Post by Wayne Hall on Sept 24, 2011 0:08:50 GMT -5
This e-mail is a first attempt to situate the chemtrails/HAARP issue in the context of changing global geopolitics.
WH
From: Wayne Hall
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 7:26 AM
Subject: Re: Turkish PM calls Cyprus, Israel drilling "madness", raising stakes in a confrontation over potentially huge deposits in eastern Mediterranean
There are doubtless positive and negative aspects of the neo-Ottoman idea. It should not be looked at, in my opinion, only through the easy Cold-War-oriented perspective of the potential for conflict with Russia. It could also be an opportunity for Europe to find its geopolitical identity. The dispute over gas and oil is a regrettable diversion and a bad and retrograde aspect of the whole show when what should be happening now is development of the many alternatives to non-renewable energy resources that are technologically feasible but taboo. Nevertheless, the regrettable diversion is part of the reality.
Turkey's attempt to keep Cyprus out of the EU presidency should be resisted. This will no-doubt reinforce Turkey's neo-Ottoman tendencies but so what? Its good aspects should be kept in mind and only its bad aspects countered.
The politics of Cyprus has some pioneering aspects to it. For example the Green Party of Cyprus is the only Green Party in the world which, at the leadership level, confronts reality on the subject of geoengineering/chemtrails/HAARP.
www.enouranois.gr/english/epistolesenglish/indeepitropiagona.htm
The following letter was circulated recently by thev Cyprus Green Party to its members and obviously represents a theoretical perspective of which they approve:
Cyprus Green Party
169 Athalassas Avenue, Office 301
2024 Nicosia
P.O. Box: 29682, 1722 Nicosia
Tel.: 22518787 Fax: 22512710
Email: greenparty@cytanet.com.cy
www.cyprusgreens.org
From: Wayne Hall
Sent: 21 September 2011 12:36
To: Claire Henri, S. Rulekowski, Genevieve Azam r
Subject: Re: Climate Solidarity Now
Dear Claire, Sylvie and Genevieve,
I also mentioned the subject of geoengineering at an ATTAC climate change workshop organized by Genevieve at the European Network Academy meeting organized by the European ATTACs in Freiburg in August. The response was not as negative as the response in Arles described by Sylvie. Two participants expressed interest in Patrick Pasin's "Bye Bye Blue Sky" film and Genevieve even acknowledged that geoengineering is not just a proposal but a reality.
I tried to argue (in the workshop and in a plenary session) that opposition to geoengineering should not be subordinated to the anthropogenic climate change debate, because whichever side of the climate change debate has scientific truth on its side, the fact is that the "cures" proposed (and implemented) for anthropogenic climate change: nuclear power, geoengineering, genetic modification of plants, emissions trading, etc. etc. are all worse than the disease. The climate debate has been instrumentalized by those who wish to promote these false solutions to what may or may not be a problem. Genevieve did not accept that geoengineering is more of a problem than anthropogenic climate change or that climate change discussion should be given the back seat and opposition to geoengineering the front seat.
Our main complaint with the stance of Genevieve is surely the same as our complaint about the stance of the ETC group and Hands off Mother Earth: either there is denial of the notion that geoengineering, (or something that looks like it) is already in mass application, or alternatively there is avoidance of the subject or, as in Genevieve's case, acknowledgement that geoengineering is not a proposal but a reality, but refusal to draw any conclusions from this and become involved in the struggle of the "chemtrails" activists.
To go further than this and try to get Genevieve to change sides in the anthropogenic climate change debate and become a critic of Al Gore surely undermines the effort to persuade her to acknowledge something much closer to what she already believes. I am pleased that there are people in Greece such as Dr. Nikos Katsaros, and in Cyprus such as the parliamentarian George Perdikis who can take a position against geoengineering and chemtrails without feeling the need to persuade ecologists to change their views on the subject of anthropogenic climate change.
I suspect that Sylvie is unaware of how pioneers of geoengineering proposals such as Edward Teller promoted simultaneously BOTH anthropogenic climate change scepticism and geoengineering as a solution to the problem of anthropogenic climate change. This type of ostensible irrationality and insanity is something he perfected in the nuclear weapons laboratories and I am afraid that the game is more complicated than climate change sceptic chemtrail activists seem to realise.
The best solution in my view is to keep the anthropogenic climate change debate OUT of our campaign against chemtrails and geoengineering.
I would like to have some comment from Genevieve on this. Genevieve, who has more chance of securing your acceptance: a person who wants you to put the climate change debate on the back burner and prioritize opposition to geoengineering, or the person who wants you to acknowledge that your views on anthropogenic climate change are wrong and that you have been taken in by a hoax?
Or are we perhaps both in the same category: neither of us have any hope of securing your acceptance or co-operation???
Looking forward to a continuation of this discussion. Note that I am ccing Dr. Katsaros and Mr. Perdikis.
Wayne Hall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Bob Rigg
Cc: (snip)
: Re: Turkish PM calls Cyprus, Israel drilling "madness", raising stakes in a confrontation over potentially huge deposits in eastern Mediterranean
Another aspect of Turkey's activism.
David
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Erdogan Creates International Complications for Turkey
Dore Gold Israel Hayom September 23, 2011
While Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan has been using his anti-Israeli rhetoric to build up Turkey as a new great power in the Arab world, his neo-Ottoman policy is sparking a reaction among other countries that could pose for him serious problems in the period ahead. For Erdogan has not only been using aggressive rhetoric against Israel. In the last few weeks the Turkish government has also been threatening Cyprus for developing its undersea gas resources in the Mediterranean. As a result, Russia has been drawn in to neutralize Turkish behavior.
Cyprus just signed an agreement with the Texas-based Noble Energy, which is in a partner in developing Israeli maritime gas fields, as well. Turkey's Minister for EU Affairs, Egemen Baðýþ let it be known that the Turkish Navy could intervene if Greek Cyprus does not call off the project. He said "That's what a navy is for." As a result, the Russian Foreign Ministry publicly backed the right of Cyprus to develop its Mediterranean gas. Cyprus, in turn, described Russia as "a shield against any threats by Turkey."
Last Friday, the famous Russian daily, Pravda, published an article entitled "Turkey Wants to Revive the Ottoman Empire." The article reviewed the way Turkey has been building its influence in the last few years with the Muslims of Bosnia, which is a sensitive point for Moscow, the traditional ally of the Serbs. The article also warned that Turkey was undergoing a process of "gathering strength" in order to claim territories that it lost with the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. It predicted greater Turkish activity in the Caucuses and in Crimea, "which cannot but worry Russia."
Turkish policy in the Balkans has also raised eyebrows among a number of states in recent years, During a visit to Sarajevo in 2001 Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu declared "The Ottoman centuries of the Balkans were success stories. Now we have to reinvent this." He also has spoken about the Balkans, the Caucuses, and the Middle East as Turkish spheres of influence, which were better off under the Ottoman Empire than they are today. The Caucuses are of course part of Russia, which puts this new Turkish policy into a potentially direct clash with Moscow in the future.
Where does this Russian concern with the revival of Turkish power come from? Are there special links between Russia and Cyprus that cause Moscow to act as its defender? Looking back with some historical perspective, many have forgotten that Russia was at war with the Ottoman Empire for centuries. In 1774, the Russians seized Muslim populated territories from the Ottoman Empire for the first time when they took control of Crimea and signed a peace treaty at Küçük Kaynarca in which Russia claimed to be the protector of all Greek Orthodox Christians--including those in Greece and Cyprus.
By World War I, the Russian Army invaded what is today Eastern Turkey; while after World War II, Russia claimed the Turkish Straits into the Mediterranean, and was held back by the US at the beginning of the Cold War. In short, Russia and Turkey are old rivals. What Erdogan and his ministers have succeeded in accomplishing is to awaken a sleeping Russian bear by reviving Moscow's historical concerns with with an atavistic Turkey with ambitions to restore its old areas of influence.
Looking at the Middle East from Moscow's vantage point, a Turkey with an Islamist foreign policy poses a greater problem for Russia than Iran. Across much of Russia, most of the peoples living there speak dialects of the Turkish language. Because they are Sunni Muslims, they are more open to Sunni organizations based in Turkey than to Shiite groups operating on behalf of Iran. Secular Turkey fought against Islamist groups; yet Erdogan's Turkey supports them, including organizations like the IHH, which was responsible for the violence on the lead ship in the 2010 Gaza Flotilla, the Mavi Marmara. According to a July 2010 report in the New York Times, many board members of the IHH have been officials in Erdogan's ruling AKP Party.
The Russians probably noticed that one of the IHH operatives on the Marmara, Erdinç Tekir, participated in a 1996 terrorist attack on a Russian ferry in the Black Sea, whose purpose was to obtain the release of Chechen terrorists from a Russian prison. Indeed the founders of the IHH served as volunteers in the Mujahideen Brigade that fought the Russians' Serbian allies during the Bosnian War. Previous Turkish governments seized IHH documents which showed that its members were going to fight in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Chechnya. The IHH leader, Bulent Yildirim, gave a speech in October 2010, attacking Russia, as well as other major powers for killing Muslims.
Russia is not about to go to war with Turkey. And Israel still prefers that its old relations with Turkey can be restored in the future. But at the same time Israel should be aware of the fact it is not the only state having problems with Turkey lately. Erdogan and his foreign minister are visiting former Ottoman territories and rather than acting according the the subtle rules of diplomacy that an ambitious state should follow, Turkey comes off like a "bull in a china shop" after many of these visits. Last week, Ankara threatened the European Union if it gives Cyprus the rotating presidency of the EU in 2012. The lesson is that the international politics of the Middle East are dramatically changing, and Israel will have to carefully monitor who is allied with whom in the Eastern Mediterranean in the years ahead.
The writer, a former Israeli UN ambassador, is president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
WH
From: Wayne Hall
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 7:26 AM
Subject: Re: Turkish PM calls Cyprus, Israel drilling "madness", raising stakes in a confrontation over potentially huge deposits in eastern Mediterranean
There are doubtless positive and negative aspects of the neo-Ottoman idea. It should not be looked at, in my opinion, only through the easy Cold-War-oriented perspective of the potential for conflict with Russia. It could also be an opportunity for Europe to find its geopolitical identity. The dispute over gas and oil is a regrettable diversion and a bad and retrograde aspect of the whole show when what should be happening now is development of the many alternatives to non-renewable energy resources that are technologically feasible but taboo. Nevertheless, the regrettable diversion is part of the reality.
Turkey's attempt to keep Cyprus out of the EU presidency should be resisted. This will no-doubt reinforce Turkey's neo-Ottoman tendencies but so what? Its good aspects should be kept in mind and only its bad aspects countered.
The politics of Cyprus has some pioneering aspects to it. For example the Green Party of Cyprus is the only Green Party in the world which, at the leadership level, confronts reality on the subject of geoengineering/chemtrails/HAARP.
www.enouranois.gr/english/epistolesenglish/indeepitropiagona.htm
The following letter was circulated recently by thev Cyprus Green Party to its members and obviously represents a theoretical perspective of which they approve:
Cyprus Green Party
169 Athalassas Avenue, Office 301
2024 Nicosia
P.O. Box: 29682, 1722 Nicosia
Tel.: 22518787 Fax: 22512710
Email: greenparty@cytanet.com.cy
www.cyprusgreens.org
From: Wayne Hall
Sent: 21 September 2011 12:36
To: Claire Henri, S. Rulekowski, Genevieve Azam r
Subject: Re: Climate Solidarity Now
Dear Claire, Sylvie and Genevieve,
I also mentioned the subject of geoengineering at an ATTAC climate change workshop organized by Genevieve at the European Network Academy meeting organized by the European ATTACs in Freiburg in August. The response was not as negative as the response in Arles described by Sylvie. Two participants expressed interest in Patrick Pasin's "Bye Bye Blue Sky" film and Genevieve even acknowledged that geoengineering is not just a proposal but a reality.
I tried to argue (in the workshop and in a plenary session) that opposition to geoengineering should not be subordinated to the anthropogenic climate change debate, because whichever side of the climate change debate has scientific truth on its side, the fact is that the "cures" proposed (and implemented) for anthropogenic climate change: nuclear power, geoengineering, genetic modification of plants, emissions trading, etc. etc. are all worse than the disease. The climate debate has been instrumentalized by those who wish to promote these false solutions to what may or may not be a problem. Genevieve did not accept that geoengineering is more of a problem than anthropogenic climate change or that climate change discussion should be given the back seat and opposition to geoengineering the front seat.
Our main complaint with the stance of Genevieve is surely the same as our complaint about the stance of the ETC group and Hands off Mother Earth: either there is denial of the notion that geoengineering, (or something that looks like it) is already in mass application, or alternatively there is avoidance of the subject or, as in Genevieve's case, acknowledgement that geoengineering is not a proposal but a reality, but refusal to draw any conclusions from this and become involved in the struggle of the "chemtrails" activists.
To go further than this and try to get Genevieve to change sides in the anthropogenic climate change debate and become a critic of Al Gore surely undermines the effort to persuade her to acknowledge something much closer to what she already believes. I am pleased that there are people in Greece such as Dr. Nikos Katsaros, and in Cyprus such as the parliamentarian George Perdikis who can take a position against geoengineering and chemtrails without feeling the need to persuade ecologists to change their views on the subject of anthropogenic climate change.
I suspect that Sylvie is unaware of how pioneers of geoengineering proposals such as Edward Teller promoted simultaneously BOTH anthropogenic climate change scepticism and geoengineering as a solution to the problem of anthropogenic climate change. This type of ostensible irrationality and insanity is something he perfected in the nuclear weapons laboratories and I am afraid that the game is more complicated than climate change sceptic chemtrail activists seem to realise.
The best solution in my view is to keep the anthropogenic climate change debate OUT of our campaign against chemtrails and geoengineering.
I would like to have some comment from Genevieve on this. Genevieve, who has more chance of securing your acceptance: a person who wants you to put the climate change debate on the back burner and prioritize opposition to geoengineering, or the person who wants you to acknowledge that your views on anthropogenic climate change are wrong and that you have been taken in by a hoax?
Or are we perhaps both in the same category: neither of us have any hope of securing your acceptance or co-operation???
Looking forward to a continuation of this discussion. Note that I am ccing Dr. Katsaros and Mr. Perdikis.
Wayne Hall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Bob Rigg
Cc: (snip)
: Re: Turkish PM calls Cyprus, Israel drilling "madness", raising stakes in a confrontation over potentially huge deposits in eastern Mediterranean
Another aspect of Turkey's activism.
David
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Erdogan Creates International Complications for Turkey
Dore Gold Israel Hayom September 23, 2011
While Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan has been using his anti-Israeli rhetoric to build up Turkey as a new great power in the Arab world, his neo-Ottoman policy is sparking a reaction among other countries that could pose for him serious problems in the period ahead. For Erdogan has not only been using aggressive rhetoric against Israel. In the last few weeks the Turkish government has also been threatening Cyprus for developing its undersea gas resources in the Mediterranean. As a result, Russia has been drawn in to neutralize Turkish behavior.
Cyprus just signed an agreement with the Texas-based Noble Energy, which is in a partner in developing Israeli maritime gas fields, as well. Turkey's Minister for EU Affairs, Egemen Baðýþ let it be known that the Turkish Navy could intervene if Greek Cyprus does not call off the project. He said "That's what a navy is for." As a result, the Russian Foreign Ministry publicly backed the right of Cyprus to develop its Mediterranean gas. Cyprus, in turn, described Russia as "a shield against any threats by Turkey."
Last Friday, the famous Russian daily, Pravda, published an article entitled "Turkey Wants to Revive the Ottoman Empire." The article reviewed the way Turkey has been building its influence in the last few years with the Muslims of Bosnia, which is a sensitive point for Moscow, the traditional ally of the Serbs. The article also warned that Turkey was undergoing a process of "gathering strength" in order to claim territories that it lost with the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. It predicted greater Turkish activity in the Caucuses and in Crimea, "which cannot but worry Russia."
Turkish policy in the Balkans has also raised eyebrows among a number of states in recent years, During a visit to Sarajevo in 2001 Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu declared "The Ottoman centuries of the Balkans were success stories. Now we have to reinvent this." He also has spoken about the Balkans, the Caucuses, and the Middle East as Turkish spheres of influence, which were better off under the Ottoman Empire than they are today. The Caucuses are of course part of Russia, which puts this new Turkish policy into a potentially direct clash with Moscow in the future.
Where does this Russian concern with the revival of Turkish power come from? Are there special links between Russia and Cyprus that cause Moscow to act as its defender? Looking back with some historical perspective, many have forgotten that Russia was at war with the Ottoman Empire for centuries. In 1774, the Russians seized Muslim populated territories from the Ottoman Empire for the first time when they took control of Crimea and signed a peace treaty at Küçük Kaynarca in which Russia claimed to be the protector of all Greek Orthodox Christians--including those in Greece and Cyprus.
By World War I, the Russian Army invaded what is today Eastern Turkey; while after World War II, Russia claimed the Turkish Straits into the Mediterranean, and was held back by the US at the beginning of the Cold War. In short, Russia and Turkey are old rivals. What Erdogan and his ministers have succeeded in accomplishing is to awaken a sleeping Russian bear by reviving Moscow's historical concerns with with an atavistic Turkey with ambitions to restore its old areas of influence.
Looking at the Middle East from Moscow's vantage point, a Turkey with an Islamist foreign policy poses a greater problem for Russia than Iran. Across much of Russia, most of the peoples living there speak dialects of the Turkish language. Because they are Sunni Muslims, they are more open to Sunni organizations based in Turkey than to Shiite groups operating on behalf of Iran. Secular Turkey fought against Islamist groups; yet Erdogan's Turkey supports them, including organizations like the IHH, which was responsible for the violence on the lead ship in the 2010 Gaza Flotilla, the Mavi Marmara. According to a July 2010 report in the New York Times, many board members of the IHH have been officials in Erdogan's ruling AKP Party.
The Russians probably noticed that one of the IHH operatives on the Marmara, Erdinç Tekir, participated in a 1996 terrorist attack on a Russian ferry in the Black Sea, whose purpose was to obtain the release of Chechen terrorists from a Russian prison. Indeed the founders of the IHH served as volunteers in the Mujahideen Brigade that fought the Russians' Serbian allies during the Bosnian War. Previous Turkish governments seized IHH documents which showed that its members were going to fight in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Chechnya. The IHH leader, Bulent Yildirim, gave a speech in October 2010, attacking Russia, as well as other major powers for killing Muslims.
Russia is not about to go to war with Turkey. And Israel still prefers that its old relations with Turkey can be restored in the future. But at the same time Israel should be aware of the fact it is not the only state having problems with Turkey lately. Erdogan and his foreign minister are visiting former Ottoman territories and rather than acting according the the subtle rules of diplomacy that an ambitious state should follow, Turkey comes off like a "bull in a china shop" after many of these visits. Last week, Ankara threatened the European Union if it gives Cyprus the rotating presidency of the EU in 2012. The lesson is that the international politics of the Middle East are dramatically changing, and Israel will have to carefully monitor who is allied with whom in the Eastern Mediterranean in the years ahead.
The writer, a former Israeli UN ambassador, is president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.