A Nazionist German mainstream medium forewent civility and told its audience that it’s better to have a murder in the White House than a circuitous impeachment to deter the withdrawal of the US from NATO.
A German editor-publisher said that “murder in the White House” would be the easiest way to stop the “Trump catastrophe” as official impeachment through the US Congress would be too difficult.
Josef Joffe, editor and publisher of the left-leaning German newspaper Die Zeit, made the remarks during an episode of the ‘Presse club’ show on public broadcaster ARD on Wednesday.
The show featured questions from viewers, with one calling in to ask the panel if it was possible to impeach President Donald Trump and thus end what she called the “Trump catastrophe.”
“Is there still a way out of the Trump catastrophe? Is there a legal possible scenario or a passage in the Constitution which would lead to his removal from office?” the viewer asked.
One of the experts present, publicist Constanze Stelzenmüller, responded with an explanation that the legal aspects of an official withdrawal procedure are rather complex and lengthy.
“A qualified two-thirds majority of the Senate must vote for [Trump’s] removal from office to take place. There are many political and legal hurdles, a lot would have to happen for it,” Stelzenmüller said. Just as she had finished, Joffe cut in, saying, “murder in the White House, for example,” without elaborating.
Joffe and his paper have been particularly critical of Trump, as have most mainstream German publications after the US president’s controversial remarks on Chancellor Angela Merkel’s immigration policy and exiting “obsolete” NATO.
Ahead of Trump’s swearing-in ceremony, Joffe appeared in an op-ed in UK paper the Guardian, titled ‘Trump has bared his fangs to Merkel. He will do untold damage to Europe.’
On the other hand, recent US cooperation with Russia spells the end of the Khazarian puppets’ fantasy about the country’s “moderate rebels.”
As most of us already know, months prior to Donald Trump’s presidential inauguration, scores of independent journalists, NGOs, lawmakers, have visited Syria and have gathered enough information that the US-led is engaged in supporting the wrong side.
- It’s A US-led Invasion, Not Civil War in Syria | US Peace Council
- Exposed: Foreign Officers Directing Terrorists, UK Intel & Soros Run PsyOps in Syria
- Egypt Police Bust Staged Photo Shoot of ‘Wounded Aleppo Children’
- US, UK Paid “White Helmets” Help Al Qaeda Blocking Water To 5 Million Syrians
Recently, another US lawmaker visited the war zone, and concluded that “the US (needs) to put an end to the illegal war she believes it wages in Syria” after visiting Damascus and Aleppo.
Rep. Gabbard calls on US govt to stop ‘supporting terrorists’ after meeting Syria civilians & Assad
Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has called on the US to put an end to the “illegal war” she believes it wages in Syria after visiting Damascus and Aleppo. During her trip, she spoke with civilians, religious leaders, opposition leaders, and President Assad.
Gabbard described her privately-funded seven-day trip to Lebanon and Syria as a “fact-finding mission” to learn the truth about the war by speaking directly to the Syrian people. The itinerary was kept secret until Gabbard’s return to the US for security reasons.
Gabbard travelled to Beirut, and then to Damascus and Aleppo, where she spoke with Syrian students, entrepreneurs, academics, and aid workers. She also received firsthand accounts of the conflict from refugees displaced by the war.
She met with a number of religious leaders, including The Grand Mufti of Syria Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun and Archbishop Denys Antoine Chahda, who heads the Syrian Catholic Church of Aleppo.
Gabbard also met with several leaders of the Syrian opposition who spearheaded anti-government protests in 2011. She says some of them believe that the originally peaceful uprising was hijacked by jihadists “funded and supported by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, the United States.”
Contrary to the official US narrative that terrorist groups such as Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS, ISIL) and Al-Nusra Front could be “separated” from the moderate opposition which fights by their side, Gabbard said that the Syrian people she talked with do not distinguish between the various militant groups.
“Their message to the American people was powerful and consistent: There is no difference between ‘moderate’ rebels and al-Qaeda (al-Nusra) or ISIS — they are all the same,” Gabbard said, describing the essence of the Syrian conflict as “a war between terrorists under the command of groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda and the Syrian government.”
Gabbard confessed she lacked any plausible explanations to offer the Syrian people about the role of the US in the lingering conflict, as she was asked questions like: “Why is the United States and its allies helping al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups try to take over Syria? Syria did not attack the United States. Al-Qaeda did.”
The Syrian people caught in this war “cry out for the U.S. and other countries to stop supporting those who are destroying Syria and her people,” Gabbard wrote in a blog post, adding that it is the message they asked her to convey to the world, as it has been constantly muted by “one-sided biased reports pushing a narrative that supports this regime change war at the expense of Syrian lives.”
The Congresswoman revealed upon her return that she had also met with Syrian President Bashar Assad, noting that she was not originally planning to meet him, but could not pass up the opportunity in hopes of making a difference. She did not elaborate on the details of the meeting.
“If we profess to truly care about the Syrian people, about their suffering, then we’ve got to be able to meet with anyone that we need to if there is a possibility that we can achieve peace,” Gabbard told CNN’s Jake Tapper.
Brushing off criticism over the perceived ethical issues that might arise from the meeting, Gabbard said that dialogue is an indispensable prerequisite on the road to any peaceful settlement.
“Whatever you think about President Assad, the fact is that he is the president of Syria,” Gabbard said, stressing that “in order for any possibility of a viable peace agreement to occur there has to be a conversation with him.”
An Iraq War veteran and member of the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees, Gabbard is known for her sharp criticism of former US President Barack Obama’s interventionist policy in the Middle East.
Her Syria trip became a talking point within the US establishment immediately after it was announced, with some pundits alleging she intends to cozy up to the Syrian government.
In December, Gabbard introduced the Stop Arming Terrorists Act, designed to prevent the US government from providing direct assistance to terrorist groups and to “prohibit the Federal government from funding assistance to countries that are directly or indirectly supporting those terrorist groups.
“We must stop directly and indirectly supporting terrorists—directly by providing weapons, training and logistical support to rebel groups affiliated with al-Qaeda and ISIS; and indirectly through Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Turkey, who, in turn, support these terrorist groups”, Gabbard wrote.
Gabbard believes Washington should shift its approach from attempting to overthrow the Syrian government to actually combating terrorist groups. She says the US has been repeating the same foreign policy pattern “from Iraq to Libya and now in Syria,” with its pursuit of regime change which, she argues, has only brought about “unimaginable suffering, devastating loss of life” and contributed to “the strengthening of groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS.”
“I return to Washington, DC with even greater resolve to end our illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government,” Gabbard wrote in her blog post.
The reality is… every place that I went, every person that I spoke to, I asked this question to them, and without hesitation they said,
“There are no moderate rebels in Syria.” – Rep. Tusi Gabbard, (D) Foreign Affairs Committee
During the first day of Trump in the White House, specific coordinates of the terror groups’ locations in Syria were given to Russia and Turkey.
Russia Receives Daesh Coordinates in Al-Bab From US
Sputnik 19:50 23.01.2017(updated 20:54 23.01.2017)
The United States has provided coordinates of the terrorists’ targets in the city of Al-Bab in Aleppo province for Russian airstrikes. After the reconaissance check, Russia and two coalition jets have conducted joint airstrikes on the Daesh targets in the region.
“On January 22, the Russian command center at the Hmeymim airbase has received coordinates of Daesh targets in Al-Bab, Aleppo province, via the ‘direct line’ from the US-led coalition headquarters. After further data verification with the assistance of unmanned aircraft and space reconaissance, the Russian Aerospace Forces and two jets of the international coalition have conducted airstrikes on the terrorists’ targets,” the statement said.
As a result, several ammunition depots, military hardware and fuel products were destroyed.
Earlier, Russian and Turkish combat planes have carried out a new series of joint airstrikes against Daesh targets in war-torn Syria, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Monday.
“The Russian and Turkish planes carried out joint airstrikes against Islamic State terrorists in the outskirts of the town of al-Bab in Aleppo province on January 21,” the ministry said in a statement.
According to the statement, the missions involved three Russian planes, including two Su-24M and a Su-34 aircraft, and four Turkish planes, including two F-16 and two F-4 fighter-bombers.
Turkey is currently conducting an operation in Syria dubbed Euphrates Shield. On August 24, Turkish forces, supported by Free Syrian Army rebels and US-led coalition aircraft, began a military operation dubbed the Euphrates Shield to clear the Syrian border town of Jarabulus and the surrounding area from Daesh terrorist group. As Jarabulus was retaken, the joint forces of Ankara, the coalition and Syrian rebels continued the operation to gain control over Al-Bab in the Aleppo province.
Al-Bab is one of Daesh’s last remaining strongholds near the Turkish border. Capturing the city is of strategic importance to Turkey in order to prevent the Syrian Kurds taking it and unifying their own territories.
What this all means is the effective death of the “moderate rebels” fantasy that the Khazarian NATO Greater Israel plan has been anchored upon.
Death of the Syrian ‘Moderate’ Fantasy – Consortiumnews
January 26, 2017
Exclusive: Neocons and liberal hawks sold the fantasy that Syrian “moderate” rebels were a viable option when all they did was help arm Al Qaeda jihadists and worsen the bloodshed, as Jonathan Marshall explains.
By Jonathan Marshall
The neoconservative and liberal interventionist case for arming Syria’s rebels lost its last vestige of credibility this week with the routing of Free Syrian Army (FSA) forces by Al-Qaeda-linked Islamists in northwestern Syria.
Washington think-tank warriors and editorial writers have long looked to the FSA as America’s natural allies in the Syrian conflict — so-called “moderates” unblemished by the Assad regime’s cruel record of repression, or the Islamists’ preference for cutting the throats of apostates.In her memoir Hard Choices, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recounted her hope that “if the United States could train and equip a reliable and effective moderate rebel force, it could help hold the country together during a transition . . . and prevent ethnic cleansing and score settling.”In much the same way, the Reagan administration hoped — and failed — to cultivate “moderate elements” in Iran’s army through its covert arms deals with Tehran in the mid-1980s. The truth of the matter — exposed again this week — is that the FSA and other “moderates” never had the popular support or the grit to take on more fanatical warriors in Syria.On Tuesday, the Nusra Front, an Al Qaeda affiliate that rebranded itself last year as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (JFS), attacked the FSA in Idlib and Aleppo provinces with heavy artillery, suicide bombs, and even cyber attacks. Within a day, they largely succeeded in wiping out local FSA forces.JFS explained that it was punishing the FSA for “trying to divert the course of the revolution towards reconciliation with the criminal regime” of President Bashar al-Assad. The FSA recently joined other non-extremist rebel groups in Kazakhstan for inconclusive talks with the Syrian government.If Washington had provided the FSA with portable anti-aircraft missiles, as advocated by influential interventionists like Charles Lister of the Middle East Institute, those dangerous weapons would now be in the hands of one of the most extreme and lethal factions fighting in Syria with the possibility that they could be used for terrorist purposes such as shooting down civilian airliners.Similar debacles, complete with weapons transfers to extremists, have taken place many times over the past few years. In September 2013, FSA forces in the northern city of Raqqa surrendered abjectly to Islamists, despite outnumbering them. One top rebel commander said, “There is no such thing as the FSA [here]. We are all Al Qaeda now. Half of the FSA has been devoured by ISIS, and the other half joined Jabhat al-Nusra.”
Collaborating with Al Qaeda
Many FSA commanders learned their lesson and began to collaborate with Nusra Front, essentially fighting under Al Qaeda’s command. Those that steadfastly remained “moderate” paid a heavy price.
In September 2014, the Washington Post’s national security columnist David Ignatius described visiting the commander of Harakat al-Hazm, the largest CIA-vetted (i.e., “moderate”) rebel group in Syria. They had just been “chased from their headquarters” by Nusra Front, and forced to abandon their U.S.-provided anti-tank missiles and other lethal equipment.
“At some point, the Syrian street lost trust in the Free Syrian Army,” the despondent commander told Ignatius. He explained, as Ignatius put it, that “many rebel commanders aren’t disciplined, their fighters aren’t well-trained and the loose umbrella organization of the FSA lacks command and control. The extremists of the Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra have filled the vacuum.”
An Arab intelligence source confirmed to Ignatius, “the FSA is a kind of mafia. Everyone wants to be head. People inside Syria are tired of this mafia. There is no structure. It’s nothing.” Based on this experience, Ignatius declared flatly, “The problem is that the ‘moderate opposition’ that the United States is backing is still largely a fantasy.”
His conclusion was borne out a month later when Nusra Front vanquished the Western-backed Syrian Revolutionaries’ Front in Idlib province. Worse yet, the following summer, the Pentagon graduated 60 rebels, hand-picked and trained at a cost of half a billion dollars, only to have them fall apart and flee when attacked by Nusra Front.
One month after that debacle, another group of rebels handed over their U.S.-supplied trucks and ammunition to Nusra Front in exchange for safe passage — repeating the process of U.S. taxpayers arming Al Qaeda in the name of promoting “moderates.”
That pattern continues. Citing FSA officers, the ardent think-tank interventionist Thanassis Cambanis admits that “Nusra routinely harvests up to half the weapons supplied by the Friends of Syria, a collection of countries opposed to Assad, and has regularly smashed FSA factions that . . . Nusra thought were getting too strong or too popular.”
A Strategy That Backfired
In 2015, former Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford, who has long advocated a more muscular policy of arming moderate rebels against the Assad regime, confessed that the strategy had backfired.
“For a long time,” Ford said, “we have looked the other way while the Nusra Front and armed groups on the ground, some of whom are getting help from us, have coordinated in military operations against the regime. I think the days of us looking the other way are finished.”
Joshua Landis, the respected Syria expert and head of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, goes further and argues that trying to buy moderate allies with money and arms was doomed from the start.
What is the only unacceptable part of the whole scheme is the continuing land grab against the Palestinian patrimony.
Palestine is just a small piece of territory, while the entire Jewish population can be hosted in the United States itself. If the American elite loves the Jews that much, the Jews should be allocated with their own reservation in Nevada, perhaps.
That is a far better solution than the establishment of two adjacent states that have been killing each other for centuries. Otherwise, a mass extermination against all Khazarians should do the job.