Obama deliberately lied when he claimed Syria Government behind the sarin gas attack in Ghouta

You only have to look at the USA’s support of Israel, who use illegal weapons and acts against the Palestinians. To realise the problems in the Middle-East, stem from USA interference. The USA, through Turkey, is pushing towards WWIII, by shooting down Russian aircraft.

Uprootedpalestinians's Blog

Obama Lied When He Said This

Eric Zuesse

U.S. President Obama’s central case against Syria’s Bashar al-Assad (and his central argument against Assad’s supporter Russia on that matter) is that Assad was behind the sarin gas attack in Ghouta Syria on 21 August 2013 — but it’s all a well-proven lie, as will be shown here.

President Obama said this to the UN on September 24th: “The evidence is overwhelming that the Assad regime used such weapons on August 21st. U.N. inspectors gave a clear accounting that advanced rockets fired large quantities of sarin gas at civilians. These rockets were fired from a regime-controlled neighborhood and landed in opposition neighborhoods.”

As I wrote in an article earlier in September, summing up the evidence on this (and you can click through all the way to the ultimate published sources here):

——

The great investigative journalist Christof Lehmann headlined on 7 October…

View original post 1,483 more words

Burning our way towards the ecocide of the human race

Despite all the evidence, that shows our continuing burning of fossil-fuels and biomass, is leading towards catastrophic climate change. The fossil-fuel industry continues with its quest to extract the remaining fossil-fuels. This is despite the fact we passed the point of Peak Oil some time ago. These industries like BP, pulled out of any alternative investments, such as for renewable energy and now find themselves locked into stranded assets. As do Governments (local and national), insurance companies, pension funds, banks and investment funds.

There have been several reports on the economic impact of climate change, including Climate change slams global economy study.  And despite reports that ask the question, will the frackers go bust?
The UK Government is pushing ahead with fracking.  An update from Recent fracking research round-up from the UK.  They are also pushing ahead with burning bio-mass, despite it being shown to be as bad as coal, especially to human health: Pulp fiction.

 

And this is all happening, despite the Brundtland Report published in 1987, pointing out:

Page 17.

31. The objective of sustainable development and the integrated nature of the global
environment/development challenges pose problems for institutions, national and
international, that were established on the basis of narrow preoccupations and
compartmentalized concerns. Governments’ general response to the speed and scale of global
changes has been a reluctance to recognize sufficiently the need to change themselves. The
challenges are both interdependent and integrated, requiring comprehensive approaches and
popular participation.

Nearly 30 years later, after many different conferences, the Governments of the Global North’s response has not changed.  They have refused, steadfastly, to answer the ‘Call to Action’.  Even when the report stated:

Page 35.

32. Little time is available for corrective action. In some cases we may already be close to
transgressing critical thresholds. While scientists continue to research and debate causes and
effects, in many cases we already know enough to warrant action. This is true locally and
regionally in the cases of such threats as desertification, deforestation, toxic wastes, and
acidification; it is true globally for such threats as climate change, ozone depletion, and species
loss. The risks increase faster than do our abilities to manage them.

And we have Governments like the UK’s, stating we need shale and coal-bed methane gas, as a bridging fuel?  Thirty years ago, the report made this observation about fossil fuels:

Page 147.

17. In terms of pollution risks, gas is by far the cleanest fuel, with oil next and coal a poor third.
But they all pose three interrelated atmospheric pollution problems: global warming, urban
industrial air pollution, and acidification of the environment. Some of the wealthier
industrial countries may possess the economic capacity to cope with such threats. Most
developing countries do not.

Is it the sentence; ‘Some of the wealthier industrial countries may possess the economic capacity to cope with such threats’.  That makes the Governments of the Global North, continue with ‘business-as-usual’?