Legal Research and Notice:

Why the Kingdom of Hawaii Is Better Than/More Progressive/Surpasses the United States and Why We Can Expel Aliens or More Reasons Why Americans Can Impeach their Constitution breaking President Barrack Hussein Obama

by Amelia Gora, a Royal Person (2016)

The following are some of the points about the Kingdom of Hawaii and the United States of America which shows that the United States of America are a Warmongering Nation documented:

EXISTENCE

The Kingdom of Hawaii was established in 1795 when Kamehameha became known as the King in the Hawaiian archipelago. Our ancestors were here for more than 1,650+ years or 350 A.D.

VS.

The 13 Penal colonies that squatted on the American continent in September 1620.

Reference: http://www.history.com/topics/mayflower

13 colonies (New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia) is an important one. It was those colonies that came together to form the United States.

Reference: http://www.history.com/topics/thirteen-colonies

RECOGNITION

" The kingdom won recognition from major European powers. The United States became its chief trading partner, and the kingdom was watched jealously lest Britain, Japan or another power threatened to seize control."

Under Kamehameha III[edit]

United States of America, December 23, 1826 (Treaty)^[1]
United Kingdom, November 13, 1836 (Lord E. Russell's Treaty)
France, July 17, 1839 (Captain LaPlace's Convention)^[2]
France, March 26, 1846 (Treaty)^[3]
United Kingdom, March 26, 1846 (Treaty)^[4]
Denmark, October 19, 1846 (Treaty)^[5]
Hamburg, January 8, 1848 (Treaty)^[6]
Agreement Touching Consular Notices (Danish and Hamburg Treaties), January 25, 1848
United States of America, December 20, 1849 (Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation)^[7]
Sweden and Norway, July 1, 1852 (Treaty)^[8]
Tahiti, November 24, 1853
Bremen, March 27, 1854 (Treaty)

Under Kamehameha IV[edit]

France, September 8, 1858 (Treaty)
Belgium, October 4, 1862 (Treaty)
Netherlands, October 16, 1862 (Treaty)^[9]
Italy, July 22, 1863 (Treaty)^[10]
Spain, October 9, 1863 (Treaty)^[11]

Under Kamehameha V[edit]

Swiss Confederation, July 20, 1864 (Treaty)
Russia, June 19, 1869 (Treaty)
Japan, August 17, 1871 (Treaty)

Under Kalākaua[edit]

New South Wales, March 10, 1874 (Postal Convention)
United States of America, January 30, 1875 (Reciprocity Treaty)^[12]
German Empire, 1879-80 (Treaty)^[13]
Portugal, May 5, 1882 (Provisional Convention)^[14]
United States of America, December 6, 1884 (Supplementary Convention)^[15]
Hong Kong, December 13, 1884 (Money Order Regulations)
Universal Postal Union, March 21, 1885 (Additional Act of Lisbon)
Japan, January 28, 1886 (Convention)
Universal Postal Union, November 9, 1886 (Ratification)
Samoa, March 20, 1887 (Treaty)^[16]

References[edit]

Jump up^ Hawaii-nation.org
Jump up^ Hawaii-nation.org
Jump up^ Hawaii-nation.org
Jump up^ Hawaii-nation.org
Jump up^ Hawaii-nation.org
Jump up^ Hawaii-nation.org
Jump up^ Hawaii-nation.org
Jump up^ Hawaii-nation.org
Jump up^ Hawaii-nation.org
Jump up^ Hawaii-nation.org
Jump up^ Hawaii-nation.org
Jump up^ Hawaii-nation.org
Jump up^ Hawaii-nation.org
Jump up^ Hawaii-nation.org
Jump up^ Hawaii-nation.org
Jump up^ Freehawaii.org, Treaties with Hawaii

Vs.

United States of America, United States, American Empire Treaties and Conventions

https://findit.state.gov/search?affiliate=dos_stategov&page=2&query=treaties+list&search-button=Search

SLAVERY

In 1852, Kamehameha III - Kauikeaouli passed the anti-slavery law:

Article 12.

Slavery shall, under no circumstances whatever, be tolerated in the Hawaiian Islands: whenever a slave shall enter Hawaiian territory he shall be free; no person who imports a slave, or slaves, into the King's dominions shall ever enjoy any civil or political rights in this realm; but involuntary servitude for the punishment of crime is allowable according to law.

Ref: http://www.hawaii-nation.org/constitution-1852.html

Vs.

The United States which passed it's anti-slavery law 13 years later or in 1865:

13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The 13th Amendment to the Constitution declared that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Formally abolishing slavery in the United States, the 13th Amendment was passed by the Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified by the states on December 6, 1865

STATUS

Kingdom of Hawaii - Neutral since the time of Kamehameha III - Kauikeaouli to Present

Wars/Conflicts ceased in 1810 when Kamehameha was recognized as King of a Monarchy Government in the Hawaiian archipelago.

Vs.

United States of America - a Warring Nation since arrival in the North Americas 1620

Note: from 1620-1769 Wars are Not shown----150 mysterious years with the constant massacre of the American Indians not shown here.

1770–1900[edit]

1900–Present[edit]

53 ADMITTED False Flag Attacks

Posted on February 23, 2015 by WashingtonsBlog

Not Theory … Admitted Fact

There are many documented false flag attacks, where a government carries out a terror attack … and then falsely blames its enemy for political purposes.

In the following 53 instances, officials in the government which carried out the attack (or seriously proposed an attack) admits to it, either orally or in writing:

(1) Japanese troops set off a small explosion on a train track in 1931, and falsely blamed it on China in order to justify an invasion of Manchuria. This is known as the “Mukden Incident” or the “Manchurian Incident”. The Tokyo International Military Tribunal found: “Several of the participators in the plan, including Hashimoto [a high-ranking Japanese army officer], have on various occasions admitted their part in the plot and have stated that the object of the ‘Incident’ was to afford an excuse for the occupation of Manchuria by the Kwantung Army ….” And see this.

(2) A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland.

(3) Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goeringadmitted to setting fire to the German parliament building in 1933, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson.

(4) Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union’s Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939 – while blaming the attack on Finland – as a basis for launching the “Winter War” against Finland. Russian president Boris Yeltsin agreed that Russia had been the aggressor in the Winter War.

(5) The Russian Parliament, current Russian president Putin and former Soviet leader Gorbachev alladmit that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin ordered his secret police to execute 22,000 Polish army officers and civilians in 1940, and falsely blame it on the Nazis.

(6) The British government admits that – between 1946 and 1948 – it bombed 5 ships carrying Jews attempting to flee the Holocaust to seek safety in Palestine, set up a fake group called “Defenders of Arab Palestine”, and then had the psuedo-group falsely claim responsibility for the bombings (and see this, thisand this).

(7) Israel admits that in 1954, an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this).

(8) The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister.

(9) The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece – also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey – and blamed it on Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence.

(10) The British Prime Minister admitted to his defense secretary that he and American president Dwight Eisenhower approved a plan in 1957 to carry out attacks in Syria and blame it on the Syrian government as a way to effect regime change.

(11-21) The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: “You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security” (and see this) (Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred). And watch this BBC special. They also allegedly carried out terror attacks in France, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the UK, and other countries. False flag attacks carried out pursuant tho this program include – by way of example only – the murder of the Turkish Prime Minister (1960), bombings in Portugal (1966), the Piazza Fontana massacre in Italy (1969), terror attacks in Turkey (1971), the Peteano bombing in Italy (1972), shootings in Brescia, Italy and a bombing on an Italian train (1974), shootings in Istanbul, Turkey (1977), the Atocha massacre in Madrid, Spain (1977), the abduction and murder of the Italian Prime Minister (1978), the bombing of the Bologna railway station in Italy (1980), and shooting and killing 28 shoppers in Brabant county, Belgium (1985).

(22) In 1960, American Senator George Smathers suggested that the U.S. launch “a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]“.

(23) Official State Department documents show that, in 1961, the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals.

(24) As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in 1962, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.

(25) In 1963, the U.S. Department of Defense wrote a paper promoting attacks on nations within the Organization of American States – such as Trinidad-Tobago or Jamaica – and then falsely blaming them on Cuba.

(26) The U.S. Department of Defense even suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: “The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro’s subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on Guantanamo.”

(27) The NSA admits that it lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 … manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam war.

(28) A U.S. Congressional committee admitted that – as part of its “Cointelpro” campaign – the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists.

(29) A top Turkish general admitted that Turkish forces burned down a mosque on Cyprus in the 1970s and blamed it on their enemy. He explained: “In Special War, certain acts of sabotage are staged and blamed on the enemy to increase public resistance. We did this on Cyprus; we even burnt down a mosque.” In response to the surprised correspondent’s incredulous look the general said, “I am giving an example”.

(30) The German government admitted (and see this) that, in 1978, the German secret service detonated a bomb in the outer wall of a prison and planted “escape tools” on a prisoner – a member of the Red Army Faction – which the secret service wished to frame the bombing on.

(31) A Mossad agent admits that, in 1984, Mossad planted a radio transmitter in Gaddaffi’s compound in Tripoli, Libya which broadcast fake terrorist trasmissions recorded by Mossad, in order to frame Gaddaffi as a terrorist supporter. Ronald Reagan bombed Libya immediately thereafter.

(32) The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him “to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident”, thus framing the ANC for the bombing.

(33) An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and seethis video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author).

(34) The United States Army’s 1994 publication Special Forces Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces – updated in 2004 – recommends employing terrorists and using false flag operations to destabilize leftist regimes in Latin America. False flag terrorist attacks were carried out in Latin America and other regions as part of the CIA’s “Dirty Wars“. And see this.

(35) An Indonesian fact-finding team investigated violent riots which occurred in 1998, and determined that “elements of the military had been involved in the riots, some of which were deliberately provoked”.

(36) Senior Russian Senior military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings in 1999 and falsely blamed it on Chechens, in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and see this report and this discussion).

(37) According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.

(38) The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings.

(39) As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the “war on terror”.

(40) Senior police officials in Genoa, Italy admitted that – in July 2001, at the G8 summit in Genoa – planted two Molotov cocktails and faked the stabbing of a police officer, in order to justify a violent crackdown against protesters.

(41) The U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks – as shown by a memo from the defense secretary – as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq war. Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is “overwhelming” that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime, that Cheney “probably” had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not ‘doing their homework’ in reporting such ties. Top U.S. government officials now admit that the Iraq war was really launched for oil … not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction. Despite previous “lone wolf” claims, many U.S. government officials now say that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror; but Iraq was not the state which backed the hijackers. (Many U.S. officials have alleged that 9/11 was a false flag operation by rogue elements of the U.S. government.).

(42) Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials (remember what the anthrax letters looked like). Government officials also confirm that the white House tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country.

(43) Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”

(44) United Press International reported in June 2005:

U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.

(45) Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians, as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians.

(46) Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers (and see this).

(47) At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence.

(48) Egyptian politicians admitted (and see this) that government employees looted priceless museum artifacts in 2011 to try to discredit the protesters.

(49) A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat.

(50) The highly-respected writer for the Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that the head of Saudi intelligence – Prince Bandar – recently admitted that the Saudi government controls “Chechen” terrorists.

(51) High-level American sources admitted that the Turkish government – a fellow NATO country – carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government; and high-ranking Turkish government admitted on tape plans to carry out attacks and blame it on the Syrian government.

(52) The former Ukrainian security chief admits that the sniper attacks which started the Ukrainian coup were carried out in order to frame others.

(53) Britain’s spy agency has admitted (and see this) that it carries out “digital false flag” attacks on targets, framing people by writing offensive or unlawful material … and blaming it on the target.

So Common … There’s a Name for It

The use of the bully’s trick is so common that it was given a name hundreds of years ago.

“False flag terrorism” is defined as a government attacking its own people, then blaming others in order to justify going to war against the people it blames. Or as Wikipedia defines it:

False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one’s own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy’s strategy of tension.

The term comes from the old days of wooden ships, when one ship would hang the flag of its enemy before attacking another ship. Because the enemy’s flag, instead of the flag of the real country of the attacking ship, was hung, it was called a “false flag” attack.

Indeed, this concept is so well-accepted that rules of engagement for naval, air and land warfare all prohibit false flag attacks.

Leaders Throughout History Have Acknowledged False Flags

Leaders throughout history have acknowledged the danger of false flags:

“A history of false flag attacks used to manipulate the minds of the people! “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

“Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death”.
– Adolph Hitler

“Why of course the people don’t want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
– Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.

“The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”.
– Josef Stalin

Comments:

jadan • 2 years ago

False flags are effective because people want to trust their government and don't want to admit it lies. It is also true the people may have belligerent intentions that need justification, ie, they want to go to war. The previous article by Carl Herman discussing Lincoln's opposition to the war with Mexico is a good example of an instance when the people wanted to be misled to justify war. The people are not always victims of government manipulation but often do the wrong thing with a wink & a nod. The greatest false flags, like 911, remain unacknowledged. We are supposed to believe there are limits to what a government will do. But the creation and deployment of thermonuclear weapons disproves that naive assumption.

Governments also play the role of agent provocateur to manipulate political will, as with the sinking of the Lusitania and Pearl Harbor. Incitement is first cousin to the false flag.

4

•

Reply

•

Share ›

almark  jadan • a year ago

No one should ever trust their government. We learned our lesson in the US didn't we?

1

•

Reply

•

Share ›

JosephConrad • a year ago

False flags are effctive because the populace is basically STUPID, COMPLACENT,PASSIVE, WILLFULLY IGNORANT & SELF-INTERESTED. For these 5 reasons theU.S. will collapse in CHAOS...

3

•

Reply

•

Share ›

MOLON LABE • 2 years ago

Yet, we have another here in this clip. Feb 19, 2015 ISIS was created by the CIA and Mossad

In today's video, Christopher Greene of AMTV reports on the terror group ISIS.

2

•

Reply

•

Share ›

unheilig • 2 years ago

Anybody have any actual facts (as opposed to fascist-Ukrainian propaganda) on the Kharkiv bombing? My first though was, "How convenient." The separatists would seem to have nothing whatever to gain by it.

2

•

Reply

•

Share ›

Charleston Voice • 2 years ago

Sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 was an Anglo-American Staged False Flag Conspiracy

http://chasvoice.blogspot.com/...

2

•

Reply

•

Share ›

cettel • 2 years ago

One of the greatest articles, from a titan of investigative journalism; this one brings together and links to documentation of more instances of false-flag incidents than even the entire book by Daniele Ganser discusses, which is one of his many sources: NATO's Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe. How George Washington can manage to do so many such things so routinely as he does, is beyond my understanding. It is a gift to us all. Thanks, George.
For a long time, I have wondered how common these types of incidents have been, and how far back in history the use of false-flag terrorism goes. Well, it goes back at least to Hitler and Tojo. I already knew of Hitler, but did it go back, say, to ancient Rome? When did it really start? The present article is terrific since 1930, but did it actually start with the Japanese? Is that where 'we' learned it?
This article should be an assigned reading in every high school: it should be in the standard U.S. curriculum, part of the "core."
My only complaint about his article is his quoting Nietzsche without citing the source. That "quotation is elsewhere on the Web, too, but always without any source. "Quotations" like that tend to be fake. I never cite them. No one should.

2

•

Reply

•

Share ›

Itsnobody • 10 months ago

So then will we have to wait like 50 years or so for them to finally admit that 9/11 was a false flag operation?

I just don't get how passports can survive but black boxes cannot.

1

•

Reply

•

Share ›

Tyler • a year ago

9/11 False Flag Conspiracy - Finally Solved (Names, Connections, Motives)

1

•

Reply

•

Share ›

MOLON LABE • 2 years ago

American aircraft dropped weapons to ISIS, says MP January 4, 2015

(IraqiNews) On Saturday, MP Majid al-Ghraoui said that, an American aircraft dropped a load of weapons and equipment into the hands of the ISIS group militants in southeast of Tikrit, located in Salahuddin province.

http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-...

1

•

Reply

•

Share ›

andersm0 • 2 years ago

The Katyn massacre of 22,000 Polish officers and civilians by the Soviets in WW2 was not a false flag. It was the Nazis who discovered the mass grave and then called in the press. The Nazi's blamed the Soviets and the Soviets defended themselves by blaming the Nazis. It was a direct operation to remove Poland's leadership and elite classes to disrupt and subjugate the country more easily.

1

•

Reply

•

Share ›

QV3  andersm0 • a year ago

The filthy Poles deserved it. Look at Poland today. The kowtowing , servile servant licking US boots today has forgotten the well-known words of Winston Churchill, who said,

«Without the Russian armies Poland would have been destroyed or enslaved, and the Polish nation itself would have been wiped from the face of the earth. But the valiant Russian
armies are liberating Poland, and no other forces in the world could have done
so».

Today they try to shy away from mentioning the fact that over 600 thousand Soviet
soldiers gave their lives for liberation of Poland from Nazis.

They
have forgotten that Germans destroyed around 40% of buildings leaving a third
of population without shelter and food.
The material assistance the USSR provided for the recovery of postwar Poland has
also been forgotten; the Soviet Union renounced all claims to German property
in Poland and yielded 15% of reparation payments and 15% of industrial
equipment exported from Germany to Warsaw. They have forgotten the fact that
when bread was being rationed in the USSR, in January 1945 the Soviet Union
started free shipments of 60,000 tons of grain to Poland. It is possible that
many Polish Russophobes and their parents owe their lives to this very
grain.

They have forgotten that thanks only to the unbending position of the USSR, or of
Stalin, to be more exact, the current Polish-German border was drawn through
the Oder-Neisse line, which gave Poland access to the Baltic Sea and increased
the country's territory by over 100,000 square kilometers.

They have forgotten that in the 1980s, so difficult for Poland, the USSR gave over 7
billion rubles in free assistance, and in the early 1990s Russia essentially
forgave Poland's debt of 5.3 billion rubles, at that time not yet devalued, in
foreign currency. Today Polish politicians call all this the «Soviet
occupation» and permit lowlifes to desecrate the memory and graves of fallen
Red Army soldiers. They do not like to recall these and other facts, like the
mass deaths of Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian and German prisoners in Polish
concentration camps in modern Poland. But the Poles themselves do not mince
matters with regard to their neighbors' historical memory.

Today, Poland works with the Banderites in Ukraine to kill Russians. You deserve many many Katyns. Scum Poland. SHAME, SHAME, AND UNCOUNTABLE SHAME!

see more

•

Reply

•

Share ›

andersm0  QV3 • a year ago

HaHaHa - you hate it that the world loves the Poles more than Russians. You forget that Russia collaborated with the Nazis to start the war by invading Poland from both sides. Look up the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Hitler meant to betray the 'dirty Slav Untermenschen' from the get-go.

•

Reply

•

Share ›

cettel  andersm0 • 2 years ago

That was #5 on the list. Why do you repeat it?

•

Reply

•

Share ›

andersm0  cettel • 2 years ago

#5 is incorrectly stated. As I said in my prior comment, Katyn was NOT a false flag. It fails to meet the criteria.

The killings were done in secret to destabilize Poland. It was only AFTER the Nazi invasion of Russia, which pushed into Polish territory previously held by the Soviets, that the mass grave was discovered. The Nazis called in the international press. Then the blaming and counterblaming started. In the 1990s, under Perestroika, the Russians finally confessed.

I've studied the history of the Katyn massacre. This is the very first time I've heard it called a false flag operation.

•

Reply

•

Share ›

QV3  andersm0 • a year ago

The Katyn Massacre is today discussed as a False Flag.
Just you saying no does not make it otherwise.
Keep studying.

•

Reply

•

Share ›

Ken5745 • a year ago

Was 911 the mother of all false flags for George W Bush to blame al Qaeda's Osama bin Ladin and to start the endless war on terror?

1

•

Reply

•

Share ›

almark  Ken5745 • a year ago

One has to come to terms with this reality. If you remember,"and I don't know if you were around at that time" suddenly they sent out the 9/11 reports, told about the so-called terrorist group and made everyone scared to walk outside. Fear and terror is the key to propaganda. How else do you mold an entire country to your ways? Getting us to the point where we gladly gave up our freedom? It was all planned. I think a lot of people are finally getting it. Before 9/11 things were business as usual. We changed over night, quite literately. Bush was the worst President in the history of the US if you ask me. He created much more harm than good. He didn't create much good at all. "Was 911 the mother of all false flags for George W Bush to blame al Qaeda's Osama bin Ladin and to start the endless war on terror?" - absolutely

2

•

Reply

•

Share ›

kwashua • 7 days ago

Hello people on this site, are you looking for an agent to take you from Nigeria to Libya to Italy, you can simply contact agent James who normally promote people to Libya to Italy , he was the one who help my brother and right now my brother is successfully in Italy, if you are ready to go to Italy call agent James on this telephone number, or add him on whatsapp +234816961685..
once again call him and he will give you more details on the trip +2348169616855

•

Reply

•

Share ›

R Benson • 9 days ago

9/11 will never be admitted to as a false flag, assuming it really was. That would.be mass murder and high treason punishable by firing squad. And the American people would insist on the firing squad if they had to drag the conspirators into the streets themselves.

•

Reply

•

Share ›

anarchyst • 6 months ago

Let's not forget the deliberate Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in 1967. This attack took place with full knowledge of the United States government, who along with Israel wanted all hands DEAD. The attack was orchestrated to get the US involved in a war with Egypt, while covering up the Israeli massacre of an Egyptian city. When the crew did not die, as expected, both the US government and Israel called a tragic case of "mistaken identity"...yeah, right...

•

Reply

•

Share ›

rayoflight • a year ago

The justification for war ( massive death and destruction on this beautiful planet ) is ALWAYS a" manipulated plan " by those in power to generate more power at the EXPENSE of those " mindless minions " they find to fight and support the INSANITY . Do not concern yourself with attempting to disprove a supposed FALSE flag . Simply understand that it IS the Very abnormal operative mode of " behind the scenes " CON-DUCT . Power Corrupts . . . And Absolute power CORRUPTS . . . . . ABSOLUTELY !

Wake-UP , With YOUR LIGHT . . . . . SHINING BRIGHT ! ! ! ! !

•

Reply

•

Share ›

Psychic Warrior • a year ago

Who dressed up like Native American Indians to start a revolution?

•

Reply

•

Share ›

Bruce • 2 years ago

Yoo 43. epitomizes the Definition Of ISIS ! ANOTHER Syrial PNAC Attack!! It's all Sham!!!

•

Reply

•

Share ›

ICFubar • 2 years ago

I've never trusted them farther than I can throw'em as I've known about false flag operations and agent provocateurs from my teen age years on. The first experience was when the local city police were pushing to have a riot squad established at great additional expense to the taxpayer. The cops of course started a riot at a Rolling Stones concert (mid 60s) by unplugging the band's amps with a "WTF" from Jagger and place erupted with PO'd fans.

•

Reply

•

Share ›

Donkeh  ICFubar • 9 days ago

I personally don't trust them as far as I can OVERthrow em. ;D

Get it?

Reference: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/x-admitted-false-flag-attacks.html

************************

Overthrow by Stephen Kinzer

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4499417/stephen-kinzer-talks-book-overthrow-americas-century-regime-change-hawaii-iraq

ILLEGAL REGIME CHANGE/OVERTHROW/DETHRONEMENT OF QUEEN LILIUOKALANI:

Author Kinzer Charts 'Century of Regime Change'

Download

Facebook

Twitter

Google+

Email

April 5, 200611:00 AM ET

Heard on Fresh Air

Stephen Kinzer has had a peripatetic tenure at The New York Times. He has reported from more than 50 countries and served as the paper's bureau chief in Turkey, Germany and Nicaragua.

He employs that far-flung perspective to examine America's history of regime change in his new book, Overthrow.

Though Iraq is the most recent example of the United States exerting its power to alter another country's leadership, Kinzer notes that it is certainly not the first. He notes that Iraq "was the culmination of a 110-year period during which Americans overthrew fourteen governments that displeased them for various ideological, political, and economic reasons." Kinzer discusses the book with Terry Gross.

Excerpt: 'Overthrow'

STEPHEN KINZER

Introduction

Why does a strong nation strike against a weaker one? Usually because it seeks to impose its ideology, increase its power, or gain control of valuable resources. Shifting combinations of these three factors motivated the United States as it extended its global reach over the past century and more. This book examines the most direct form of American intervention, the overthrow of foreign governments.

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not an isolated episode. It was the culmination of a 110-year period during which Americans overthrew fourteen governments that displeased them for various ideological, political, and economic reasons. Like each of these operations, the "regime change" in Iraq seemed for a time — a very short time — to have worked. It is now clear, however, that this operation has had terrible unintended consequences. So have most of the other coups, revolutions, and invasions that the United States has mounted to depose governments it feared or mistrusted.

The United States uses a variety of means to persuade other countries to do its bidding. In many cases it relies on time-honored tactics of diplomacy, offering rewards to governments that support American interests and threatening retaliation against those that refuse. Sometimes it defends friendly regimes against popular anger or uprisings. In more than a few places, it has quietly supported coups or revolutions organized by others. Twice, in the context of world wars, it helped to wipe away old ruling orders and impose new ones.

This book is not about any of those ways Americans have shaped the modern world. It focuses only on the most extreme set of cases: those in which the United States arranged to depose foreign leaders. No nation in modern history has done this so often, in so many places so far from its own shores.

The stories of these "regime change" operations are dazzlingly exciting. They tell of patriots and scoundrels, high motives and low cynicism, extreme courage and cruel betrayal. This book brings them together for the first time, but it seeks to do more than simply tell what happened. By considering these operations as a continuum rather than as a series of unrelated incidents, it seeks to find what they have in common. It poses and tries to answer two fundamental questions. First, why did the United States carry out these operations? Second, what have been their long-term consequences?

Drawing up a list of countries whose governments the United States has overthrown is not as simple as it sounds. This book treats only cases in which Americans played the decisive role in deposing a regime. Chile, for example, makes the list because, although many factors led to the 1973 coup there, the American role was decisive. Indonesia, Brazil, and the Congo do not, because American agents played only subsidiary roles in the overthrow of their governments during the 1960s. Nor do Mexico, Haiti, or the Dominican Republic, countries the United States invaded but whose leaders it did not depose.

America’s long "regime change" century dawned in 1893 with the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy. This was a tentative, awkward piece of work, a cultural tragedy staged as comic opera. It was not a military operation, but without the landing of American troops, it probably would not have succeeded. The president of the United States approved of it, but soon after it happened, a new president took office and denounced it. Americans were already divided over whether it is a good idea to depose foreign regimes.

The overthrow of Hawaii’s queen reignited a political debate that had first flared during the Mexican War half a century before. That debate, which in essence is about what role the United States should play in the world, rages to this day. It burst back onto the front pages after the invasion of Iraq.

No grand vision of American power lay behind the Hawaiian revolution of 1893. Just the opposite was true of the Spanish-American War, which broke out five years later. This was actually two wars, one in which the United States came to the aid of patriots fighting against Spanish colonialism, and then a second in which it repressed those patriots to assure that their newly liberated nations would be American protectorates rather than truly independent. A radically new idea of America, much more globally ambitious than any earlier one, emerged from these conflicts. They marked the beginning of an era in which the United States has assumed the right to intervene anywhere in the world, not simply by influencing or coercing foreign governments but also by overthrowing them.

In Hawaii and the countries that rose against Spain in 1898, American presidents tested and developed their new interventionist policy. There, however, they were reacting to circumstances created by others. The first time a president acted on his own to depose a foreign leader was in 1909, when William Howard Taft ordered the overthrow of Nicaraguan president José Santos Zelaya. Taft claimed he was acting to protect American security and promote democratic principles. His true aim was to defend the right of American companies to operate as they wished in Nicaragua. In a larger sense, he was asserting the right of the United States to impose its preferred form of stability on foreign countries.

This set a pattern. Throughout the twentieth century and into the beginning of the twenty-first, the United States repeatedly used its military power, and that of its clandestine services, to overthrow governments that refused to protect American interests. Each time, it cloaked its intervention in the rhetoric of national security and liberation. In most cases, however, it acted mainly for economic reasons — specifically, to establish, promote, and defend the right of Americans to do business around the world without interference.

Huge forces reshaped the world during the twentieth century. One of the most profound was the emergence of multinational corporations, businesses based in one country that made much of their profit overseas. These corporations and the people who ran them accumulated great wealth and political influence. Civic movements, trade unions, and political parties arose to counterbalance them, but in the United States, these were never able even to approach the power that corporations wielded. Corporations identified themselves in the public mind with the ideals of free enterprise, hard work, and individual achievement. They also maneuvered their friends and supporters into important positions in Washington.

By a quirk of history, the United States rose to great power at the same time multinational corporations were emerging as a decisive force in world affairs. These corporations came to expect government to act on their behalf abroad, even to the extreme of overthrowing uncooperative foreign leaders. Successive presidents have agreed that this is a good way to promote American interests.

Defending corporate power is hardly the only reason the United States overthrows foreign governments. Strong tribes and nations have been attacking weak ones since the beginning of history. They do so for the most elemental reason, which is to get more of whatever is good to have. In the modern world, corporations are the institutions that countries use to capture wealth. They have become the vanguard of American power, and defying them has become tantamount to defying the United States. When Americans depose a foreign leader who dares such defiance, they not only assert their rights in one country but also send a clear message to others.

The influence that economic power exercises over American foreign policy has grown tremendously since the days when ambitious planters in Hawaii realized that by bringing their islands into the United States, they would be able to send their sugar to markets on the mainland without paying import duties. As the twentieth century progressed, titans of industry and their advocates went a step beyond influencing policy makers; they became the policy makers. The figure who most perfectly embodied this merging of political and economic interests was John Foster Dulles, who spent decades working for some of the world’s most powerful corporations and then became secretary of state. It was Dulles who ordered the 1953 coup in Iran, which was intended in part to make the Middle East safe for American oil companies. A year later he ordered another coup, in Guatemala, where a nationalist government had challenged the power of United Fruit, a company his old law firm represented.

Having marshaled so much public and political support, American corporations found it relatively easy to call upon the military or the Central Intelligence Agency to defend their privileges in countries where they ran into trouble. They might not have been able to do so if they and the presidents who cooperated with them had candidly presented their cases to the American people. Americans have always been idealists. They want their country to act for pure motives, and might have refused to support foreign interventions that were forthrightly described as defenses of corporate power. Presidents have used two strategies to assure that these interventions would be carried out with a minimum of protest. Sometimes they obscured the real reasons they overthrew foreign governments, insisting that they were acting only to protect American security and liberate suffering natives. At other times they simply denied that the United States was involved in these operations at all.

The history of American overthrows of foreign governments can be divided into three parts. First came the imperial phase, when Americans deposed regimes more or less openly. None of the men who overthrew the Hawaiian monarchy tried to hide their involvement. The Spanish-American War was fought in full view of the world, and President Taft announced exactly what he was doing when he moved to overthrow the governments of Nicaragua and Honduras. The men who directed these "regime change" operations may not have forthrightly explained why they were acting, but they took responsibility for their acts.

After World War II, with the world political situation infinitely more complex than it had been at the dawn of the century, American presidents found a new way to overthrow foreign governments. They could no longer simply demand that unfriendly foreign leaders accept the reality of American power and step down, nor could they send troops to land on foreign shores without worrying about the consequences. This was because for the first time, there was a force in the world that limited their freedom of action: the Soviet Union. During the Cold War, any direct American intervention risked provoking a reaction from the Soviets, possibly a cataclysmic one. To adjust to this new reality, the United States began using a more subtle technique, the clandestine coup d’état, to depose foreign governments. In Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam, and Chile, diplomats and intelligence agents replaced generals as the instruments of American intervention.

By the end of the twentieth century, it had become more difficult for Americans to stage coups because foreign leaders had learned how to resist them. Coups had also become unnecessary. The decline and collapse of the Soviet Union and the disappearance of the Red Army meant that there was no longer any military constraint on the United States. That left it free to return to its habit of landing troops on foreign shores.

Both of the small countries Americans invaded in the 1980s, Grenada and Panama, are in what the United States has traditionally considered its sphere of influence, and both were already in turmoil when American troops landed. The two invasions that came later, in Afghanistan and Iraq, were far larger in scale and historical importance. Many Americans supported the operation in Afghanistan because they saw it as an appropriate reaction to the presence of terrorists there. A smaller but still substantial number supported the operation in Iraq after being told that Iraq also posed an imminent threat to world peace. American invasions left both of these countries in violent turmoil.

Most "regime change" operations have achieved their short-term goals. Before the CIA deposed the government of Guatemala in 1954, for example, United Fruit was not free to operate as it wished in that country; afterward it was. From the vantage point of history, however, it is clear that most of these operations actually weakened American security. They cast whole regions of the world into upheaval, creating whirlpools of instability from which undreamed-of threats arose years later.

History does not repeat itself, but it delights in patterns and symmetries. When the stories of American "regime change" operations are taken together, they reveal much about why the United States overthrows foreign governments and what consequences it brings on itself by doing so. They also teach lessons for the future.

From the book Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change From Hawaii to Iraqby Stephen Kinzer. Reprinted by arrangement with Times Books, an imprint of Henry Holt and Company, LLC. Copyright (c) 2006 by Stephen Kinzer

Related NPR Stories

Kinzer on 'All the Shah's Men'July 28, 2003

Kinzer on 'Crescent & Star: Turkey Between Two Worlds'Oct. 3, 2001