Tuesday 26th of September 2023

the old bitch has style in her hypocrisy….

Pelosi to Blinken: Label Russia as terrorist state, or else Congress will


Her comments highlight the chasm in the actions lawmakers want the administration to take and what the secretary is comfortable doing. 


The warning, made on a call between the two earlier this week, was described to POLITICO by two sources familiar with the conversation. Spokespersons for the State Department and Pelosi’s office declined to comment.


Congress gave the power to label another country as a state sponsor of terrorism to the secretary of state. Some in Congress, though, say lawmakers could pass a law to make the designation without the State Department, thus pressuring Russian President Vladimir Putin on their own.



“There’s no legal reason Congress could not pass legislation to effectively designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism,” a Democratic aide said. “Congress passing legislation is obviously a more complicated route than the secretary making the designation, but it would give the administration the political cover it needs to escalate economic pressure and rhetoric against Putin.”

Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), for example, introduced a bill in May that would both underline the Senate’s view that Russia engages in acts of terrorism, but it mainly calls on Blinken to make the designation official. They traveled to Kyiv earlier this month to promote the measure alongside Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who supports the U.S. officially placing the label on Russia. A similar resolution was also introduced in the House.

Pelosi said Thursday morning that a state sponsor of terrorism designation for Russia is “long overdue.”

Pelosi’s comments to Blinken highlight the chasm in the actions lawmakers want the administration to take and what the secretary is comfortable doing. Members of the House and Senate push for the designation, which compels the U.S. government to restrict foreign assistance, curtail defense exports and sales, place controls on exports of dual-use items, and more.

The label also “implicates other sanctions laws that penalize persons and countries engaging in certain trade with state sponsors,” per the State Department, meaning the U.S. may have to expand its sanctions much more broadly than specific sectors of the Russian economy. The current four U.S.-designated state sponsors of terrorism — Cuba, North Korea, Iran and Syria — trade far less with the world than Russia does.

That may explain why the State Department has long been skeptical of what that move would accomplish.

“The sanctions we have in place and have taken are the same steps that would be entailed by the designation of a state sponsor of terrorism,” State Department spokesperson Ned Price told reporters in April, adding: “We’ll take a close look at all potential authorities. This is one of them.”

Some experts, though, say the move would ratchet up the pressure on the Kremlin and make all dealings with Russia for U.S. persons near impossible. “Labeling Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism would be significant because it’s a blanket measure,” said Edward Fishman, an expert on sanctions at the Atlantic Council think tank in Washington, D.C. “It injects a risk into all dealings with Russia.”

That said, he noted Congress hasn’t yet made a major move to punish Russia five months into the war. For secondary sanctions and beyond, “having a congressional mandate makes those sanctions far more effective,” Fishman said.

Russian forces have attacked numerous civilian targets, including schools and hospitals and places where civilians have taken refuge. The invasion has resulted in countless civilian deaths.

“Russia is destroying our people,” Olena Zelenska, the Ukrainian president’s wife, told Congress on Wednesday.

If either resolution passes on Capitol Hill — or a full terrorism sponsor designation gets through both chambers — Blinken may feel more pressure to side with lawmakers and make the designation.

Andrew Desiderio and Bryan Bender contributed to this report.






FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW............<<<<<<<<<<<<<

US expertise…..

The United States has at various times in recent history provided support to terrorist and paramilitary organizations around the world. It has also provided assistance to numerous authoritarian regimes that have used state terrorism as a tool of repression.[1][2]

American support for non-state terrorists has been prominent in Latin America and the Middle East.[1] From 1981 to 1991, the United States provided weapons, training, and extensive financial and logistical support to the Contra rebels in Nicaragua, who used terror tactics in their fight against the Nicaraguan government.[3] At various points the United States also provided training, arms, and funds to terrorists among Cuban exiles, such as Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles.[4]

Various reasons have been given to justify this support. These include destabilizing political movements that might have aligned with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, including popular democratic and socialist movements.[5] Such support has also formed a part of the war on drugs.[2] Support was often geared toward ensuring a conducive environment for American corporate interests abroad, especially when these interests came under threat from democratic governments.[5][6]






united states terrorism……..







FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


The US Is Considering Whether to Call Russians “Terrorists” Because They Invaded a Country 


This is just goofy.

“Is this war terrorism???”

I think the words “war” and “terrorism” have two different meanings, and I don’t really see why any adult would agree to conflate the terminology for political reasons. Words should have definitions.

“State sponsor of terrorism” is often a canard, but it is often used in connection to Iran sending money to Hamas. It could more accurately be used to describe the US training and funding the various terrorist groups that operate throughout the Middle East.

There is no such thing as a “terrorist army.” “Terrorism” is a type of asymmetrical warfare, using random acts of violence against soft targets to instill fear in a population that it doesn’t have the manpower or firepower to take on directly, and the definition would usually but not always include “ideology” (most often political Islam, then secondarily communism – though there are also forms of ethnic minority terrorism that is not explicitly ideological).

What is happening in the Ukraine is conventional warfare. The Ukraine is committing various atrocities, sometimes as false flags and sometimes for the purpose of creating fear, but I would not call any of the war crimes the Ukraine has committed “terrorism.” Last month, I spammed the videos of the Ukraine people firing US missiles into random apartment buildings. This is obviously a violent attack on a soft target for the purpose of instilling fear in the population, but it is not “terrorism” because it takes place in the context of conventional warfare, and does not have an explicit aim beyond the broader context of the conflict.

They are considering using the word “terrorism” wrongly because the word has negative connotations. They are not considering accusing the Russians of being “guerrilla fighters” or “partisans” or any other incorrect martial designation. It would be kind of funny if they accused them of “forming a confederacy.” Because you know – the confederacy was for slavery, and what Russia is doing to the Ukraine is so bad, it’s kind of like slavery against Ukraine democracy.

Note that the US has also done the reverse of this, claiming that the foreign mercenaries fighting in the Ukraine were “lawful combatants.” The term “mercenary” has an accepted definition in the Geneva conventions (and long before that), and Russia is using it correctly. But Antony Blinken was like “nuh-uh.”

Accusations of “war crimes” are a lie, but they are at least possible. The Ukraine is committing war crimes. Again, it’s a term that has a definition, and purposefully attacking non-combatants and using human shields are both “war crimes.” Torturing POWs is also a war crime. Ukraine may manage to commit all of the war crimes. But in order to be “state sponsors of terrorism,” they would have to do something such as pay someone to bomb a train in Moscow. (I’ve been legitimately surprised that the US hasn’t activated any of the Chechens that they trained in Syria with ISIS to do terrorism inside of Russia – but until they do that, I’m not going to accuse the Ukraine of terrorism, because it is important to me that words have definitions.)

Convening a council to decide whether to call Russians “terrorists” is like if office workers convened a council to decide whether or not to call a rude Turkish co-worker a “nigger.”

“He’s not black, but you know, we really don’t like this guy, and he’s not white and not being white is kind of like being a nigger, and we really think he’s not a good guy, so we need to decide if we should call him a nigger.”


The US is considering the matter of recognizing Russia as “a state sponsor of terrorism,” US Ambassador to Ukraine Bridget Brink has said, emphasizing that the issue must be carefully analyzed from a legal point of view.

“With regard to designation as a state sponsor of terrorism, this is something we are looking at and reviewing. Any such designation requires a careful review in accordance to our own laws,” she said.

In a Sunday interview with Radio Liberty, Brink also emphasized that the US is already using all available means to keep pressure on Russia, including the ones normally applying to state sponsors of terrorism. She promised that Joe Biden’s administration will “continue to hold Russia to account” in accordance with US law.

The envoy echoed remarks made in April by US State Department spokesman Ned Price, that the government was looking into the potential steps it could take against Moscow and noted that already-imposed anti-Russia sanctions are the same steps that “would be entailed by the designation of a state sponsor of terrorism.”

Countries daubed with this status – currently Cuba, North Korea, Iran and Syria – are subject to harsh sanctions.

Russia, though not on the list, has already become the most sanctioned country in the world, amid its military offensive in Ukraine.

Over the last months, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has been regularly urging his country’s allies to declare Russia a state sponsor of terrorism, citing atrocities against civilians allegedly committed by Russian forces (Moscow vehemently denies these claims).

Earlier this month, he welcomed the initiative of US senators Richard Blumenthal and Lindsey Graham to introduce a Senate resolution directing Secretary of State Antony Blinken to designate Russia with this status.

Just in case anyone is keeping track here – Zelensky, Blumenthal, and Blinken are all Jewish. That is 75% of the people mentioned in that paragraph.

Lindsey Graham is a homosexual who has claimed that America’s only purpose for existing is to support Israel.


The single non-Jew in that paragraph went to Israel and took a photograph with the president of Israel demanding that the American taxpayer send more free money to Israel.

Israel is a developed country with a per capita GDP on par with Japan and most European countries.

(Note that Puerto Rico, which is owned by America, has a significantly lower income level than Israel, as does Poland, which borders Russia, which I would assume is viewed as a bigger threat to American global hegemony than Syria.)

It has never been explained why we send this money to Israel. The explanations given are always very flimsy, and fall apart immediately when questioned, and we are told by people like Lindsey Graham and Dan Crenshaw that we are not allowed to question them because it is evil to ask why the Jews are getting free money (it is insinuated that it is evil to question Jews because they were allegedly gassed to death in homicidal delousing chambers with wooden doors). Of course, the actual reason Americans send Israel all of this money is that the American government is run by Jews. We call this a “Zionist Occupation Government.”

A similar dynamic is developing with the Ukraine, where the US commitment to the country is shrouded in mystery, and you are accused of being unpatriotic if you don’t support the Ukraine. It’s not clear why Americans would be expected to have patriotism for a country that is not America, or that patriotism for a foreign country is a valid concept at all. Obviously, the actual reason that the American taxpayer is expected support the Ukraine is that the American government is run by Jews.

Given what support for the Ukraine has entailed – cutting off Russia from the Western economy and causing the cost of energy to skyrocket – this is costing much more than Israel ever did. Even if you consider that the wars in Iraq and Syria were types of “foreign aid to Israel,” this Ukraine project is going to be more expensive.

The explanation there is: Jews hate Russians more than they hate Arabs.


I actually thought it was really dumb when some boomers called the Waukesha, Wisconsin attack on the Christmas parade “anti-white terrorism.” (For those who don’t recall, that was when a black guy drove his truck into a parade of white people and killed several kids and old people.) It wasn’t terrorism because there was no political or ideological goal. He was just a black guy who hated white people.

If you call that “terrorism,” then all of a sudden any right-wing kook who shoots up black people is a terrorist. The only right-wing acts of violence that could be legitimately called “terrorism” would be the Christchurch attack on the mosque by Brenton Tarrant. He was the only person who said, specifically, “I am doing this for X purpose.” In that case, it was that he wanted Moslems to leave white countries. However, it was also a revenge attack. Anyway, it was also the only one that happened to be sympathetic, with boomers in Breitbart comments sections getting mass-censored for saying “well they do it to us all the time!!!!”

The Waukesha car-killing was an analog to the Dylann Roof shooting, where it’s just a person with problems who doesn’t like people of the opposite race but has no clear political ends. The only real thinking is “f these people!”

I would call the Waukesha attack an “anti-white spree killing.”

I think it’s important that words have meaning, because if you remove the meaning of words, you can’t have a conversation about anything, because no one knows what anyone is talking about.

It’s like calling the Ukraine a democracy and claiming we are fighting a war to save democracy, even though the Ukraine has none of the elements that define a democracy in terms of the dictionary definition.

This whole “words have meaning” thing is something I feel very strongly about and which should really be discussed more.









See Ireland and England. See Serbia and Croatia.... et cetera......