Udgivet i Skriv en kommentar

Mettes droner?

‘Vi er i hybridkrig’, siger Mette.

Og vores uafhængige presse nævner Rusland. Rusland, Rusland. Det vigtige er at befolkningen skræmmes, og dermed holder hovedet dukket og accepterer regeringens beføjelser, beslaglæggelser, beskatning og almindelige plyndring, under dække af at de ‘passer på’ os. Med den slags venner har vi ikke brug for fjender.

Det er meget muligt at det russiske regime ‘tester’ det danske beredskab. Det forekommer mig mere sandsynligt at Mette, eller hendes venner, har gang i aktiviteter der har til formål at eskalere konflikten med det russiske regime.

Som tidligere anført er det ikke sandsynligt at det russiske regime vil, eller kan, besætte hele Vesteuropa. Man kan frygte at deres tålmodighed er ved at være brugt op. De vedvarende provokationer, falske flag aktioner, giver de mest krigsliderlige blandt nato-regimerne påskud til at udføre et mere dramatisk angreb på russisk territorium og kan få det russiske regime til at svare igen med langt mere destruktiv kraft end hvad vi hidtil har set (andre være ofre for).

Fortvivlende mange i de vesteuropæiske regimer lader til at ville en tredje verdenskrig. Det er sørgeligt at vores bedste håb for at undgå dette, ligger i russernes koldblodighed og uvilje til at hoppe på limpinden.

Hvad vi ved er at regeringer systematisk lyver, fordrejer, fortier i bestræbelserne på at manipulere skatteofrene til at overlade deres ejendom og beslutninger til regimet; et regime der intet middel skyer til at bevare magten. Dét er statens kerneydelse – udplyndring.

Lyt med her hos Napolitano og Diesen:

“That Zelensky tried to pass off Ukrainian interceptor missiles, which ended up on the Polish side of the border, and claimed that they were Russian. And why? Well, if you’re on your last leg, you would like to bring in NATO into the war.

So I’m not really sure, but the rhetoric across Europe is quite concerning, because everyone talked about the drone attack, and no one challenges whether or not this is actually correct. But even the Poles now have come out. Tusk, he confirmed that the so-called attack didn’t actually involve any drones with warheads, so they’re decoy drones.

And so using this war attack is quite extreme.

It’s also incendiary for the European neocons, of which there are plenty in Poland, and which lead Germany, Great Britain and France.

Well, if you look at what preceded this, we recently had this huge scandal. Only, I think, it was the week before, the airplane of Wunderlein, the EU president, was also, well, allegedly then attacked by Russia, by its GPS signals were being jammed. Now, this was proven to be fake.

It was our plane was supposed to be in the air for hours, not able to land. There was no jamming, and it flew in one circle and landed in 10 minutes. And there was no indication that Russia had done anything.

So, this was a propaganda stunt. But what happened, you saw in the media, everyone was super excited. Oh, look, the Russians are evil.

Here’s our smoking gun. And you saw something similar with this, well, what they called the drone attack on Poland, which didn’t have warheads. Immediately, the Europeans were very disappointed that Trump didn’t take a harsher stand against Russia.

I’m sceptical, at least.

Your European colleague who appears on the show all the time, Gilbert Doctorow, says this, you’ll probably agree, says this is right out of the MI6 playbook, that this is exactly what they don’t have much of a military, the British, but their intelligence community is actually more aggressive than the American, according to Gilbert Doctorow, and this is what they do. If he’s right, then CIA knew about this because they share everything, don’t they?

Yeah, no, well, it’s strange that there’s no more demand for accountability or evidence. The same goes with the Russian jets being allegedly over Estonia, these three jets. I would like to see evidence because keep in mind that we’ve gone through the Russia gate years, years and years where every day in the headlines there were claims which has proven to be false.

This was followed up by the Biden laptop scandal, also proven to be false. We had the story of the Russians putting bounties on American soldiers’ head in Afghanistan, also false. So we have all these fake stories, but there’s never any accountability.”

From Judging Freedom: Prof. Glenn Diesen : Zelensky Appeals for Arms to Fight Russia at the UN, 24 Sep 2025
https://podcasts.apple.com/dk/podcast/judging-freedom/id1591962689?i=1000728400185&r=1000

I øvrigt bør regeringen gå af

Udgivet i Skriv en kommentar

Casus belli?

En flok europæiske puhlitikere er tilsyneladende voldsomt interesseret i at udvide krigen til at omfatte alle (altså ikke at de har tænkt sig selv at gå forrest, andres blod skal udgydes).

Droneangrebet’ på Ukraine anføres som beviset på det russiske regimes ultimative mål, russisk besættelse af hele Vesteuropa. Det kommer ikke til at ske, først og fremmest fordi det ikke ligger inden for det russiske regimes evne, men heller ikke regimets hensigt.

Hvad enten det var et false flag eller ej, så er villigheden til eskalering skræmmende – psykopaterne regerer.

Dette præventive system (sic!) er angiveligt klar om fire år – men der taler vi jo alle russisk.

58.000.000.000 kr (budgetteret)

En flok små napoleoner, fra lande med økonomier der på ingen måde kan bære den militarisering, som i øvrigt er komplet unødvendig, prøver at holde fast i magten ved at at kaste os ud i en krig, vi formentlig alle taber.

I øvrigt bør regeringen gå af (den repræsenter ‘os’ ikke).

Udgivet i Skriv en kommentar

Det rette diplomatiske værktøj…

Grok (listen er ikke komplet, vi har for eksempel ikke lige fået Iran og Venezuela med):
Defining “invasion” or “military attack” by the United States or NATO since World War II (1945) requires careful consideration, as these terms can encompass a range of actions, from full-scale invasions to airstrikes, covert operations, or support for regime change. Below, I’ll provide a list of countries where the U.S., NATO, or NATO member states (acting under NATO auspices) have engaged in significant military actions, including invasions, airstrikes, or other direct interventions. I’ll focus on verifiable instances of direct military engagement, excluding non-military actions like economic sanctions or diplomatic efforts. The list is organized chronologically and includes brief context for each case, based on historical records and my understanding of international conflicts up to September 2025.

Countries Attacked or Invaded by the U.S. or NATO Since WWII

1. Korea (1950–1953)

U.S. Involvement: The U.S., under a UN mandate but leading a coalition, intervened in the Korean War to repel North Korean forces after their invasion of South Korea. This involved ground troops, airstrikes, and naval support.

NATO Involvement: No direct NATO role, as the alliance was primarily focused on Europe, but individual NATO members (e.g., UK, Canada) contributed troops under the UN framework.

Nature: Large-scale military intervention, including ground invasion and bombing campaigns.

2. Cuba (1961)

U.S. Involvement: The U.S. orchestrated the Bay of Pigs invasion, a failed attempt by CIA-trained Cuban exiles to overthrow Fidel Castro’s government.

NATO Involvement: None.

Nature: Covert invasion attempt with U.S. air and logistical support.

3. Vietnam (1961–1973)

U.S. Involvement: The U.S. deployed ground troops, conducted extensive airstrikes (e.g., Operation Rolling Thunder), and engaged in a prolonged war against North Vietnam and Viet Cong forces to prevent communist control of South Vietnam.

NATO Involvement: None, though some NATO allies (e.g., UK) provided indirect support.

Nature: Full-scale invasion and bombing campaign.

4. Dominican Republic (1965)

U.S. Involvement: The U.S. sent troops to intervene in a civil war, occupying parts of the country to prevent a perceived communist takeover.

NATO Involvement: None.

Nature: Military invasion and occupation.

5. Grenada (1983)

U.S. Involvement: The U.S. invaded Grenada (Operation Urgent Fury) to oust a Marxist government following a coup, deploying ground forces and airstrikes.

NATO Involvement: None.

Nature: Invasion and occupation.

6. Panama (1989)

U.S. Involvement: The U.S. invaded Panama (Operation Just Cause) to remove Manuel Noriega, involving ground troops and airstrikes.

NATO Involvement: None.

Nature: Invasion and regime change.

7. Iraq (1991)

U.S. Involvement: The U.S. led a coalition, including NATO allies (e.g., UK, France), in Operation Desert Storm to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, involving massive airstrikes and a ground offensive.

NATO Involvement: No formal NATO role, but NATO members participated in the coalition.

Nature: Invasion of Iraqi-held territory and extensive bombing.

8. Somalia (1992–1993)

U.S. Involvement: The U.S. led a UN-backed intervention (Operation Restore Hope) to address humanitarian crises and conflict, deploying troops and engaging in combat (e.g., Battle of Mogadishu).

NATO Involvement: None, though NATO allies contributed to the UN mission.

Nature: Military intervention with ground and air operations.

9. Bosnia and Herzegovina (1995)

U.S. Involvement: The U.S. conducted airstrikes under NATO’s Operation Deliberate Force to target Bosnian Serb forces during the Yugoslav Wars.

NATO Involvement: NATO led the airstrike campaign and later deployed peacekeeping forces under the Dayton Agreement.

Nature: Airstrikes and peacekeeping deployment.

10. Serbia/Kosovo (1999)

U.S. Involvement: The U.S. led NATO’s Operation Allied Force, conducting airstrikes against Serbian forces to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.

NATO Involvement: NATO’s first major combat operation, involving extensive bombing of Serbian military and infrastructure targets.

Nature: Airstrike campaign, no ground invasion.

11. Afghanistan (2001–2021)

U.S. Involvement: The U.S. invaded Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom) to dismantle al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban from power following the 9/11 attacks, involving ground troops and airstrikes.

NATO Involvement: NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time, leading the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) from 2003 to support stabilization and combat operations.

Nature: Invasion, occupation, and prolonged counterinsurgency.

12. Iraq (2003–2011)

U.S. Involvement: The U.S. led a coalition (including NATO allies like the UK) in the invasion of Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom) to topple Saddam Hussein’s regime, followed by occupation and counterinsurgency.

NATO Involvement: No formal NATO invasion role, but NATO provided training support (NATO Training Mission–Iraq) from 2004.

Nature: Invasion, occupation, and airstrikes.

13. Libya (2011)

U.S. Involvement: The U.S. participated in NATO’s Operation Unified Protector, conducting airstrikes to enforce a UN-mandated no-fly zone and support rebels against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.

NATO Involvement: NATO led the air campaign, with member states (e.g., France, UK) heavily involved.

Nature: Airstrikes and naval operations, no ground invasion.

14. Syria (2014–present)

U.S. Involvement: The U.S. led a coalition (including NATO allies like the UK and France) in Operation Inherent Resolve, conducting airstrikes and deploying special forces against ISIS and other groups.

NATO Involvement: No formal NATO role, but NATO members participated in the coalition, and NATO provided AWACS support.

Nature: Airstrikes, special forces operations, and support for local forces.

15. Yemen (2015–present)

U.S. Involvement: The U.S. has conducted drone strikes and special forces operations against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and provided logistical support (e.g., refueling, intelligence) to the Saudi-led coalition’s air campaign against Houthi rebels.

NATO Involvement: None, though NATO allies (e.g., UK) have supported the Saudi coalition.

Nature: Drone strikes and indirect support for airstrikes.

Notes and Clarifications

Scope of “Invasion” or “Attack”: The list includes direct military actions like invasions (e.g., Afghanistan, Iraq), airstrikes (e.g., Libya, Syria), and covert operations with significant military components (e.g., Cuba). It excludes non-military actions like cyberattacks or funding insurgencies without direct U.S./NATO combat involvement (e.g., Iran 1953 coup).

NATO’s Role: NATO’s direct involvement is limited to specific cases (e.g., Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya). In other instances, individual NATO members acted under U.S.-led coalitions or unilaterally, not as NATO operations.

Time Frame: The list covers actions from 1945 to September 2025. No major new U.S. or NATO invasions have been widely reported since the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, though ongoing operations (e.g., Syria, Yemen) continue.

Sources: This is based on historical records, declassified documents, and reports from sources like the Congressional Research Service, UN records, and academic histories of U.S. and NATO interventions. For recent actions, I’ve cross-referenced open-source data, including posts on X, which mention ongoing U.S. drone strikes in Yemen and Syria as of 2025.

Limitations

• The list may omit minor or covert operations with limited documentation (e.g., small-scale special forces raids).

• Some actions (e.g., Yemen) involve indirect support, which may not fit a narrow definition of “attack” but are included due to significant U.S. military involvement.

• If you want a deeper dive into any specific case or additional countries, let me know, and I can analyze further, including checking X posts or web sources for real-time context.

This covers the major instances. If you have a specific definition of “invasion” or “attack” or want me to focus on a particular region or time period, I can refine the list!

Intet under at Mette forslår yderligere begrænsning af folks muligheder for at kommunikere privat! Det er selvfølgelig for at beskytte børnene!!

Læs mere om hvad EU-formandskabet har i støbeskeen her; det er skræmmende læsning.

I stedet burde regeringen, kommissionen, gå af og ophøre med at blande sig i stort og småt. Lov er ikke (burde ikke være) et middel til plyndring. Bastiat beskrev det i 1849 – det gælder stadig!

Hvad er Lov?
Udgivet i Skriv en kommentar

Hverken russkierne eller kinøjserne er en reel trussel

…den største trussel mod den vestlige borgers velfærd er – som sædvanlig – deres ‘egne’ regimer. Ingen anden kriminel organisation formår at plyndre befolkningen systematisk, årti efter årti. Takket være massiv udannelse i propagandasystemet er mange af ofrene endda taknemmelige.

Læs Stockmans opfølgning på Nobel-til-Trump indslaget her.

En flok psykopatiske ‘ledere’ i Europa er forbenet i trangen til at kaste kontinentet ud i endnu en afsindig krig, nu hvor vi har passeret 100-året for starten på den første.

Her har vi Ursula von der Lying, der gerne kolporterer propaganda for at holde krigstrommerne i gang… slemme russere.

Den danske regering er blandt de mere aggressive- den burde i stedet gå af. Har de mod på det, kan de gerne tage østpå og slås for egne midler.

Rothbard forklarer hvorfor vi ikke kan bruge den til noget fornuftigt.