The main suspect in organizing the Ataturk Airport attack is a Chechen militant by the name of Akhmed Chataev whose biography will simply knock your socks off.
The fact that some particularly stubborn types hurried to find a “Russian trail” happened largely because they did not bother to acquaint themselves with Chataev’s life story.
In January 2010 Chataev was arrested in Uzhgorod, Ukraine. Ukraine MVD head Yuriy Lutsenko said his mobile phone contained instructions on rigging explosives, and also photographs of dead bodies, including bombing victims. According to Lutsenko, the police questioned Chataev’s documents’ originality, including his refugee documents issued in Austria.The European Court of Justice forbade his extradition to Russia, therefore Ukraine sent him to Georgia where he was also accused of a crime he committed in ’00s. No information is available about that case.
Chataev in a Bulgarian court http://www.newsru.com/world/02jul2011/te
It’s a remarkable personality, but even more remarkable is the touching tolerance of European countries which could have extradited him to Russia on many occasions, where he would have been safely locked up, but he was a “Chechen freedom fighter”, which they did not hold against him.Chataev spent 13 years freely moving about Europe and CIS. According to LifeNews, he benefited from Ukrainian nationalists’ support. “The bottom line is that Chataev freely moved about Europe and CIS, often with weapons in his possession, while several countries’ governments chose to ignore his dangerous and illegal activities in order to make life harder for Russia. In January 2016, the NAC warned that Chataev was the commander of a special unit within ISIS, focusing on preparing attacks in Russia and Europe.Moreover, Chataev was arrested more than once. In 2010 he was arrested in Ukraine. Russia was not able to have him extradited because of the intervention of SBU head Valentin Nalivaichenko and the European Court of Human Rights, both of whom claimed Chataev could not get a fair trial in Russia. Ukrainian nationalists also interceded on behalf of Chataev. The Ukrainian “Tryzub” organization bearing the name of Stepan Bandera (whose members would form the core of the Right Sector during the Maidan) held a picket in front of the Procuracy office demanding his immediate liberation as a “Chechen refugee.” And he was released.https://lenta.ru/news/2016/06/30/terrakt
To the President of Ukraine Yushchenko,
To the Prime Minister Timoshenko
To SBU Head Nalivaichenko
An Address by the International Anti-Imperialist Front
According to media reports, Ukrainian law enforcement in Uzhgorod arrested a Chechen political refugee Akhmed Chataev, who also suffers from Category 2 disability.
Chataev has the official refugee status issued by Austria, where he has lived for years. He was in Ukraine on personal business, has not violated any Ukrainian laws, and intended to return to Austria before being snatched.
According to recent information, Chataev was arrested at the request of Russian special services. Moscow wants Kiev to extradite him as soon as possible because he “is a participant of combat operations against Russian forces in Chechnya. It was reported that Russian officials have already flown to Ukraine with an extradition dossier to pressure Ukraine’s government. Such actions by Ukraine’s authorities contradict not only national interests, but also common sense because the Kremlin puppet who has only recently received Putin’s approval to govern Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov, has openly called for Ukraine’s statehood to be annulled. Shortly after that, Kremlin agents in Ukraine have arrested a Chechen patriot who at one time fought against Russian aggressors and Kadyrov’s lackeys, weapon in hand. The International Anti-Imperialist Front is lodging a firm protest against sneaky actions by Fifth Column members in Ukrainian law enforcement and demands the immediate release of the unlawfully arrested Chechen freedom fighter Akhmed Chataev. If these demands are not fulfilled, the Front and other organizations may launch mass protest actions.
Down with Kremlin agents in Ukraine security structures!
For your freedom and ours!
Anti-Imperialist Commitee Executive Committee Chahirman
Dmytro Yarosh
http://zugunder.com/index.php?topic=1644
Nalivaichenko himself considered the arrest unwarranted and scandalous. He was liberated thanks to personal intervention by Nalivaichenko and Ukrainian nationalist protests.
http://www.yaplakal.com/forum3/topic1405
Now about Georgia. Saakashvili is blaming everything on his successor Ivanishvili.
“The Russian citizen Akhmed Chataev appears to be the main organizer of the Istanbul attacks. He was arrested by my government in Georgia during an operation headed by General Georgiy Lordkipanidze who is currently the head of Odessa police. Three of our police officers died in that operation,” Saakashvili wrote.
He also said that the Ivanishvili-led government which assumed power in 2012 released Chataev as a political prisoner.
“I was still the president at the time and was outspoken against his release, but the verdict was annulled by the Prosecutor’s Office. He is now free even though he killed many innocent people. My 10-year-old son traveled through that terminal shortly before the attack, therefore I feel full solidarity with the victims’ relatives. Does Georgia’s government feel the same?”, Saakashvili summed up.
http://www.dialog.ua/news/90370_14673146
The question why the “pro-Russian” Ivanishvili government did not extradite Chataev to Russia should be posed before Georgia’s government.
“At present time, the relatives of Akhmed Chataev are holding a meeting in front of the Ministry of Justice demanding his release.
Ministry officials invited the protesters to meet with the minister. The meeting will be attended by the advisor to the State Minister for Integration Issues, Meka Khangoshvili.
“The population is demanding the operation to be investigated. It is very important for us that Akhmed Chataev, who is innocent, to be released. The entire Pankissi Gorge is vouching for this man,” Meka Khankoshvili said, adding that the Prosecutor’s Office had all the legal basis to release Chataev.”
I’d like to add that in 2012, when this statement was made, Saakashvili was still president.
Georgia’s Minister of Justice at the time explains this clash as follows.
“Akhmed Chataev’s name made news after the Lopota Gorga operation. Chataev was the only one taken alive. He was accused of illegal acquisition and possession of explosives. After the government changed, the Tbilisi City Court replaced imprisonment with a conditional release under a $3000 bond. Minister of Justice Teya Tsulukyani said that she was against releasing Chataev. “I was in favor of Prosecutor’s Office paying even greater attention to such individuals following their release,” adding that it was impossible “because the Office released people only because of politics or pressure” by the former Chief Prosecutor Zurab Adeshvili.
http://www.apsny.ge/2016/pol/1467353450.p
Chataev after release, 2012
And here’s the article from Le Monde describing his arrest in Georgia, where it’s apparent that Georgia’s leaders, past and present, were trying to shift responsibility on to one another.
The confusing operation in Lopoto Gorge
On August 29, 2012, Georgian special units carried out a bloody operation in the foothills. This was the most serious incident in Russia-Georgia relations since the 2008 war. Police engaged an Islamist group which held hostage five Lapankuri inhabitants for two days. Negotiations failed, making fighting inevitable. TV showed corpses of people in camouflage and the sizable captured arsenal: Kalashnikovs, Makarov pistols with silencers, a sniper rifle, grenade launchers, most modern binoculars.
The militants wanted to penetrate into Dagestan
During the operation, Georgia’s Minister of Defense was Bacho Akhalaya who was arrested in November 2012 for abuse of authority and mistreatment of soldiers. Both political camps note that one of the reasons for the tragic outcome of the clash was the competition between Akhalaya and then-Prime Minister Vano Merabishvili, who now heads the “United National Movement” party.
Zelimkhan Khangoshvili in Pankissi GorgeSaakashvili claims the government knew of the militants only after they kidnapped five Georgians, on August 26. We were able to meet with three of them, however, they did not want to talk to us. Their relatives said they were forced to act as guides on the way toward the border with Dagestan. After two days they were exchanged for a border guard. “When we saw they have satellite phones, we asked the Americans to intercept their communications, but it was no use,” Saakashvili said. “We told the CIA rep about it. In addition, we warned the Swiss in order to show we had nothing to hide.”Before the battle, the authorities began negotiations, demanding the militants turn back. Georgian government was represented by Zelimkhan Khangoshvili. He commanded a unit of 100 militants between 2000 and 2005. FSB considers him a terrorist, but Georgia’s special services often used his help due to his familiarity with local conditions. We met with him in a restaurant on the outskirts of Tbilisi, where he told us about the militants’ final hours:“The detachment was in a forest, high in the mountains. They were waiting for us. All they had to do is cross the mountain. I said it was a mistake, Georgia would not let them pass. They were told that if they lay down their arms, those who came from Europe will have to leave, while others will be able to return home. They were very aggressive, and did not want to make any concessions. It was a dead end.”
But who were these 17 militants in Lopoto Gorge? Many were from the Chechen diaspora in Europe, particularly Austria. All told, 14 came from abroad. Two entered Georgia illegally from Russia, through Dagestan. 12 others entered the country legally: the first half in April-May 2012, the second in August. Some took a direct flight from Europe, others through Istanbul, yet others crossed the border from. Turkey at Sarpi. 11 had Russian passports which gave them to remain in Georgia without a visa. 7 had entry permits due to their status as Chechen refugees: three were issued in Austria, two in France, and one each in Finland and UK. The ombudsman claims that some were able to get Georgian passports with the aid of European embassies.
Thus these individuals came to Georgia weeks and even months before the battle. “Majority of them were Islamists, but some maintained contacts with Russian special services,” says Saakashvili loyalist and Georgia National Security Council Secretary Giga Bokeria. “Not a single European country warned us they were Islamists. Georgia’s MVD claims these individuals did not conceal their arrival in Georgia, so that the previous government knew everything about them.
10 of the militants were never caught. The ombudsman supposes the previous government’s officials helped them run away. One of them, nicknamed Abu Hamza, fought for two months in Syria, then returned to Austria. He gave an interview to a Foreign Policy journalist in Pankissi Gorge, shortly before the Boston attack. He said that about 100 Chechens were fighting against the Syrian government, but did not say anything about the Lopoto Gorge group.
A Chechen refugee in Austria
Merabi Margoshvili has no doubts his son Aslan was manipulated. In September 2011, the 22-year-old man dropped out of college. He said he was going to his friends in Finland. They were sending him money. He said he’d return in a year. But he returned in two months, saying it was too cold, and that he’ll go to Slovakia instead. I don’t know with whom.” In the end he turned up in Egypt. In March 2012 he returned to Georgia without telling his father. “Like others, he went to Egypt to study,” Merabi thinks. “He did not attend the mosque here, he hated the Wahhabites. Last summer, many Chechens from Europe came to Duisi. The government had a plan. They were manipulating the Chechens.”
Merabi believes in a conspiracy theory. He is sure he has a proof, which he already gave to the human rights defenders. It’s a license to carry weapons, specifically a Stechkin automatic pistol, issued to his son on July 23, 2012, a month before his death. Georgian MVD confirmed its authenticity, but claimed it was not difficult to obtain one. Why would a young man who just returned to the country need such a weapon? The ministry said that captured weapons were not listed in governmental inventories.
http://inosmi.ru/sngbaltia/20130516/2090
And now for the logical finale of a “freedom fighter’s” career. Chataev resurfaced in the ranks of ISIS thanks to the efforts by Ukrainian fascists, European and Georgian human rights activists, a CIA agent, and the European Court of Human Rights.
February 2015. Syria. Abu-Jihad al-Shishani in the center, our hero sitting right next to him.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=039_14205
Here’s what attracts attention. In both cases, international terrorists were supported under the pretext of struggle against Russia. That was sufficient to justify their long-standing collaboration with terrorists. but now there is a problem, since the individual whom they helped bit the hand that fed him, moreover, the hand which was politically awkward to bite (though its also apparent that Chataev simply acquired a new boss and now he no longer serves the sponsors of Chechen militants but the Great Caliph himself). I won’t even mention the well-known cases of Chechen militants receiving treatment in Turkey, as well as Georgia or Ukraine, Turkey’s trade with ISIS, and using Turkey as a Caliphate recruiting outpost.
I will only say that the “anti-Russian fighter’s” attack against the Turkish airport places all the previous protectors of Chataev in a very difficult position, so now they will aggressively deny their direct involvement in international terrorism and instead blame Russia, even though nobody other than Russia wanted this individual arrested.
Oh, and for dessert:
May it please the High Court,
We, the members of the Independent International Human Rights Group, are petitioning the Bulgarian government to release a Chechen refugee, the father of four children, Akhmed Chataev, who is being persecuted by Russia for his political beliefs. According to available information, Akhmed Chataev had his hand cut off in a Russian concentration camp, where he was also tortured with electricity which was applied to the stump.
Given all the facts of the case, Akhmed Chataev was given the status of refugee in Austria in 2003, and is therefore under the protection of the Austrian state.
In 2010, Akhmed Chataev was arrested in Ukraine and was threatened with extradition to Russia, but the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg used Rule 39 to instruct Ukraine’s government that, due to his Austrian refugee status he could not be extradited to Russia.
<…>
We believe that Bulgarian authorities’ actions are violating human rights principles, inflict injury not only to asylum seekers but also Bulgaria’s international image by demonstrating noncompliance with voluntarily accepted obligations.
Given all the facts of the case, we petition the Appeals Court of the Republic of Bulgaria to free Akhmed Chataev.
Respectfully, the members of the Independent International Human Rights Group
Viktoria Pupko–President, Anna Politkovskaya Foundation, USA
Mairbek Taramov–Director, Chechen Human Rights Center, Sweden
Nadezhda Banchik–journalist, member of Amnesty International USA
Said-Emin Ibragimov–President, World and Human Rights International Association, France
David Kudykov–journalist and writer, PEN-Club, UK
Maio Plado–human rights movement activist, Estonia
The “rogue” gallery is all present. Now all Russia needs to do is say “see we told you so”. And if they still try to smartmouth Russia about it.Use the old phrase “talk to the hand” and give the one-fingered salute to them.Nothing more need be said to them about that case.
Russia can shout that as loud as they want, but western msm simply will not print a single word!
What is most interesting is that these rogue Chechens were sent on a “soft underbelly” mission in Dagestan which was unsuccessful. Unsuccessful is the key word. And so they were either used on an easier target or turned to it out of frustration. There is for now a loosely organized deep state USA which has recently surfaced ( why feckless Obama does not fire Breedlove is a mystery to me–he probably wants to stay alive long enough to rest on his senior statesman’s laurels) .
There is a deep state Turkey. It is clear that these idiots were sponsored, but by whom? Interesting that Amnesty International went to bat for Dudaev. It appears all the usual suspects cluster around these very obvious nut cases either out of intent, self interest or naivete or all of the above. As Putin said in his speech re these people you use, “they are cruel but they are not dumb.”
Excellent report. Thanks to all for publish/translate/write it
What this report make is establish/ coroborate overlaps and close relations linking international terrorism of ISIS, Chechen separatist, Ukrainian Right Sector, an other groups of thugs with Gladio/CIA stay-behind networks, schools of terrorists located in some Sunni mosques in Egypt and the invaluable assistance for all these to have successes in its covert operations by alleged organizations defending human rights based on the AngloZionist Empire and some European embassies.
Nothing new under the sun, although it is good to see all basting ready to sew basting in this story.
Now all what should be done is forget about “partners”, lose fear of economic losses which undoubtedly we all will suffer when everything cames down and circulate this article until it reach all corners on Earth.
Let´s hold ourselves strongly, put on the belts and dream a little on this Saturday afternoon……
“schools of terrorists located in some Sunni mosques in Egypt” Oh really ?
You may want to get some serious education before you serve us rubbish, start by learning what the Sunnis (followers of the Sunnah) are, then come back and post a comment. Some people are a lot smarter when they say nothing.
You can phrase this in a much less adversarial and offensive manner Brahim. Next time, if you post like this, I’ll just delete the whole thing. Try and aim for courteous intelligent discourse, OK?
Got it, if I offended ONE person, you will easily notice that it was a reply to an offense that targeted not ONE person, but millions.
I don’t mind your remark at all, but I fail to see similar remark to the very post I replied to.
Forgive me, but this looks like a tactic. For example, whenever someone questions the wisdom of the policy of non-stop war, the pressitutes on TV twist it into impugning the honor of rank and file. So too the offense that “targeted millions.”
NATO has always supported terrorists to wage war against Russia.
“The BND, the West German intelligence service under former Wehrmacht Gen. Reinhard Gehlen, formed a new relationship with Bandera. It was a natural union. During the war, Gehlen’s senior officers argued that the USSR could be broken up if only Germany wooed the various nationalities properly. Bandera had continued lines into the Ukraine, and in March 1956 he offered these in return for money and weapons.71
…
The CIA decided to expand its operations for “the support, development, and exploitation of the Ukrainian underground movement for resistance and intelligence purposes.” “In view of the extent and activity of the resistance movement in the Ukraine,” said OPC Chief Frank Wisner, “we consider this to be a top priority project.”98
…
One CIA analyst judged that, “some form of nationalist feeling continues to exist [in the Ukraine] and … there is an obligation to support it as a cold war weapon.””
http://www.archives.gov/iwg/reports/hitlers-shadow.pdf
“German Chechens
…
In spite of previous warning by Russian officials, preparations for the action during which 130 persons died in a Moscow music hall, were made in Germany.”
http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/42772
“The Chechens’ American friends
The Washington neocons’ commitment to the war on terror evaporates in Chechnya, whose cause they have made their own”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/08/usa.russia
“Russians Blast US-UK Sponsorship Of Chechen Terror”
http://www.rense.com/general57/rusbnlt.htm
…and Serbia:
“already in the summer of 2005, the State Offices of Criminal
Investigation of Bavaria and Lower Saxony tried to convince the
Federal Office of Criminal Investigation to open a centralized
investigation concerning the known [Kosovo-Albanian – author’s note]
clans and individuals in Germany” because “many criminal culprits
from the entourage of the KLA have settled in Germany.”[7] “Yet this
demand was refused, even though the Austrian Federal Office of
Investigation and the Italian police strongly insisted that their
German colleagues finally initiate these investigations. The
rejection (…) – according to a confidential source in the Austrian
Federal Office of Criminal Investigation – came straight from the
Interior Ministry in Berlin.”
http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/56126
That was able to happen because of a huge and fatal ,for today ,error made after the war. All of the leadership and “actives” of the nazi groups weren’t executed after the war. And the rank and file non-active supporters weren’t resettled in Siberia away from others they could infect with their poison. Those families that were resettled ,over the years, mostly assimilated into the general Russian population.And we even have seen cases of their grandchildren returning to volunteer in Donbass on the side of the NAF. But instead of making a clean sweep of nazism and nazi supporters it was allowed to grow and fester. And today the grandchildren of its victims from the war, must face the grandchildren of the nazis from that era, in another life and death struggle. Hopefully we won’t make that same error this time around. But will destroy it by its roots.
Yes, an outstanding and informative bio of a known terrorist and how he was protected/supported by a network of supposed NGOs. I imagine numerous terrorist bios are similar.
In the 1970s I used to speak for Amnesty International around British universities specifically on torture methods used by governments of all shades and colours.
At that time the organisation was free and fair…the assessment in those days was that Nelson Mandela was a common criminal and he was not adopted as a political prisoner.
Around 1981 to 1983 Amnesty was infiltrated by what we refered to as ‘communists’ although by today’s concepts we would call them ‘Marxists’.
By the end of 1983 most of the old guard from the ’70s had been marginalised, kicked out or had, like me, resigned.
As a consequence common criminals like Mandela were turned, quite wrongly, in to freedom fighters and political prisoners.
So successful has the perversion been that Mandela, the common murderer, has a statue opposite the House of Commons and is lauded a hero in British society today!
Meanwhile genuine political prisoners such as Golden Dawn MPs in Greece who have been illegally imprisoned are ignored by Amnesty.
Chuggers, (charity muggers), is what we call groups of people trying to con the public out of money for various causes on London streets include Amnesty International…almost always brain washed university students who have not been taught to think.
When you point out these irregularities they are often genuinely astonished that anyone could even consider Mandela a common murderer. And they do not believe imprisoning fascist politicians in Greece is a crime.
When you point out Golden Dawn are National Socialists and not fascists, they are so poorly educated that they think National Socialism is fascism.
And these people will get degrees and go in to politics, or work in NGOs like Amnesty and believe they know it all and anything that disrupts the Neocon’s enemies’ agenda is good.
So as a parting shot I ask: “Tell me, what’s it like being on the same side as Goldman Sachs?”
Usual response is a blank stare…they are now out of their depth…these exam passer idiots are our future…we are doomed.
Thus it is totally reasonable to take it as fact that all western NGOs are working against anyone who is not a Neocon…they should be banned outright from all free thinking societies and totally ignored.
They are staffed by exam passing congenital idiots not much different than Cameron and Osborne who take instructions from political groups that are even more corrupt and dishonest than they are.
How you believe that being “National Socialists” i.e. nazis, is “somehow” better than being “fascists” is beyond me. Twenty-seven million Russians that died in the war against the nazis (half civilians) would totally disagree with you there, if they were alive to do that. National socialism was the German bastard child of the Worldwide fascist ideology. Except for a few “twerks” to give it a more specific German racist viewpoint.It was little different from its fascist parent.The differences between the two are along the lines of Pepsi and Pepsi-lite.
Uncle Bob 1
You are incorrect in considering that national socialism is or was derived from fascism. They are separate political ideologies which are not related in the sense that you allege.
It is important to understand that national socialism is a form of socialism. That ought never to be forgotten. It is not internationalist as is, for example, communism or welfare/warfare socialism or indeed democratic socialism. That is, national socialism is not a system which seeks world control or world adherence. It is directed to a single nation or even a single racial group. Nevertheless it is still socialism albeit socialism “in a different wrapper”. As with all versions of socialism, it is corrupt, immoral (evil actually) and violent- destructive of productivity, well being and wealth. As with all versions of socialism it is not sustainable and will fail sooner or later.
Fascism is a hybrid. It has elements of socialism and also allows private ownership of property, including means of production. It is the political system wherein private property is allowed to exist but the use thereof is directed by government. What develops is a system where large organisations, corporations and businesses may be privately held, most usually by a group of government cronies. The cronies and their colleagues in government then “share the loot”. In fascism the government protects its cronies from competition and guards their status in the economy, while the cronies provide funding, resources (very often weapons) and political support (not to mention a lucrative place of retirement for key persons on departing government “service”). It is a symbiotic relationship. Inevitably, though, the path is a slide into economic ruin or ruin by war. As with socialism it is destined to fail.
Some points about fascism.
Germany under Hitler was not fascist. It was socialist. Italy under Mussolini prior to WW2 was fascist. It was not the same as national socialism.
The present political arrangements in the USA are tending towards fascism, although there are elements of nationalism present.
Fascism tends towards extreme authoritarianism. In this it is similar to socialism.
Important historical points about national socialism in Germany.
Hitler was in power due to the direct assistance of Stalin. Never forget it was Stalin who ordered the Communists in Germany to support National Socialism in the elections. Without that key political block in support Hitler would have lost power, long prior to the outbreak of WW2 (which may not have occurred in the absence of the Hitler-Stalin divvy up of Poland).
The build up of extraordinary military capability under Hitler and its subsequent use against Poland, Western Europe and the Balkans was directly enabled by the USSR under Stalin. For example, the Luftwaffe was redeveloped in secret in the USSR. The Wehrmacht was able to develop & practice strategy in the USSR well away from the prying eyes of the rest of Europe and the West. Coal, oil and various other materials were supplied by the USSR to the Nazi war machine before the war and during the invasions of Poland (which was divided up between the two allies in socialism, Nazi Germany and Communist USSR). France, Battle of Britain etc. Without this assistance the German military would not have been able to function in the highly successful manner that it did.
It is likely that the invasion of the USSR was pre-emptive. After Poland, the socialists (Hitler and Stalin) were going to go to war eventually. It was only a matter of which one would start the inevitable. Hitler got in first. Stalin was planning to invade when Hitler beat him to the punch.
In the choice between socialism and fascism it is correct that the result is always the same (that is, suffering, deprivation, violence and failure). It is an iron law of human society that these horrific systems always end as they do. There is no getting around it, bad ideas (which socialism and fascism are) lead to bad results.
In conclusion, each is as bad as the other. Fortunately our choice is not restricted to death by Stalin and death by Hitler. Better to choose life.
Siotu
“It is important to understand that national socialism is a form of socialism.”
Only important in the sense that anyone spamming such nonsense is repeating the standard zionazi far right (IE: neocon propaganda) mental buggery and this should be understood.
J edgar hoover was gay, btw.
:D
I don’t know where you got that from, but its vastly historically inaccurate (actually I do know where that thinking came from. Its anti-Communist propaganda from capitalist sources. Its been around for years). Mussolini started his career as a socialist.He gave up on socialism because (among many reasons) it was an international ideology.And he wanted a movement he could mold around a nationalist ideal. While keeping some parts of socialism he adopted his fascism also to combine with capitalism. But a capitalism with a strong state involvement and control in it. Socialism was very popular among the “working class populations” throughout the Europe of the day. And all the political movements that hoped to appeal to that element in their societies (the majority of the people) included some socialist ideas in their platforms. And in some cases used the name as well. Hence the 19th Century important Austrian party called the Christian Social ( for socialist),and the party of the ex-Austrian German ,Adolf Hitler,”National Socialism”.Both of which despite having taken a few socialist ideas were considered parties on the “right” spectrum of politics.
The other numerous parties using the socialist tag on the “left” spectrum were by far more known and voted for by the common people in their countries.They ranged from the German Social Democratic Party,the French Socialist Party,Polish Social Democratic Party. To probably the most famous of all,the Russian Social Democratic Party. From which both the Bolsheviks and their rivals the Mensheviks came from. The early (pre-Hitler) National Socialists in Germany also had “some” Socialist leanings. But after Hitler came into the leadership of the party those were purged out of it. They only kept the word “Socialist” in the name as a propaganda ploy. Much as today many very “undemocratic” parties in the World have the word “democratic” as part of their party name.
Hitler at the first openly admitted that Mussolini’s fascist movement was the model for the nazi party. And if you remove the exclusive racist element in nazism the two movements are almost identical.They both are heavy into an alliance between capitalism and government. As on the German side,Krupp and IG Farben (among many others) could easily show.The only time it could seriously be considered that the Soviets and the nazis “helped” each other was before the nazis gained power in Germany. And when they and the German Communist Party were both “outsiders” in the political field of German power politics. They both cooperated for a very short time against the parties in power. But as the nazis dropped any of their “socialist” tendencies and were understood to be a threat to the working class movements,that cooperation ended.And any decent relations between nazi Germany didn’t come about until 1939. When Germany proposed the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement. And the Soviets realizing that the West was playing Hitler against them.And had no intention of allying with them to stop him, agreed to the treaty.
As to other parts of your comment. The German use of the USSR for air force training was from before Hitler. It was an agreement between the German and Soviet governments when they were both shunned by the West after WWI. And was solely a “marriage of convenience”. Hitler ended the cooperation after he came to power for ideological reasons “he hated Communism” and the Russians. And as to this thinking , ” that is, national socialism is not a system which seeks world control or world adherence”. Hitler spent 6 years and 55 million people died proving you wrong there.The nazis were intent on domination of Europe,and they hoped for the World as well. They failed in that .But it wasn’t for the “lack of trying”.
Uncle Bob 1
National Socialism was developed directly from Marxist political theory. In Germany it was always a form of socialism from its birth until its demise at the close of WW2 in 1945. The tenants of socialism were fundamental within it. They were not “purged out” of it but remained inherent to it right to the end.
National Socialism did not develop out of Fascism. It came from Marx, as Hitler openly admitted in publication, private correspondence and in conversation. That he was more circumspect on the matter in his proclamations and public speeches was due to growing awareness by the German peoples of some of the horrors going on at the time throughout the USSR. Remember also that at the time Russia was the only openly declared socialist state. Best not to scare the voters.
Hitler’s National Socialism sought to evade what he identified as problems of the Russian experience. He sought to avoid the probability of uncontrolled German killing of fellow Germans and consequent civil war (as had already occurred in Russia), considering that the structures existing in German society could be turned to the purposes of building socialism. Meanwhile he needed to demonstrate his party was not about to do to Germans what socialism was doing to the peoples of the USSR. He had to be careful identifying as socialist too openly lest he be publicly tarred with the same brush as Lenin, Stalin et al, butchers and perverts all.
Fascism is a separate branch of socialism developing on a different path from National Socialism. It is a hybrid form, combining socialism with cartelisation of industry and nationalism for pragmatic reasons. It was identified as a form of socialism by many socialist theorists and writers as early as the mid-1930s.
Hitler admired Mussolini’s successes, indeed was inspired by them, and credited the rise of Mussolini in Italy with the inspiration and motivation for his rise to power by providing an example of the means to achieve political dominance, including dominance over competing socialist political groups and by demonstrating thorough political organisation. Nevertheless he remained critical of fascism as a political system and did not consider himself or the political party he led fascist. Hitler was serious about socialism, stating that he, his party and its political ideology, were exactly as the name indicated, socialist.
It is surprising that you attempt a rhetorical wave away of the assistance granted by the USSR to the Nazis and the German military. The supply of assistance was not necessary. It persisted right until the start of Operation Barbarossa.
Don’t forget it was Stalin’s instruction to communists in Germany to support the national socialists which enabled Hitler to consolidate his bid to power. Without it he was impotent, on the way to political wilderness. There could have been no Nazi government in Germany without this key assistance. It was critical as Stalin was well aware.
By 1940 things were well along. Ramping up from 1939, some of what Nazi Germany was receiving from USSR in 1940 alone:
1,000,000 tons of cereal
500,000 tons of wheat
900,000 tons of oil
100,000 tons of cotton
500,000 tons of phosphates
1,000,000 tons of soybeans transported across USSR from Manchuria
Just consider the vastness of that. In 1940 this was titanic, especially given the poverty and shortages of items like nutritious food. There were considerable amounts of other vital raw materials delivered to Germany as well. All these vital supplies were transported right through USSR and on across occupied Poland (1940 remember), a huge logistical undertaking not to be underestimated. Stop and think on it and then think on the living conditions and suffering prevalent throughout vast areas of the USSR at the time.
Just breath-taking.
But wait, there’s more. The Germans were provided a base in the USSR, up near Murmansk. Here there was refuelling and maintenance, a launching platform for raids and for attacks on shipping. A Kreigsmarine raider was even assisted with the difficult transit through the Arctic Ocean along the northern coast of USSR so it could enter the Pacific to begin destruction of commercial shipping. The base was useful in helping to negate the British naval blockade, reducing its effect considerably.
Now there is something very important to clearly understand about what this massive support enabled. Without it Germany could not have waged war for even one calendar year. The British blockade would have bought Germany to its knees promptly. Prosecuting war against Poland alone would have run the Wehrmacht out of fuel in months. The result for Hitler would have been military calamity, as he was most certainly keenly aware. He could not have waged aggressive invasion of Poland, let alone France. Forget about Luftwaffe ever reaching let alone fighting in the skies over Britain. With Stalin’s USSR supplying Hitler’s military machine, things were different. Stalin had his back.
The violence of WW2 was delivered to Europe by the two socialist comrades agreeing to work together, divvying up Poland between them and enabling the German military machine with generously ample supplies. That was causal. Had Stalin sought to maintain a stable peace in Europe all he need have done was refuse business with Hitler. Indeed, guaranteeing the borders of independent Poland would have stopped Hitler dead. Simple enough. But peace and the well-being of the workers was not what he sought.
After Poland, that there would be war between USSR and Nazi Germany was merely a matter of when. The objectives of the two socialist systems were in direct contention. USSR was internationalist expansionist, proclaiming world-wide revolution, in particular seeking Europe placed in Stalin’s control. Meanwhile Hitler’s National Socialism was race-nationalist seeking provision of a powerful unified all-German socialist state- a racial super-state, not an international or multi-ethnic one (this is a difference you appear to have ignored). The two could not co-exist and had to clash at some point. Hitler grasped this early on. There had to be a reckoning, with resolution in favour of German National Socialism gaining a dreamed “living space in the East”. Conflict between USSR and Nazi Germany was an inevitability. Stalin and Hitler could not co-exist indefinitely. The two socialisms could not co-exist indefinitely, definitely not once they had a common border. Both were preparing for eventual hostilities, one against the other. Hitler got in first. The untold human suffering and vast toll of death that resulted was the product of a clash of socialist ideologies. It certainly was never a glorious struggle to liberate workers, rather a grim & horrific carnage of them- human sacrifice to depraved ideology.
An aside: Included in Marxist socialist theory are the demands for wholesale changes to societies to be bought about through initiations of violence on a huge scale, destruction of the individual, theft, deportations, terror, mass murder & genocide, war. Reading Marx, Engels, Lenin and the writings of various other socialist thinkers soon reveals the consistently expressed theme. Reduced to practice this delivered certain specific horrors starting with the basest humiliations and exploitation of a victim’s person such as torture, the most perverse sexual predation, imposition of terror, forced labour, proceeding from there to starvation, commission of unimaginable atrocities, death camps etc.
It is correct to remain most critical of socialism as a philosophical and political system both in theory and in practice due to its glaring inconsistencies, dishonesty, deceptions and immoralities. It is a corrupt irrationality which denies to man the free, individual and unique expression of his nature. It is bringing destruction, violence, impoverishment, corruption and failure wherever and whenever it is attempted. Indeed, a “bomb in the basement”. World-wide, in Europe and in Russia in particular, the practice and the results of it over the last century have demonstrated again and again the evil uselessness of it. Now is not the time to revisit an obsolete utterly discredited ideology which resulted in the needless suffering of so many and needless death for so many. It is not the time (nor possible) to once again demand sacrifice of people to these arbitrary & false ideas. Now it is the time to seek the better- civilisation. As the record consistently demonstrates, a civilisation fit for man is not something socialism can achieve for any of us.
Siotu
When I write comments usually,I try to cut to a common denominator,so someone doesn’t have to be an expert in a subject to understand a point. But that makes it easier for “half-truth” arguments to confuse an issue. So we will go to a more detailed explanation.Here is a fine rundown of the origins and beliefs of National Socialism. Its extremely long and detailed.Crammed full of sources which you are free to research if you wish. Since it is so long I will only highlight the points I’m trying to make to you. In a separate post I’ll answer your “Soviet-nazi” relations arguments with detailed information.That also needs a long post to cover that subject :
“National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), more commonly known as Nazism (/ˈnɑːtsɪzəm, ˈnæ-/[1]), is the ideology and practice associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party and Nazi state – and, by extension, other far-right groups. Usually characterized as a form of fascism that incorporates scientific racism and antisemitism, Nazism developed out of the influences of Pan-Germanism, the Völkisch German nationalist movement, and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary groups that emerged during the Weimar Republic after German defeat in World War I.
Nazism subscribed to theories of racial hierarchy and Social Darwinism, identifying Germans as part of what Nazis regarded as an Aryan or Nordic master race.[2] It aimed to overcome social divisions and create a homogeneous society, or “people’s community” based on national unity. The Nazis aimed to unite all Germans living in historically German territory, as well as gain additional lands for German expansion under the doctrine of Lebensraum, while excluding those deemed either to be community aliens or foreign peoples. The term “National Socialism” arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of “socialism”, as an alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism. Nazism rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle, opposed cosmopolitan internationalism, and sought to defend the private property and privately owned businesses of Aryans.
The Nazi Party was founded as the Pan-German nationalist and antisemitic German Workers’ Party on 5 January 1919. By the early 1920s, Adolf Hitler assumed control of the organization and renamed it the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, NSDAP) to broaden its appeal. The National Socialist Program, adopted in 1920, called for a united Greater Germany that would deny citizenship to Jews or those of Jewish descent, while also supporting land reform and the nationalization of some industries. In Mein Kampf, written in 1924, Hitler outlined the antisemitism and anti-communism at the heart of his political philosophy, as well as his disdain for parliamentary democracy and his belief in Germany’s right to territorial expansion.
In 1933, with the support of traditional conservative nationalists, Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany and the Nazis gradually established a one-party state, under which Jews, political opponents and other “undesirable” elements were marginalized, with several millions eventually imprisoned and killed. Hitler purged the party’s more socially and economically radical factions in the mid-1934 Night of the Long Knives and, after the death of President Hindenburg, political power was concentrated in his hands, as Führer or “leader”. Following the Holocaust and German defeat in World War II, only a few fringe racist groups, usually referred to as neo-Nazis, still describe themselves as following National Socialism.”
“Hitler took a pragmatic position between the conservative and radical factions of the Nazi Party, in that he accepted private property and allowed capitalist private enterprises to exist so long as they adhered to the goals of the Nazi state. However, if a capitalist private enterprise resisted Nazi goals, he sought to destroy it.[22] Upon the Nazis achieving power, Röhm’s SA began attacks against individuals deemed to be associated with conservative reaction, without Hitler’s authorisation.[29] Hitler considered Röhm’s independent actions to be violating and threatening his leadership, as well as jeopardising the regime by alienating the conservative President Paul von Hindenburg and the conservative-oriented German Army.[30] This resulted in Hitler purging Röhm and other radical members of the SA in what came to be known as the Night of the Long Knives.[30]
Although he opposed communist ideology, Hitler on numerous occasions publicly praised the Soviet Union’s leader Joseph Stalin and Stalinism.[31] Hitler commended Stalin for seeking to purify the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of Jewish influences, noting Stalin’s purging of Jewish communists such as Leon Trotsky, Grigory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev, and Karl Radek.[32] While Hitler always intended to bring Germany into conflict against the Soviet Union to gain Lebensraum (living space), he supported a temporary strategic alliance between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union to form a common anti-liberal front to crush liberal democracies, particularly France.[31]”
“Fascism was a major influence on Nazism. The seizure of power by Italian Fascist leader Benito Mussolini in the March on Rome in 1922 drew admiration by Hitler, who less than a month later had begun to model himself and the Nazi Party upon Mussolini and the Fascists.[91] Hitler presented the Nazis as a form of German fascism.[92][93]
In November 1923, the Nazis attempted a “March on Berlin”, modelled after the March on Rome, which resulted in the failed Beer Hall Putsch in Munich.[94]
Hitler spoke of Nazism being indebted to the success of Fascism’s rise to power in Italy.[95] In a private conversation in 1941 he said “the brown shirt would probably not have existed without the black shirt”, the “brown shirt” referring to the Nazi militia and the “black shirt” referring to the Fascist militia.[95] He also said in regards to the 1920s “If Mussolini had been outdistanced by Marxism, I don’t know whether we could have succeeded in holding out. At that period National Socialism was a very fragile growth.”.[95]
Other Nazis—especially those at the time associated with the party’s more radical wing such as Gregor Strasser, Joseph Goebbels, and Heinrich Himmler—rejected Italian Fascism, accusing it of being too conservative or capitalist.[96] Alfred Rosenberg condemned Italian Fascism for being racially confused and having influences from philosemitism.[97] Strasser criticised the policy of Führerprinzip as being created by Mussolini, and considered its presence in Nazism as a foreign imported idea.[98] Throughout the relationship between Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, a number of lower-ranking Nazis scornfully viewed fascism as a conservative movement that lacked a full revolutionary potential.[98]”
“Historians Ian Kershaw and Joachim Fest argue that in post-World War I Germany, the Nazis were one of many nationalist and fascist political parties contending for the leadership of Germany’s anti-communist movement. The Nazis claimed that communism was dangerous to the well-being of nations because of its intention to dissolve private property, its support of class conflict, its aggression against the middle class, its hostility towards small business, and its atheism.[197] Nazism rejected class conflict-based socialism and economic egalitarianism, favouring instead a stratified economy with social classes based on merit and talent, retaining private property, and the creation of national solidarity that transcends class distinction.[198]
During the 1920s, Hitler urged disparate Nazi factions to unite in opposition to Jewish Bolshevism.[199] Hitler asserted that the “three vices” of “Jewish Marxism” were democracy, pacifism, and internationalism.[200]
In 1930, Hitler said: “Our adopted term ‘Socialist’ has nothing to do with Marxist Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not.”[201] In 1942, Hitler privately said: “I absolutely insist on protecting private property … we must encourage private initiative”.[202]
During the late 1930s and the 1940s, anti-communist regimes and groups that supported Nazism included the Falange in Spain; the Vichy regime and the 33rd Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Charlemagne (1st French) in France; and in Britain the Cliveden Set, Lord Halifax, the British Union of Fascists under Sir Oswald Mosley, and associates of Neville Chamberlain.[203″
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
Part 2.
There were three parts to your post. One I answered on my above post on the origins of nazism. A second I’ll answer here. The third is your rant against Socialism and the USSR. It is your “opinion” only,so there is no real “answer” to it. Its clap-trap,but its an opinion,and of course you are free to feel that way.My only comment on it is that through the ages capitalism has led to the deaths in percentages (and actual numbers) of far more people than Socialism ever thought of. That is my “opinion” and a quick check of history would easily show that if you care to compare.So now I’ll return to your second argument that the nazis and Communists were friends (I can’t even believe you would seriously argue that,but so be it):
“In the 1920s, many in the leadership of Weimar Germany, who felt humiliated by the conditions that the Treaty of Versailles had imposed after their defeat in the First World War (especially General Hans von Seeckt, chief of the Reichswehr), were interested in cooperation with the Soviet Union, both in order to avert any threat from the Second Polish Republic, backed by the French Third Republic, and to prevent any possible Soviet-British alliance. The specific German aims were the full rearmament of the Reichswehr, which was explicitly prohibited by the Treaty of Versailles, and an alliance against Poland. It is unknown exactly when the first contacts between von Seeckt and the Soviets took place, but it could have been as early as 1919–1921, or possibly even before the signing of the Treaty of Versailles.[12][13]”
“The Soviets offered Weimar Germany facilities deep inside the USSR for building and testing arms and for military training, well away from Treaty inspectors’ eyes. In return, the Soviets asked for access to German technical developments, and for assistance in creating a Red Army General Staff.[21]
The first German officers went to the Soviet state for these purposes in March, 1922. One month later, Junkers began building aircraft at Fili, outside Moscow, in violation of Versailles. The great artillery manufacturer Krupp was soon active in the south of the USSR, near Rostov-on-Don. In 1925, a flying school was established at Vivupal, near Lipetsk, to train the first pilots for the future Luftwaffe.[2] Since 1926, the Reichswehr had been able to use a tank school at Kazan (codenamed Kama) and a chemical weapons facility in Samara Oblast (codenamed Tomka). In turn, the Red Army gained access to these training facilities, as well as military technology and theory from Weimar Germany.[22]”
“the Union of Industrialists were not only interested in cash for their weapons, they wanted a political concession. They feared the arrival of socialism in Germany and were irate at the KPD and Social Democrats objecting to providing funds for the development of new armored cruisers. Stalin would have had no compunction about ordering the German Communists to change sides if it suited his purpose. He had negotiated with the German armaments makers throughout the summer of 1928 and was determined to modernize his armed forces. From 1929 onwards, therefore, the Communists voted faithfully with the far right DNVP and Hitler’s NSDAP in the Reichstag despite fighting them in the streets.”
“After Adolf Hitler came to power on January 30, 1933, he began the suppression of the Communist Party of Germany. The Nazis took police measures against Soviet trade missions, companies, press representatives, and individual citizens in Germany. They also launched an anti-Soviet propaganda campaign coupled with a lack of good will in diplomatic relations, although the German Foreign Ministry under Konstantin von Neurath (foreign minister from 1932–1938) was vigorously opposed to the impending breakup.[36] The second volume of Hitler’s programmatic Mein Kampf (which first appeared in 1926) called for Lebensraum (living space for the German nation) in the east (mentioning Russia specifically), and, in keeping with his world view, portrayed the Communists as Jews (see also Jewish Bolshevism) who were destroying a great nation.[42] This ambition, if implemented, would be a clear danger to the security of the Soviet Union.
Moscow’s reaction to these steps of Berlin was initially restrained, with the exception of several tentative attacks on the new German government in the Soviet press. However, as the heavy-handed anti-Soviet actions of the German government continued unabated, the Soviets unleashed their own propaganda campaign against the Nazis, but by May the possibility of conflict appeared to have receded. The 1931 extension of the Berlin Treaty was ratified in Germany on May 5.[36] In August 1933, Molotov assured German ambassador Herbert von Dirksen that Soviet-German relations would depend exclusively on the attitude of Germany towards the Soviet Union.[43] However, Reichswehr access to the three military training and testing sites (Lipetsk, Kama, and Tomka) was abruptly terminated by the Soviet Union in August–September 1933.[36] Political understanding between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany was finally broken by the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact of January 26, 1934 between Nazi Germany and the Second Polish Republic.[44]
Maxim Litvinov, who had been People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs (Foreign Minister of the USSR) since 1930, considered Nazi Germany to be the greatest threat to the Soviet Union. However, as the Red Army was perceived as not strong enough, and the USSR sought to avoid becoming embroiled in a general European war, he began pursuing a policy of collective security, trying to contain Nazi Germany via cooperation with the League of Nations and the Western Powers. The Soviet attitude towards the League of Nations and international peace had changed. In 1933–34 the Soviet Union was diplomatically recognized for the first time by Spain, the United States, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Bulgaria, and ultimately joined the League of Nations in September 1934. It is often argued that the change in Soviet foreign policy happened around 1933–34, and that it was triggered by Hitler’s assumption of power.[45][46] However, the Soviet turn towards the French Third Republic in 1932, discussed above, could also have been a part of the policy change.[3]”
“By August 10, the countries had worked out the last minor technical details to make all but final their economic arrangement, but the Soviets delayed signing that agreement for almost ten days until they were sure that they had reached a political agreement with Germany.[94] The Soviet ambassador explained to German officials that the Soviets had begun their British negotiations “without much enthusiasm” at a time when they felt Germany would not “come to an understanding”, and the parallel talks with the British could not be simply broken off when they had been initiated after ‘mature consideration.’[95] Meanwhile, every internal German military and economic study had argued that Germany was doomed to defeat without at least Soviet neutrality.[96]
On August 19, the German–Soviet Commercial Agreement (1939) was reached. The agreement covered “current” business, which entailed a Soviet obligation to deliver 180 million Reichsmarks in raw materials in response to German orders, while Germany would allow the Soviets to order 120 million Reichsmarks for German industrial goods.[97][98][99] Under the agreement, Germany also granted the Soviet Union a merchandise credit of 200 million Reichsmarks over 7 years to buy German manufactured goods[100] at an extremely favorable interest rate.[98]
On August 22 the secret political negotiations[101] were revealed when German newspapers announced that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were about to conclude a non-aggression pact, and that the Soviet Union’s prolonged negotiations regarding a Triple Alliance with France and Britain had been suspended. The Soviets blamed on the Western powers their reluctance to take the Soviet Union’s military assistance seriously and to acknowledge the Soviet right to cross Poland and Romania, if necessary against their will,[102] and furthermore their failure to send representatives with more importance and clearly defined powers and to resolve the disagreement over the notion of indirect aggression.[86]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany%E2%80%93Soviet_Union_relations_before_1941
I have no doubt you are correct on your figures on trade from the USSR to Germany. But may I remind you that the USSR was not at war with Germany until June 1941 and was neutral until then. And just as the US and other neutral states traded during that period with Germany the USSR did as well. You seem to see something “sinister” in that. While I see it as normal for a neutral state. Today Russia and the NATO states have extensive trade. The EU runs on Russian gas and oil. And yet they have many disagreements and may be heading towards war. China has an immense trade with the US. And they also have serious problems that could lead to war. The US also buys rocket engines and some important raw materials from Russia. While at the same time accusing Russia’s President of “aggression” against Ukraine. Political and military matters seem to take a second place to trade today. And they seem to have then as well.
“In the 1970s I used to speak for Amnesty International around British universities specifically on torture methods used by governments of all shades and colours.
At that time the organisation was free and fair…the assessment in those days was that Nelson Mandela was a common criminal and he was not adopted as a political prisoner.
Around 1981 to 1983 Amnesty was infiltrated by what we refered to as ‘communists’ although by today’s concepts we would call them ‘Marxists’.”
LOL. BTW, did your people ever find those WMDs in Iraq which you made so much noise about?
vok tak
You make Richard Cley’s point for him.
He says he was active in Amnesty International during the 1970s prior to the infiltration by elements he did not support. Assuming Amnesty International made allegation of WMD in Iraq, then that would have to have been long after he had departed that organisation…
Siotu
sioto
Back in the time clay claims to have been associated with ai, they were purely a cold war tool of the western zionazis and nazi freakshow to use against the “evil commies”. About the time clay claims commies took over ai, it was clear their anti-USSR/PRC propaganda had passed its sell by date and they needed to criticise some of your guys’ zpc/nwo colonial freaks to remain credible.
Since you have taken clay’s chair, I’ll address the same question to you: have you found Iraq’s wmds yet.
vok tak
First, I am not in “Richard Cley’s chair”. That is a smear. Richard Cley writes for himself. I do not know him and have no involvement with him in a personal or professional capacity (other than seeing what he posted here today, same as you).
Second, there were no WMD in Iraq. That claim was a lie.
Third, as I have answered your question, I’ll recommend something for you to remember in future. You ought to desist playing the man, name-calling and smearing, especially when you are caught out. Don’t fool yourself that you can wriggle out of your mistakes by emotive blustering. That fails you and is beneath you. Instead, always try to address the topic at hand directly.
Siotu
Excellent post Richard.
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.in/2012/08/amnesty-international-is-us-state.html#_blank
https://ingaza.wordpress.com/syria/human-rights-front-groups-humanitarian-interventionalists-warring-on-syria/
Richard Cley, Dhunidas,
Mandela is not a criminal … AZ clique who pays trolls in the MSM and Alternate Media to spread lies-deception-confusion are humanity’s worst criminals, and the trolls who act as ‘His Master’s Voice’ are sociopath criminals.
Acts of public violence- plotting and directing same, signing off on murders- political or civilian, that’s criminal behaviour.
We want to remember Mandela as a great man and a peacemaker. Nevertheless, the reality is that Mandela was not as we’d like to pretend him to have been- for example, his failure to renounce the violence of terrorism for political gain. There was a lot more to him than the cardboard cut-out presented in the MSM. His journey through life was more complex and nowhere near as innocent as many would suppose and many, many others would wish.
Fortunately pretense and wishes do not define reality. Best to deal with the reality.
Siotu
Siotu on July 04, 2016 · at 2:07 am UTC
The isrealis were very good friends with the apartheid buggers, naturally, like attracts like, the sods have yet to normalise relations with the South Africa that replaced the zionazi allied apartheid regime there. You lot never change, do you.
vok tak
Quoting, “You lot never change, do you.”
You are engaged in smearing me again. It doesn’t work since it is obviously false. I am neither South African, nor Israeli. I am not involved with those governments in any capacity, nor am I involved in what goes on on those countries.
It is recommended you revisit the recommendations I directed to you previously. It is far better to have a civil discourse on a topic rather than responding to baseless smearing and name-calling.
Siotu
When CIA warned about a possible attack they were talking about this guy, their “former” asset.
Talk about a lost opportunity. The guy could have been deported to Russia, there been indicted, prosecuted and faced trial, likely have been convicted and sent to prison for an extended period of time. Many lives thereby saved.
Siotu
“The main suspect in organizing the Ataturk Airport attack is a Chechen militant by the name of Akhmed Chataev…”
The real perpetrators of terrorist attacks as the one at the Ataturk Airport, is not interested to be identified. But how difficult can it be?
a. This guy Chataev works for ISIS.
b. ISIS is a creation of US-Israel.
c. US foreign policy is since about 100 years ago run by Zionists (ie. todays Israel).
d. Israel also runs most of the foreign policies of countries in ME, including Turkeys.
e. Israels main interest regarding foreign policy is the see the creation of maximum chaos by wars and other means in neighbouring countries (ie to get Israel relative stronger politically and military).
f. The attack on the Ataturk Airport come almost immediately after Turkey had started to seek a reconciliation with Russia.
g. The reconciliation with Russia will hurt Israeli chaos policy in ME and Syria especially.
This gives that the plans and order for the Ataturk Airport was made in Israel and that the motive was to give a signal to Erdogan that it have a price to go against the interests of Israhell. To be more specific about the perpetrators, I suggest you all go for a visit on Henry Makows (a jew) site, who identifies Sionism and Judaism as Satanism.
Dear Saker and to all good guys who contribute to this portal.
I want to bring your attention to the Croatian newspapers who don’t belong to the MSM and who write independently too.
They also wrote a story about Akhmed Chataev.
Here is the link.
http://www.altermainstreaminfo.com.hr/vijesti/amnesty-international-je-godinama-stitio-organizatora-teroristickih-1680#1
This e-newspapers also financially struggle and all burden to lead, to write and to translate articles are falling on one good man, Mr. N. Babic.
He is our brother in arms.
.