is not a nato member... i, i... i see to you on that point... other countries feel threatened that are natomembers... all the puppet governments, led by israel'sbitch america - are lining up to wage yet another war on for the jews, this time insyria. it began last week when netanyahu, citingassad's 'reported' use of chemical weapons, incited america to launch stage one of worldwar 3 in a bombing operation on syria.

the reported use of chemical weapons againstcivilians is syria, is terribly disturbing. and these events prove yet again that we simplycannot allow the world's most dangerous regimes to acquire the world's most dangerous weapons... and all the players, from jerusalem, england,france, all the way to tel aviv's colony in d.c., are acting out the jewish script: destroyassad, and let al-qaeda takeover. kind of strange...the bad guys in afghanistanbecome the good guys in syria. but when the jewish tail wags the americandog, a ready submission to zionist warmongers enters center stage. brushing aside assad's denials the administration'sgoal is to punish him and to stop him from

ordering another chemical attack... there's no doubt who is responsible for thisheinous use of chemical weapons in syria: the syrian regime.. the white house says that it will releasesolid evidence that the syrian government ordered a mass chemical weapons attack onits own people last week... and here's the 'evidence' we've all been waitingfor from obama himself, whose not quite sure if what he 'concludes' is really at that conclusive. nobody disputes, or hardly anybody disputesthat chemical weapons were used on a large scale in syria against civilian populations.

we have looked at all of the evidence, andwe do not believe that the opposition possessed chemical weapons of that sort. we do not believe that given the deliverysystems using rockets that the opposition could have carried out these attacks. we have concluded that the syrian governmentin fact carried out these out... and if that's so.. at the jewish-run state department, kerrysaid just what tel aviv wanted to hear: ''syria's the culprit'' no evidence provided. our understanding of what has already happenedin syria, is grounded in facts, informed by

conscience, and guided by common-sense. we know that the syrian regime maintains custodyof these chemical weapons. we know that the syrian regime has the capacityto do this with rockets... and despite the excuses and equivocationsthat some has manufactured, it is undeniable... no way! russia says the rebels orchestrated a provocation(with their own stash of nerve gas) in order to force israel's bitch the usa into launchingan attack on assad... whose secular government protects all minoritiesincluding christians, kurds and druze. russia has warned the west against militaryintervention in syria without the approval

of the un security council. russian foreign minister sergei lavrov saysthe west is currently moving towards a quote: 'very dangerous path' adding that any unilateralattack on syrian soil could violate international law. lavrov says western countries have no proofthat the syrian government used chemical weapons in its fight against insurgents. the russian foreign minister described westernclaims of chemical weapons as hysteria.. in concert with lavrov's protestations carladel ponte, member of the un commission of inquiry on syria, told swiss tv on tuesday:''there's strong concrete suspicions that

the rebels, not assad, unleashed the deadlynerve gas...'' assad dismisses the accusations as "nonsense,"that syria would never release chemical weapons in an area where government troops were concentrated. but it's ''nonsense'' that jewmerica wantsthe world to swallow... in order to give the jews a balkanized stateon its east, with competing jihadis vying for power under the all-seeing eye of theus military... not quite what the koran envisions for 'holywar.' intensifying the terrorist network acrossthe middle east serves to further jewry's aim to see christianity destroyed in the arabworld and spread a terrorist web into russia's

underbelly and china's muslim frontier inxinjiang as a means of destabilizing those two anti-zionist countries. it's a jewish cause for which every americanwill die for. split the axis opposing zionist aggressiondown the middle, from lebanon's hezbollah in israel's north through syria in the centerto iran in the east, and a pathway for the imperialist anti-christ jewish state to runroughshod over the entire middle east is set. assad has ordered his forces to 'defend thehomeland' with the russian-made yakhont missiles to be fired upon us ships stationed on syria'scoast in the mediterranean. to be sure, he is 'defending his country'against jewish aggression, for which the us

military is just a pawn. for it's the same jewish warmongers who pushedour military into iraq, who are calling for the bombing of syria... signing their names to an open letter to obama:feith, lieberman, cohen, abrams, kristol, kagan... (sounds like a guest list to a fatal bar mitzvah)... they even got their artsy jewish poster boyfrom france bernard-henri levy... to affix his 'signature.' but thank god we're beginning to see a 'fallout.'

the arab league is against military intervention;egypt rejects it; nato-member poland wants no part of it; italy insists that the un mustdecide; britain's parliament is opposing cameron; and jordan won't let america use their territoryas a ''launching pad'' for its bombings. we've got our own problems to deal with athome instead of sending our youth to die in wars for the jews half-way across the world. and why should the us 'punish' a nation foralleged war crimes that itself is far more guilty of? what if countries wanted to 'punish' americafor its own war crimes? they could come up with a hundred reasonsto justify it.

the empire has no clothes. pax america is dying. pax judaica rises in its place. fighting wars for the jews abroad leaves asick and dying empire licking its wounds at home. well, tell me: do you think those who supportand armed opposition and mainly the terrorist organizations only in order to oust assadare acting correctly; without concern about what will happen from the outside after allthe government institutions have been totally demolished in that country?

we've already been through that, i've alreadymentioned libya. just now it was quite recently the unitedstates actively helped to destroy the state institutions, whether they were good or bad,that's a separate issue, but now they're destroyed, and now the united states has suffered greatloses - the death of their ambassador for instance... you see what it all leads us to.. that's why we support the legitimate statestructures. but i want to repeat this once again in thehope that the needed political reforms will be taken, and introduced in syria.

you've said repeatedly that assad is fightingagainst his own people, but look at those who control 60% of the territory in syria. where is the civilized opposition? 60% of the territory is controlled eitherby isis or by others, such as al-nusra, and other terrorist organizations. they're recognized as terrorist organizationsby the united states, by other states, and by the united nations. it's they and no one else who controls 60%of the syrian territories. but you believe that the way to do it is what?

what's the strategy that you are recommending,other than simply supporting the assad regime? well yes, i've already said this... we need to help assad's army because besideshis army no one is fighting isis in syria. i want you and your audience to finally realizethat no one except for assad's army is fighting isis and other terrorist groups now in syria... no one is fighting them in syria... and these insignificant attacks from the air,including the bombings by the u.s. don't bring any tangible solution to the issue - theremust be work on the ground after the bombing; it must be coordinated.

we need to understand which attacks, and wherethey must be launched, and who will come after these strikes are made on the territory. in syria there is no other force beside thearmy of bashar al-assad. what else is going to be required? um.. because i come back to the problem that manypeople look at, and they believe that assad helps isis, that his reprehensible conductagainst the syrian people using barrel bombs and worse... is a recruiting tool for isis..and that he was removed, transitioned at some point, it would be better than the fight againstisis, al-nusra, and others.

well speaking in the professional languageof intelligence services, i can tell you that this kind of assessment is clearly an activemeasure by enemies of assad - that is anti-syrian propaganda... there's nothing in common between assad andisil - they have nothing in common - they're fighting each other.. and let me repeat: assad and his army is theonly force which is indeed fighting isil. during our investigation for crimes againsthumanity and war crimes, we collected some witness testimony that made to 'appear' thatsome chemical weapons were used, in particular nerve gas... and what was... what appearedto our investigation that, that was used by

the opponents, by the rebels. and we have no indication at all that thegovernment, syrian... the authorities of the syrian government had used chemical weapons. of course now the special commission thatthe secretary general put in place will investigate and tell us what it is exactly. but, i was a little bit stupefied that ah,the first indication we got they were about the use of nerve gas by the 'opponents.' just look at the situation in the middle eastand north africa, as mentioned by the previous speaker.

indeed, political and social problems hadbeen brewing there for quite some time, and the people there had naturally wishedfor changes. but how did things actually end up turningout? rather than bring about reform, aggressiveforeign intervention has instead unceremoniously lead to the destructionof state institutions and the very way of life. instead of the triumph of democracy and progress;there is violence, poverty, and social disaster, and a disregard for human rights; includingthe right to life. one cannot help but ask those who createdsuch a situation:

do you now realize what you have done? but i'm afraid that no one is going to answerthat; as politics based on self-conceit, impunity, and beliefs in exceptionalism arenot easily abandoned. it is now obvious that the power vacuum createdin some countries in the middle east and north africa has led to the emergence of areas of anarchywhich immediately have begun to be filled with extremists and terrorists. tens of thousands of militants are now alreadyfighting under the banner of the so-called "islamic state."

among them include former iraqi servicemenwho were thrown out onto the street after the invasion of iraq in 2003. many recruits also come from libya, a countrywhose statehood was destroyed as a result of the gross violations of the united nations security council resolution1973. and now the ranks of the radicals have beenjoined by the so-called "moderate" syrian opposition supported by western countries. first they are armed, and trained, and thenthey defect to the so-called "islamic state" side.

the "islamic state" itself did not just appearfrom nowhere. it was also initially created as a tool againstundesirable secular regimes. having established a foothold in iraq andsyria, the "islamic state" is now actively expanding into other regions and is seeking dominancein the islamic world; and not only there, its plans go even further than that... this situation is extremely dangerous. under these circumstances it is hypocriticaland irresponsible to make loud declarations about the threat ofinternational terrorism,

and at the same time turn a blind eye to thechannels of funding and support for terrorists, including the proceeds from drug-trafficking,and the illicit trading of arms and oil. it would be equally irresponsible to try tomanipulate extremists groups, and place them at one's service in order toachieve one's own political objectives, in the hope of later "dealing" with them,or in other words: "eliminating" them. to those who carry our such acts, i wouldlike to say: that you are no doubt dealing with violent and cruel people, but they are by no means primitive nor stupid- they are just as clever as you are, and you never know who is manipulating whofor their own purposes.

the recent data of arms transfers to the most"moderate" opposition to terrorists, is the best evidence of that. we believe that any attempts to play gameswith terrorists, especially arming them, is short-sighted and extremely hazardous. this may result in dramatically increasingthe global terrorism threat, and engulfing new regions around the world, especially given the fact that islamic state-runcamps train militants from many different countries, including europeancountries. unfortunately, i must admit dear colleaguesthat russia is no exception.

we cannot allow these criminals who have alreadytasted blood, to return back home where they will continuetheir evil deeds. we do not want this to happen, and neitherdoes anyone else. russia has always consistently fought againstterrorism in all of its forms. today we provide military and technical assistanceto both iraq and syria, and many other countries in the region whoare fighting against terrorist groups. we believe that it is an enormous mistaketo refuse to cooperate with the legitimate syrian government and its armed forces, and with those who are courageously fightingterrorism face-to-face.

we should also acknowledge that no one butpresident assad's army, and kurdish militias. are truly fighting islamic state and otherterrorist organizations in syria. we understand all of the problems and contradictionsin the region, but we must proceed in accordance with reality. dear colleagues, i must note that in recentyears our honest and direct approach has been used as a pretext to accuse russia of growingambitions, as if those who say it have no ambitions oftheir own. however, dear colleagues, it's not about russia'sambitions, but recognition of the fact that we can nolonger tolerate the current state of affairs

the russian air force has begun airstrikesagainst isil positions in syria, after russia's upper house of parliament voted to authorizemilitary operations in the arab state. russia's defense ministry confirmed that theattacks are being conducted at the request of syria's president bashar al-assad. syrian officials say that the airstrikes arenecessary to safeguard the middle east and russia in the face of further terror. the airstrikes launched on wednesday september30th targeted ammunition vehicles, communication centers, and military equipment. russian president vladimir putin said on wednesdayduring a government meeting that his country

would not get caught up in the syrian conflict. american officials said russia gave the u.s.advance notice of the strike. this is significant! getting reports minutes ago that russia haslaunched airstrikes in syria, demanding the u.s. planes get out of syrianairspace. these fast moving developments further complicatedrelations between president obama and vladimir putin with syrian president bashar al-assadin the middle. according to russia's defense ministry itswarplanes have already destroyed isil weapon depots, communication centers, and militaryvehicles.

russia's military operations in syria couldgive government forces the edge they need to end the stalemate and push isil out ofthe country. this next headline, i can't believe that i'mactually going to read it, but it's no shock, the neocons in the united states governmentare dead-set on getting everybody in america killed, driving us deeper and deeper intowar with russia, and headlong into world war 3 john mccain has said: ''we must arm the syrianrebels to shoot down the russian planes just like we did in afghanistan.'' this is no joke... senator if you were president, in the middleof all of this, and you know or you're charging

as you did just now, (and i assume that youknow more than i do).. that the russian fighters are targeting thevery groups we are trying to help, would you shoot down those russian planes? no, but i would certainly make it clear, ahwell, i would do a whole lot of things: general david petraeus testified before the armedservices committee two weeks ago, he laid out what we need to do: we need to stop thebarrel bombing; we need to have a no fly zone; we need to have a buffer zone for refugees;we need to provide certain kinds of help... no, i know that senator, but if they're attackingthe very guys who we want to see topple assad, you would let american planes just continueto pass them and let them do that?

no, but i might do what we did in afghanistanmany years ago to give those guys the ability to shoot down those planes, that equipmentis available... who would be shooting em down? the free syrian army... just like the afghans shot down the russian.. no, just like the afghans shot down the russianplanes after russia invaded afghanistan... the u.s. president has slammed russian airstrikesagainst isil in syria, going as far as saying moscow's campaign is: ''only making the terrorgroup stronger.'' let's go live right now to rt's marina portnaya.

hi marina, so, barrack obama has said thatanti-isil strikes are ''good for isil'' - tell us more... that's right! in his first public comments since russialaunched anti-isil airstrikes into syria, u.s. president barrack obama was harsh andvery critical. he insisted that moscow's military operationis counterproductive. he said that president vladimir putin is notdistinguishing between isil and the 'moderate' opposition. obama accused the russian air force of specificallytargeting syrian rebels and he insisted that

from russia's perspective everyone opposedto syrian president bashar al-assad is a terrorist. moderate opposition in syria is one that, ifwe're ever going to have a political transition - we need... and the russian policy is driving those folksunderground, or creating a situation in which they're decapacitated and it's only strengtheningisil. america's leader said the u.s. will continuegoing after isil and working with the syrian however, obama did say, that he will be thefirst to admit that his training and equipment program for the syrian opposition has notworked the way it was supposed to. now when president putin spoke to the unitednations general assembly earlier this week

he proposed the creation of one unified broadcoalition to defeat isis, a suggestion that the u.s. president appears to be playing down. the problem here is assad, and the brutalitythat he has inflicted on the syrian people... and that it has to stop. now however when it comes to getting moreinvolved in syria such as putting boots on the ground obama says that america does needto learn from the mistakes of afghanistan and iraq and not commit to starting somethingthat it cannot finish. iran and assad make up mr. putin's coalitionat the moment... the rest of the world makes up ours...

now, obama said that it is in the u.s.s bestinterest for russia to be successful in syria and to be an active partner on the internationalstage. he said that syria will not be turned intoa proxy war between the u.s. and russia, he said that would not be in anyone's best interest. but as you can hear from his comments, veryharsh comments, he is not in support of these anti-isil operations that russia launchedearlier this week. ah listen syria just next door to where youare, you're talking to people on the ground there in syria, as far as the question andchristiane pointed out the inaccuracy in what we just heard.

russia says that it's targeting isis and obviouslythat's not the case. it's not according to a number of activiststhat we have been speaking to, in fact a lot of these areas especially those that weretargeted in north of homs right along the north-south, very strategic highway whereareas that the assad regime itself in the last month has been pounding fairly intenselyas well. and you know, russia's involvement in allof this at this stage does really shift the dynamics, christiane was pointing it out aswell. and it also in the sense could possibly pushmore people towards isis; but what is also going to be very critical right now is howthe u.s. is going to react to these moves

by russia if they are in fact able to 100%determine/ascertain that russia was not bombing isis... we hear u.s. officials say that russia isnot targeting isil. the state department's spoke person soundedquite certain about this. he said quote: ''we have no indication thatthey're actually hitting isil targets.'' but how does he know this? we have a list of the cities that russia hastargeted, it includes raqqa which is known to be the de facto capital of the islamicstate; idlib which the u.s. itself targeted in july this year; homs where in august morethan 200 civilians were kidnapped by isil,

and that the state department issued a statementcondemning this. can the state department say for certain thatthere was no isil to target in those places? i asked... one of the cities that russia has targetedis raqqa. would you say that raqqa is isil free? ah, no, and in fact i said, i think that isaid that the preponderance of targets that they've hit... okay, let's look at other cities.. i heard that..

what about idlib? it is lsil free? that's another city that russia has targeted. okay, get your breath... um, so, what we've seen in the initial airstrikesthat russia carried out, beginning last week, were primarily targeting places where isilwasn't ensconced, didn't exist, didn't have a presence, and frankly it was where 'moderate'syrian opposition forces are generally located. so the u.s. claims that russia is targetingmoderate elements in the syrian opposition. just a little while ago we heard u.s. officialssay how difficult it is to identify those

moderate opposition forces. we're trying to recruit and identify peoplethat, as you put it, can be counted on... it turns out to be very hard to identify. a month ago the u.s. couldn't find enoughadequate moderate opposition forces to train and equip. and after the russian airstrikes. 'all ofa sudden' we hear that there are so many of them. that we hear about the free syrian army, wehaven't heard the words 'free syrian army' for months and ''all of a sudden!''

they're back! why couldn't you find them before? that's a mischaracterisation, so we're talkingabout, rather, two separate entities.. the free syrian army is a group of 'moderate'syrian opposition forces in combat with the syrian regime, with assad's army, with assad'smilitary... ah, what we were trying to our train and equipprogram in northern syria where isil is ensconced, was to try to find 'moderate' elements inthat area, and train them up... do you know where exactly those 'moderate'syrian opposition forces are? ah, without revealing intelligence sources,we have a pretty good sense of it yeah..

can you share that information with russia? no! oh!.. not with us.... video published online purports to shows scenesof destruction in the islamic state-held city of raqqa in northern syria on tuesday, followingwhat is said to be russian airstrikes. in the video large plumes of smoke were seenrising from tall buildings and bridges where huge craters and burnt-out vehicles blockedthe passageway. the video also showed what was said to bea damaged hospital, where chairs and wooden

boards remained scattered along its corridors. this morning rt interviewed the director ofoperations at the international committee of the red cross, dominik stillhart, and weasked him about allegations that russia bombed hospitals in syria, and he said that red crosspersonnel on the ground in syria have not reported any such incidence. do you have any evidence that russia bombedhospitals in syria? we have seen some press reporting to thatend. we have seen, um.. some syrian civil societygroups say that... um.. and i would tell you that we have other operational informationthat lead us to believe that russian targeting

has not only not been focused on isil, buthas in fact, caused, collateral damage, and some civilian casualties.. um, to include some civil infrastructure... and... so yes we've seen some information that wouldlead us to believe that russia... russian military aircraft did hit a hospital. can you share evidence of that? those are very serious allegations, reportsare not enough are they? there's..

can you offer something more solid than reports? i think i just did! i said that we have operational reportingthat would lead us to believe that that's the case... can you share that? i'm not going to talk about it!.. i'm not going to share intelligence and operationalinformation here from this podium.. you asked me a very direct question, i gaveyou a direct answer... we have reason to believe that that happened...

can you really offer no details on the hospitalthat the u.s. accuses russia of hitting? we're gonna stand by mr. kirby's words. you're not even going to say where it is? that hospital that you are saying that russiahit? what we're saying is, that we have seen informationthat russia is targeting civilian infrastructure.. and we would point you to the syrian ngoson the ground as well as open-sourced reporting on that... he spoke about a specific hospital in syria.. where exactly is it?

what details can you offer about that hospital? again, i'm not going to get into the sortof detail of operational assessment for this, maybe you should speak to the russians ontheir targeting. well, actually they have... clearly, either she or her colleagues havespoken to the russians about it, and they say that you're wrong! okay? isn't it incumbent on you to come up withsome, i mean even a location? it doesn't seem like it would be that difficult or violateany kind of intelligence thing.. intelligence

sources and methods to say where exactly itis that you're talking about when you make the accusation; that's the first thing.. and then the second thing is that you've justexpanded it quite broadly to say not just hospitals, you said that: ''the russians are actuallytargeting civilian infrastructure..'' the russians.. thank you matt, actually the russians havehit... i'm.. thank you for the verification... no, they've hit...

okay, so they're not targeting civilian infrastructure? no, and thank you for that! ah ma'am ah.. well details are especially relevant thismorning the russian defense ministry has released images and video of the hospital in sarmin,which was allegedly hit by russia. and these images, they show the building ofthe hospital which doesn't look like it was recently bombed... i printed them out just in case you haven'tseen them i.. i can show them...

can you see why it's important for the u.s.to show its evidence of the alleged destruction of a hospital by russia? how about this: i'll take your question, ifthere's information that we can share we'll get back to you, okay?.. the syrian observatory for human rights monitoringgroup said on tuesday that russian warplanes carried out airstrikes in hama province, whileunidentified jets bombarded the outskirts of raqqa. well since russia's air campaign began insyria, many western media outlets such as cnn and al jazeera have been heavily relyingon information from 'the syrian observatory

for human rights.' the syrian observatory for human rights saysthat 30 people including child soldiers have been killed... one human rights group says that russian airstrikeskilled 28 people... syrian observatory for human rights said 36people were killed... well the syrian observatory for human rightswas founded in may 2006, and it's run by one man: rami abdul rahman - a syrian immigrantbased in his home in coventry, in england. rt first traveled to the midlands to see hisheadquarters and speak with the founder. i'm asking you..

i called you in the morning and i'm going... i'm not staying here for long... i'm not published the address... i know, i know, i have nothing in my home. i told you, i have my daughter and my wife. how can you locate, and you make a mistake. i apologize, i'm not going to bother them... so they're trying to kill you okay... i'll tell you one thing.

i am in kazakhstan, you know kazakhstan? i think that's the man... so now we definitely know that the head ofthe syrian observatory for human rights is here, we're going to ask him a couple of questions. hello sir! ah do you have.. sorry.. do you have a coupleof minutes? no! no! don't take photo! we are under attack simply because we tellthe truth about what's going on in syria, apparently nobody wants to hear the truth.

do you know these people working in syria,hundreds you say personally?.. you mentioned money just now, political standingnaturally plays a certain role too. people may have totally different interests,can you really trust all of them? i know all of the activists working for thesyrian observatory for human rights. you keep saying that you know all these peoplepersonally. when was the last time you went to syria? the last time i was in syria was in 2000,but i know some of the observatory activists through common friends. this organization only takes in new membersfollowing a six month trial period, and the

candidate has to be familiar to someone withinthe organization, or to a reliable outside contact. an organization with noble intentions thattakes care of its image. i wanted to delve deeper into its work andcame across one of the most sensational updates from the syrian observatory for human rights:''russian warplanes kill 30 civilians in homs...'' published on october the 1st. the targets mentioned are: talbisa, rastan,and al-za'farana. meanwhile on the arabic version of the website,the same date, the same locations, but no mention whatsoever of russian airstrikes.

we only see the words: 'assad regime.' the contradicting reports can still be foundon the webpage. rami abdul rahman's organization has beenused as a primary source of information when it comes to syrian civil war atrocities foryears. we've been wondering what makes their activists'reports so credible, and widely trusted? well, after talking to the director, i getit: it's because: "he" trust them. we're following breaking news in the air waragainst isis. nato member turkey says it shot down a russianwarplane, flying from syria, that violated turkey's airspace.

video shows the fighter-jet on fire beforeit crashed into mountains, smoke rises over the ridge. revenge can be an ugly thing, especially ifwaged in the unfriendly skies of syria. for with the russian-syrian drive to ''drainthe swamp'' in northern syria, and loyalist forces prevailing over latakia, turkish revengewill seep to the surface. the syrian army and the national defense forces,the ndf, and hezbollah have seized back the areas of al-markashilah and jab al-ahmar inthe northern parts of latakia province on saturday. the syrian forces pushed back the militantgroups and restored full security to al-rahmalia

and al-kidr hills. looks like turkey's ambush of russia's planewas 'planned payback' due to russia's devastating strikes on edogan's syrian turkmen rebelsand allied chechen jihadists in north latakia. it's 'turkey-chechen' solidarity ever sincethe chechen wars with the terrorists 'chechen government in exile' vowing to fight for erdogan- ''the leader of the muslim people'' against russia. and saying that you're sorry, is not whatthe 'sultan' is all about. was it a mistake? and will you apologize? well, i think that if there's a party that needsto apologize it's not us.

those who violated our airspace are the oneswho need to apologize.. liar! it's your f-16 that violated syria's airspacewhen shooting down russia's plane. and the u.s. and nato know this. at minimum they would have the heat signaturesof the aircraft involved. putin has accused you of effectively 'stabbinghim in the back!' i think is the line he used. and, as being, turkey as being an 'accompliceof terror', this is pretty fiery stuff isn't it?

if mr. putin is saying that we are cooperatingwith daesh, that we are accomplices, i think that would be a huge mistake. and russia is not engaged in a fight againstdaesh in syria, on the contrary, they are actually targeting 'moderate' opposition. it's those ''moderates'' who celebrated theirwar crime when machine-gunning the russia pilot as he parachuted from the ambushed plane. how is it that these turkmen brigades - theirleader, a turkish 'grey wolf' terrorist - knew the exact time of the shoot down? how it is that their cameras, video venues,and script, were ready to go?

looks like coordinated and premeditated revenge. "there has been an airstrike, reinforced byrussian forces, to thwart a military offensive we startedin a mountainous area, al najiyah. but the russian war plane was immediatelyhit by turkish jets when they violated turkish airspace. this is a piece of the parachute...the otherpieces are afield.'' our comrades opened fire into the air. we all did. they (the pilots) died in the air.'' and when putin called turkey an ''accompliceof terrorists'' - he knew the place and the

players. i want to comment on what we are hearing about certain tribes close to turkey, the turkmens and so on. first of all, a question arises: what are representatives of turkish terroristorganizations, who show themselves on camera and post themselves all over the internet,

doing in these territories? second, what are nationals of the russian federation whom we are seeking because of their crimes and who are clearly classified as international terrorists, doing in that territory? erdogan lets them through! he's been harboring these chechen criminalsfor years. and he's not happy seeing his stolen syrianoil empire, going up in smoke.

as for the oil question and the assertion that the oil is destroyed on turkish territory, at the g20 summit, which took place in turkey as it happens, in antalya, i showed a photograph (i had already spoken publicly about this) a picture taken at a height of 5,000 meters vehicles transporting oil made a long line

that vanished over the horizon. it looks like a living oil pipeline. these are industrial-scale oil supplies coming in from parts of syria now in the terrorists' hands. this oil comes from these regions, not from other places. we see from the air where these vehicles are heading.

they are heading for turkey day and night. if the turkish authorities are destroyingthis oil, why do we not see smoke from the fires? but we're seeing lots of smoke from russianjets blowing up isis oil trucks near raqqa. for if you jettison the income isis makesfrom stolen oil, you take the jihadists down. that's exactly what putin's doing. russia's in charge, even if jewish neoconstry to get their boots on the ground. we had colonel jack jacobs on yesterday andhe said that the only way to solve this problem is to put boots on the ground.

yes there's no other way to stabilize the situation. yeah, so i am a big fan of colonel jacobs,but there are several military leaders who believe (as colonel jacobs does) that if youactually want to rebuilt and sort of, recreate syrian society, it will require true commitmenton the scale that colonel jacobs is recommending... he's going to 'recreate' syrian society withhis fellow jewish neocons? just like they did in iraq and libya? not this time! the syrians will decide their own fate, notjewish neocons.

the cat's out of the bag: turkey has beenenabling isis terror; but their revenge against russia backfired. russia's now determined more than ever tofinish the job. putin just bombed erdogan's latest weaponsshipment into northern syria... close to the border. it's a whole new ballgame, and putin's hittingthe home runs! russian mission in syria: march 2016. over 9000 sorties conducted. 400 populated areas freed from terrorist

209 isis oil production structures destroyed main roads delivering isil fuel to turkeyblocked main routes for weapons supply for terroristsblocked anti-terror strikes in syria: u.s.-led coaltion:3,600 in 600 days - russia: 9,000 in 160 days now, about the missile defense system... listen to me, we are all adults at this table.. and experienced [professionals] at that but i am not even going to hope that you aregoing to relay everything, exactly how i said it, in your publications.

neither will you attempt to influence yourmedia outlets. i just want to tell you this, on a personallevel. i must remind you, though you already knowthis, that major global conflicts have been avoided in the past few decades, due to thegeo-strategic balance of power, which used to exist. the two super-nuclear powers essentially agreedto stop producing both offensive weaponry. as well as defensive weaponry. it's simple how it works: where one side becomesdominant in their military potential, they are more likely to want to be the first tobe able to use such power.

this is the absolute linchpin to internationalsecurity. the anti-missile defense system [as previouslyprohibited in international law], and all of the surrounding agreements that used toexist. it's not in my nature to scold someone - butwhen the united states unilaterally withdrew from the amb treaty 1972 they delivered acolossal blow to the entire system of international security. that was the first blow, when it comes toassessing the strategic balance of power in the world. at that time [2002] i said that we will notbe developing such systems also, because:

a) it is very expensive, and b) we aren't yet sure how they will work [forthe americans] ''we're not going to burn our money.'' we're going to take a different option, anddevelop offensive weaponry, in order to retain said geo-strategic balance. that was all. not to threaten someone else. they said: ''fine, our defense system is notagainst you, and we assume that your weaponry is not against us.''

" do what you like!'' as i already mentioned, this conversationtook place in the early 2000s. russia was in a very difficult state at thattime. economic collapse, civil war, and the fightagainst terrorism in our caucasus region, complete destruction of our military-industrialcomplex... they wouldn't have been able to imagine thatrussia could ever again be a military power. my guess is they assumed that even that whichwas left over from the soviet union would eventually deteriorate. so they said: ''sure, do what you like!"

but we told them about the reactionary measureswe were going to take. and that is what we did. and i assure you - that today, we have hadevery success in that area. i'm not going to list everything, all thatmatters is we have modernized our military-industrial complex. and we continue to develop new generationwarfare. i'm not even going to mention systems againstthe missile-defense system! no matter what we said to our american partners[to curb the production of weaponry] they refused to cooperate with us, they rejectedour offers, and continue to do their own thing.

some things i cannot tell you right now publicly,i think that would be rude of me. and whether or not you believe me, we offeredreal solutions to stop this [arms race]. they rejected everything we had to offer. so here we are today - and they've placedtheir missile-defense system in romania. always saying: "we must protect ourselvesfrom the iranian nuclear threat!" where's the threat? there is no 'iranian nuclear threat..." you even have an agreement with them - andthe u.s. was the instigator of this agreement, where we helped.

we supported it... but if not for the u.s. then this agreementwould not exist - which i consider obama's achievement. i agree with the agreement, because it easedtensions in the area. so president obama can put this on his listof achievements. so the 'iranian threat' does not exist... but missile-defense systems are continuingto be positioned... that means we were right when we said thatthey are lying to us. their reasons were not genuine, in referenceto the "iranian nuclear threat."

once again, they lied to us. so they build this system and now they arebeing loaded with missiles. you, as journalists, should know that thesemissiles are put into capsules, which are utilized from sea-based, mid-rangetomahawk rocket launchers. these are being loaded with "anti-missiles"that can penetrate distances of up to 500km. but we know that technologies advance... we even know in which year the americans willaccomplish a new missile, which will be able to penetrate distances of up to 1000km, andthen even further... and from that moment on they will be ableto directly threaten russia's nuclear potential.

we know year by year what's going to happen- and they know that we know! it's only you that they tell tall-tales to,and you spread it to the citizens of your countries. your people, in turn, do not feel a senseof the impending danger - this is what worries me... how can you not understand that the worldis being pulled in an irreversible direction? that's the problem. meanwhile, they pretend that nothing's goingon... i don't know how to get through to you anymore...

and they justify this as a "defense" system,not weaponry that is used for the purposes of an offense. systems that "prevent aggression." this is absolutely not true. a missile-defense system is one element ofthe whole system of offensive military potential. it works as part of a whole that includesoffensive missile launchers. one complex blocks; the other launches a highprecision weapon; the third blocks a potential nuclear strike; and the forth sends out itsown nuclear weapon in response. this is all designed to be part of one system. this is how it works in current, non-nuclear,but high precision missile-defense systems.

well okay, let's put aside the actual missile'defense' issue. but those capsules into which 'anti-missiles'are inserted as i've mentioned, they are sea-based... on warships which can carry the tomahawk subsoniccruise missile system. one could deploy it to position in a matterof hours, and then what kind of ''anti-missile'' system is that? how do we know what kind of missile is inthere? all you have to do is change the programme!(non-nuclear to nuclear). that's all it would take! this would happen very quickly, and even theromanian government itself won't know what's

going on. do you think they let the romanians call theshots? nobody is going to know what is being done- not the romanians, and the polish won't either. do you think i'm not familiar with their strategies? ha! from what i can see, we are in grave danger... we had a conversation once with our americanpartners - where they said they'd like to develop ballistic missiles, but with without anuclear warhead.

and we said: "do you actually understand whatthat might entail?" so you're going to have missiles launchingfrom submarines, or ground territories - this is a ballistic missile, how do we know whetheror not it has a nuclear warhead?! can you even imagine what kind of scenarioyou can create? but as far as i am aware, they did not gothrough with developing these weapons - they have paused for now. but the other one they continue to implement. i don't know how this is all going to end... what i do know is that we will need to defendourselves.

and i even know how they will package this:"russian aggression" again! but this is simple our response to your actions. is it not obvious that i must guarantee thesafety of our people? and not only that, but we must attempt toretain the necessary strategic balance of power, which is the point that i began with. let me return to it, in order to finish myresponse. it was precisely this balance of power thatguaranteed the safety of humanity from major global conflict, over the past 70 years. it was a blessing rooted in a "mutual threat"but this mutual threat is what guaranteed

mutual peace, on a global scale. how they could so easily tear it down, i simpledon't know. i think this is gravely dangerous. i not only think that, i am assured of it. sure, "the united states are not developingweapons for the purposes of an offensive operation..." at least not that which is in the public eye,although we know for certain that this is occurring. i'm not about to get into asking that rightnow - we're perfectly aware that it is happening. i'm going to pretend for a minute that i don'tknow about it.

"okay, you're not developing it!" but the facts are: there is an anti-missiledefense system being developed in the united states. sure, today it is not in working order andwe're not yet sure if it will ever be implemented... however, theoretically, it is created in orderto be implemented. again, hypothetically - we understand thatthere will be a moment in time where our nuclear potential will be completely neutralized. our current nuclear capability i mean, canbe completely neutralized by this anti-missile defense system.

if this is the case then that means the balanceof power in the world will be completely upset. this means that one of the powers will feela complete sense of security. which, in turn, means it can do whatever itlikes, not only in regional conflicts - but, now, we are talking about its unmatched mightin global conflict. this is only food for thought, don't let mecome off like i am accusing you of something. but international relations is much like mathematics- there is nothing personal about it. therefore we will respond accordingly - buthow? we can match you in your actions and buildan equally great multi-million dollar anti-missile defense system...

or, taking into account our economic and financialcapability in the current day - we can respond asymmetrically... so that it is clear to all that: "yes thereis an anti-missile defense system [in europe] - but as it relates to russia, it is entirelypointless..." because we have a weapon that can simply nullifyit. this is the path that we are going to take. it works out cheaper for us. but in no way is this "aggression againstthe united states." i fully mirror your behavior when you saythat your anti-missile defense system "is

not targeted against us!" - then our new weapon is "not targeted againstyou" either! the nato summit has gone underway in warsaw,aiming to show resolve amid a perceived threat from russia. it's expected to agree formally to send 4battalions with 3-4 thousand troops to the baltic states in eastern poland. britain is sending 650. the aim: to reassure countries that nato isready to defend them, while trying to avoid antagonizing moscow.

"stability of the euro-atlantic region dependson security beyond our borders. while we should stand by our defense commitment,we must enhance cooperation with all partners - both in the eastern and southern neighborhood. we are not surrounded by enemies, we are surroundedby challenges." ukraine is not a member of nato but presidentporoshenko has been invited, and will meet allied leaders on saturday. president obama has called for sanctions onmoscow to be maintained until it fully complies with a ceasefire agreement in ukraine, andto help kiev defend its sovereignty. the baltic states and poland fear russia willseek to destabilize their governments.

the kremlin argues that talk of a threatfrom russia is absurd, and says that it hopes commonsense will prevail. the nato block is moving its forces to russia'sborder. these posters are absolutely everywhere herein warsaw! the defense against "russian aggression" isthe linchpin of the summit. why do they need these new battalions, missile-defenseplacements and aerodromes? the historic nato summit concluded this saturday,at which this military alliance completely changed its strategy towards russia. russia is no longer a partner on the internationalarena - russia is now the target.

in theory, it is sold as "the strengtheningof defense capabilities in eastern europe." but in practice, it is the building of newbases, missile positioning, and command centers, along our borders. there is absolutely no denying that the natoblock is preparing for war against us. nato in its entire history has yet to ''defend''someone - instead, it is covered in shame. whether this was the aggression over a sovereignstates of yugoslavia or libya; they are now building up their forces directly againstus; in the baltics, and in poland. this is also where their troops will be stationed. for now they are talking about battalions,but the strategy of these ad hoc groups is

the ability to form a large presence of troopsat our borders, at short notice. obviously: russia will respond. but how not to cross the line? we have the technology with just the rightamount of capability. many in the world were already surprised byour air operation in syria... but don't be surprised to learn that we alsohave that which we have not revealed to anybody, we even avoid mentioning it directly. take a look at this defense and security meeting,a fragment of which aired last friday. russia continues to develop its defense technologies,always increasing the spectrum on which we

can operate. this goes for on-land technologies, as wellas air force and navy capabilities. these technologies possess the ability tochange the course of events in absolutely any military environment. a new development at this nato summit wasthe invitation for mr. poroshenko. [the authorities of] ukraine for nato is theanti-russian battering ram they require. poroshenko [born waltzman] has completelysold his country, emptying it to the very bottom - it is now the poorest country ineurope, yet he is still pushing it towards surveys, not even including those of easternukraine, show that everyday ukrainians do

not want to be part of nato. for poroshenko, this is simply a ritual natophoto-session - a showcase - an absolutely groundless smile... while he's figuring out his best photo angle,eastern ukraine is under constant fire of the [u.s.-funded] ukrainian army. un figures published last saturday show recordcivilian deaths since august 2015. 12 dead - 57 wounded. the ukrainian army is firing from artillerysystems and rocket-launchers - which is most definitely prohibited by the minsk agreements.

the donbass [eastern ukraine] of course returnsthe fire against its attackers - however, the conflict in its totality is masked asthe perfect excuse for poroshenko not to change the constitution, not to hold local electionsto secede. he simply does nothing to prevent furtherbloodshed among two brotherly nations. and nato in turn, simply turns a blind eye. we have olga skabeeva reporting from warsaw. in these scenes you can see a ukrainian securityguard demonstratively obscuring our view of petro poroshenko. this whole time, ukrainian journalists werefilming the way we were obstructed from filming!

this video later ended up on the internet,with the guard being praised. [speaks ukrainian] at an almost empty briefing, poroshenko revisitedwhich of the leaders he had the chance to meet with at the summit. petr alexeevich, when can the donbass holdan election? as soon as we have security. as soon as russians stop killing ukrainians. when russia withdraws its occupying forces. having finished a standard response, he pushedour microphone away.

this is the official kiev standpoint: ukrainemust be immediately saved from "the aggressor." so, 'if they won't let us in the eu, thenat least let's join nato!' regardless of the warm embraces, stoltenbergstated that ukraine was invited not as a nato member, but as a guest. the question of membership is not currentlyon the agenda - we need to first focus on how to ensure that ukraine meets nato standardsin the future. it's at least 10 years away - and that's aquote from stoltenberg. one of the main criteria for joining natois the absence of internal conflict in any one country.

ukraine brought their very best with themto the summit: rada deputy savchenko, who appeared in questionable see-through attire. having announced many a hunger strike in thepast, the deputy seemed to have a special kind of appetite here today. nadejda, could you please tell me what isyour function here at the nato summit? [speaks ukrainian: "you won't understand whati answer you!''] "go and learn ukrainian!" savchenko sped away to an interview; at least today she didn't come barefoot, but was make-up free and clutched firmly at her bag the wholetime.

the deputy has stated many times that she'sready to be the defense minister or the next president of ukraine. she vows to start a dialogue with the donbass. [speaks ukrainian: "you won't understand whati answer you! i understand you, but you don't understandme!"] i do understand you actually... [in ukrainian: go and learn ukrainian, andthen i will talk to you!] i note that your position on the donbass differsto the position of poroshenko - have you beenable to influence him in any way?

please respond in ukrainian if you so prefer! [in ukrainian: now i don't know what you'resaying - i don't really understand russian that well.] but you speak russian perfectly... [in ukrainian: i don't understand what you'resaying.] i think i got a sense of the 'future leader:'sloppy, easily angered, but apparently happy to help. the whole time our operator had to walk backwardsand accidentally fell. [yells in ukrainian]

having informed us all of "russian aggression",savchenko leaves the summit. "russia: an exporter of instability" witha picture of president putin. this magazine was handed out to all visitorsat the entry to the stadium. warsaw is completely covered in posters of"russian aggression." polish minister of defense, macierewicz inmy view, took the cake for unprecedented anti-russian sentiment. prior to the start of the summit, he said:"russia must be immediately disbanded by force." "russia is the main threat in the world today." "for as long as russia carries out its waragainst the independent ukraine, we will continue

to view russia as the main threat to polandthat exists in the world." "how does that sound! feel free to pass on my message in its entirety! and i'm saying this because russia is theonly country in europe, that because of its militarism, undermines european law and order." "russian forces are killing people in theukraine, we can't continue in this way, and it must be stopped." yesterday, we heard a very aggressive stance,in relation to russia may attack poland in some way...

you heard this from moscow? no, i heard it here. you will never hear of any kind of aggressionfrom poland, the only aggression toward europe and the world, is coming from moscow. nato is a defense alliance, we don't planon attacking, we only intend to defend ourselves. [the end] "we see that many euro-atlantic states havetaken the way where they deny or reject their own roots, including their christian roots,which form the basis of western civilization. there, politics treats a family with manychildren as equal to a homosexual partnership;

faith in god is equal to satan. christian holidays and celebrations are abolishedor "neutrally" renamed, as if one were ashamed of those christian holidays. without the moral values rooted in christianityand other world religions, without rules and moral values which have formed and been developedover a millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity. and we think it is right and natural to defendand preserve these moral values." --vladimir putin [russia to get 'tallest statue of jesus christin the world']

Thus articles standard furniture victoria hours

A few standard furniture victoria hours, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, so this time the post furniture stands..

You're reading an article standard furniture victoria hours and this article is a url permalink https://furniturestands.blogspot.com/2018/03/standard-furniture-victoria-hours.html Hopefully this article This could be useful.

Tweet