As the world is watching how the current situation between North Korea and the United States of America is unfolding there’s something that’s already very obvious, the more time that elapses the clearer it becomes that there’s much more going on than showing off with nuclear technology.
While the North Korean government remains to project itself as a dictatorial regime enforcer at the expense of the North Korean people the western mainstream media outlets are eager to exploit this opportunity once again, making money with one-sided reports which of course don’t represent the whole story.
The DPRK (North Korea) is increasingly offended by the continuing U.S.-South Korean military drills along its borders and by the stricter sanctions which are destroying the North Korean economy, again at the expense of the North Korean people whose human rights are being violated both by their government and by the proponents of more sanctions against the DPRK.
So why exactly is North Korea a main topic again in mainstream news?
On October 7, 2012, an AFP article was published which confirmed that South Korea made “a deal with the United States to almost triple the range of its missiles to cover the whole of North Korea – a move likely to infuriate Pyongyang.” That assumption that the DPRK would send out a furious response was indeed correct.
North Korea’s response was most likely sought for as well. After all, the U.S. Defense Department (Ballistic Missile Defense System) also has some technology which they want to test in real life situations. Like the SBX-1 – Sea-Based X-Band Radar – part of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System, a mobile military radar station designed to operate at sea, officially, to identify and track enemy warheads. Although the SBX-1 is also being mentioned in other discussions, regarding weather manipulation, featured in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo7Pf37tMpw) at the 3 min 22 sec mark. Why is the SBX-1 being moved to the North Korean border when an e-print (pdf) from the Federation of American Scientists on page 11 clearly states that the SBX-1 “doesn’t have to be near the Korean Peninsula” to be able to track space launches and therefore also other missiles? Does this same e-print suggest in some way that the SBX-1 was built (10 years prior to the current situation, as documented in the MDA’s SBX-1 booklet) by the U.S. especially for its military campaigns against North Korea and Iran? If so, its safe to assume that the plan was there all along to have a conflict with North Korea (and Iran).
But the DPRK’s furious response may have also been sought for for other reasons. We can tell this from remarks like “lots of bidding out of high stake contracts from EADS, Lockheed Martin and Boeing going on, they smell big sales and big profits if South Korea needs to replace its aging air force fleet” by Steve Pieczenik.
There’s also the fact that mainstream news outlets change the script on a daily basis. On April 7, 2013, the New York Times wrote: “South Korea expects missile launch by North” and on April 8 CNN wrote: “North Korea shows signs of preparing for nuclear test”. On that same day AP and the Huffington Post reported that a “top South Korean official misspoke about test preparations” and that “there are vehicle and personnel activities at the northeastern test site but they are seen as usual activities, not an indication for a nuclear test.”
Also on April 8, 2013, CNN reported that an ‘accidental’ war may be possible on the Korean peninsula, caused by “some kind of miscalculation.” With contradicting, one-sided articles and reports like the ones mentioned above the mainstream media may in fact be helping to cause or may even be the reason for such an accidental war. It seems like it doesn’t really matter to mainstream news outlets what they write or say, as long as newspapers are being sold and advertisers pay for what (TV) viewers are watching.
And what should one think about the following odd report?
- (April 3, 2013) – “… A P140 U.S. aircraft cargo plane left Langley, Virginia at 3:30 p.m. EST destination North Korea. The aircraft contains $3 billion that was made available by the Dallas branch of the German Commerzbank. The $3 billion will be delivered directly to North Korea dictator Kim Jong-un by U.S. officials. The U.S. team is headed by former Clinton Administration official, North Korean bag man Bill Richardson. Kim is receiving these bribe funds in exchange for his playing a role in a scripted ‘black op’ that is designed to effect worldwide financial markets.” –Tom Heneghan–
Commerzbank is also mentioned in a wide-ranging investigation of a controversial agreement by Lone Star, Commerzbank and the Import Export Bank of Korea to sell their combined 64.6 percent stake in the Korea Exchange Bank for $6.6 billion.
- “Even with a payoff of 3 billion, [Kim Jong-un] is likely to be getting the shaft big time. I would say that there is a high probability of a nuke going off somewhere now, and that Kim Jong will not be responsible, but he will definitely have the blame rammed down his throat. … It would be a pristine false flag. After all, North Korea said they would do it, RIGHT? Think about that – NK threatens. Something goes BOOM. Perfect setup.” –Jim Stone–
Indeed, it’s not that far fetched at all. There have been secretive U.S. military flights to North Korea in the past, like the ones that the Asahi Shimbun has reported about:
- A visit lasting from August 18 to August 20, 2012
- One on April 7, 2012
- One in November 2011
And if it’s really so unsafe on the Korean Peninsula, like mainstream media wants us all to believe, then why were Anders Fogh Rasmussen (NATO Secretary General) and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry sent on a mission at the Korean Peninsula, as Scott Creighton has pointed out?
Who has helped North Korea with its nuclear program? It’s an important question to ask considering the current situation.
On February 24, 2003, the International Service of the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation wrote: “Donald Rumsfeld, the US secretary of defence [Bush Administration], was on the board of technology giant ABB when it won a deal to supply North Korea with two nuclear power plants. Weapons experts say waste material from the two reactors could be used for so-called ‘dirty bombs’. The Swiss-based ABB told Swissinfo that Rumsfeld was involved with the company in early 2000, when it netted a $200 million (SFr270million) contract with Pyongyang. Rumsfeld was at nearly all the board meetings during his decade-long involvement with the company.”
But the help from another side is as important as ABB’s and Rumsfeld’s. Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, a Pakistani scientist – obtained a degree in metallurgy from the Karachi University and from the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands and a doctorate engineering in metallurgical engineering from the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium [1, 2] – admitted in 2004 that he sold nuclear technology to other countries, including North Korea, Libya, and Iran. This was confirmed in 2005 by the former President of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, who recently also revealed that his regime had a secret pact with the U.S. to allow drone strikes in his country.
Earlier, in 1983, Dr. Khan was convicted in absentia by a Dutch court for “attempting to obtain classified information“ after he fled the Netherlands for Pakistan. Ex-Dutch prime minister Ruud Lubbers said in 2005 that “the CIA had asked the Netherlands in 1975 not to prosecute Abdul Qadeer Khan. The Americans wished to follow and watch Khan to get more information.“
So we know that the U.S. has a nuclear weapons program [1, 2] but they deny North Korea (and Iran) to have one of their own while corporations and the mainstream media on their turn spin the facts as they please as long as the money comes in. Justified or hypocrite?
Maybe we should ask the Israeli government. Could they bring transparency in this nuclear matter?
We already know what Arutz Sheva (israelnationalnews.com) thinks of the current situation:
- “As for President Obama, if Hagel orders a Malmstrom launch, Obama will sign off on it in a heart-beat. Obama’s political advisors will tell him that if he grants consent, the Democrats will sweep the mid-term congressional elections. And in the alternative, if he withholds consent, Obama will be both impeached, and lose the House and Senate in the mid-term elections.”