Is Trump Planning Escalated US Aggression in Syria?

November 3rd, 2017 by Stephen Lendman

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

He’s a warrior president, waging phony war on terrorism, opposing diplomatic conflict resolution, flagrantly violating campaign promises made.

America has illegal military bases in northern and southern Syrian territory.

According to Major General James Jarrard, head of US special operations in Syria and Iraq, 4,000 Pentagon troops are in Syria. Trump claimed 500.

It’s an open secret that far more US military personnel are deployed in combat and other theaters, Pentagon commanders suppressing what’s vital to know.

Trump claimed around 5,300 US troops in Iraq. The actual force may be double or triple this number. Their regional presence has nothing to do with combating ISIS, a scourge Washington supports, along with al-Qaeda, its al-Nusra offshoot and other terrorist groups, used to advance America’s imperium.

Russia and Washington submitted separate Security Council resolutions on extending the OPCW/UN Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM), investigating use of CWs in Syria, falsely blamed on Damascus despite no evidence proving it.

Russia wants the JIM extended until May 16, 2018. Washington proposed another 24 months.

The sinister US text includes a provision for invoking the UN Charter’s Chapter VII, authorizing “action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

Russia strongly opposes efforts to escalate conflict in Syria or anywhere else. America’s position appears polar opposite, using the JIM report on last April’s Khan Sheikhoun incident as justification.

Its unacceptable conclusions were distorted and one-sided. OPCW inspectors never visited sites requiring examination.

Russia called its report sloppy and “amateurish,” based on “a layman’s methodology,” lacking credibility. Moscow’s draft SC resolution calls for revising JIM’s conclusions.

Work done failed to conform to international standards, it said. It called for JIM inspectors to visit Kahn Sheikhoun and Shayrat airbase, the alleged site of the alleged CW attack – what they failed to do since last April, drawing conclusions based on phony evidence supplied by anti-Syrian sources, including the al-Qaeda-linked White Helmets.

Moscow called for a credible full-scale investigation, according to Chemical Weapons Convention standards, what hasn’t been done so far, rendering JIM report an attempt to present phony conclusions, lacking credibility.

Washington lied, calling JIM’s findings serious and trustworthy.

On November 2, US permanent representative to the Conference on Disarmament, Robert Wood, falsely accused Syria of CW use in Khan Sheikhoun, saying:

“The international community must squarely confront this reality and hold Syria accountable for its continued use of chemical weapons,” adding:

JIM “findings make clear that Syria has not renounced chemical warfare. These findings further underscore the risks posed by Syria’s failure to declare the true magnitude and scope of its chemical weapons program and arsenals.”

Is the Trump administration seeking a pretext for escalated war on Syria, using the UN Charter’s Article VII to justify what’s unjustifiable?

Washington’s phony accusations of Syrian CW use appear to be how it’ll claim the right to strike government military and other targets at a time of its choosing.

In March 2011, Obama launched war on the country, using terrorist foot soldiers as proxy fighters, aided by US-led terror-bombing since September 2014 – massacring civilians, destroying vital infrastructure, on the phony pretext of combating ISIS, the scourge America supports.

After taking office, Trump escalated US involvement. Hawkish generals run things, wanting endless war and regime change.

They oppose peaceful conflict resolution, Trump co-opted to go along, out-of-the-loop, likely only aware of what he’s told, having delegated warmaking to Mattis, McMaster and Pentagon commanders.

As long as Washington wants war, not peace, resolving it diplomatically will remain unattainable.

Fighting could continue for years, despite significant progress against ISIS and other US-supported terrorists.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Is Trump Planning Escalated US Aggression in Syria?

Absurdities of Syrian War Propaganda

November 3rd, 2017 by Eva Bartlett

As if we have no memory, corporate media continues to recycle accusations of starvation, chemical weapons, and more, in the propaganda war on Syria.

In Syria, there never was a “revolution.” Instead, it was a premeditated war on Syria by foreign powers (namely the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and Israel) who armed even Al-Qaeda (something Qatar recently admitted).

In support of the conflict comes some of the most egregious war propaganda, endorsed by media, Hollywood celebs, and faux human rights groups. The following is a brief outline of some of the most obvious hoax personalities and purveyors of misinformation on Syria.

Al-Qaeda’s rescuers

Irrefutable documentation reveals that the group known as the White Helmets and portrayed as “neutral, volunteer, rescuers,” are obscenely-funded by Western nations, work solely in Al-Qaeda and co-extremist areas, and have been present to clean up at executions. Yet, we are expected to believe they rescue civilians. People from areas liberated of Al-Nusra and cohorts described them as “the Nusra Front’s civil defense.”

Corporate media did not bother to investigate this transparent propaganda construct. Instead, they lobbied for Al-Qaeda’s rescuers to get the Nobel Prize.

While the group didn’t get the Nobel, they did receive an Oscar, and actor George Clooney‘s endorsement. Even though he is busy being a celebrity, by now, he surely cannot claim ignorance. One wonders whether he will have the gall to continue his support for Al-Qaeda’s rescuers.

Funny terrorist spokesman

American former comedian Bilal Abdul Kareem was embedded with Al-Qaeda and other “moderates” in eastern Aleppo, promoted their narrative and interviewed Saudi terrorist Abdullah Muhaysini. Yet, corporate media like CNN have presented him as an “independent” source of credible information on Syria.

As Aleppo was being liberated of Al-Qaeda and company, Abdul Kareem claimed civilians did not want to go over to ‘regime areas.’ However, on many occasions before liberation, civilians did try to flee to government areas. In November 2016, I interviewed one family who managed to escape, along with over 40 other people. This particular family had tried twice before and were forcibly prevented by the “moderates” in the district of al-Halek in Aleppo.

When I returned in June 2017, in eastern Aleppo, I spoke with residents who had come back when peace was restored. I also saw hospitals turned into terrorist headquarters, using basements for Sharia court prisons.

Following the expulsion of Al-Qaeda and other “moderates,” over 100,000 people from eastern Aleppo chose to stay in government-secured areas, celebrating the liberation of their city.

Starvation in Syria?

The “Assad is starving civilians” theme has been recycled for years, from Damascus to Aleppo to eastern Ghouta. In 2014, a month after the Old City of Homs was secured, I met civilians who told me of terrorists stealing every last morsel of their food. I heard the same in Aleppo, and also this June in Madaya and al-Waer, Homs. When I visited Madaya, people told me: terrorists hoarded the food aid and dramatically inflated the prices to rates civilians couldn’t afford.

I saw a bomb factory, tucked away behind an apartment building, and remnants of the food aid which Ahrar al-Sham and Al-Qaeda had hoarded, and I visited some of their makeshift prisons used to torture and try civilians in Sharia courts. In al-Waer, life was trickling back. People spoke of starvation due to the terrorists, and of relief that their rule was over.

When “rebels” fire mortars into civilians areas, corporate journalists like to claim the Syrian government was the perpetrator. On a November 2016 day when two mortars hit Aleppo’s Castello road, less than 100 meters from where I stood without a helmet or flak jacket, the NY Times wrote that soldiers blamed “rebels” and “rebel groups denied it.” Yet, there was no disputing that the shells came from an Al-Nusra area.

In April 2014, after an elementary school was mortared by terrorists east of Damascus, killing one child, the BBC later reported, “the government is also accused of launching them into neighborhoods under its control.” On a recent social media post, I noted this deceitful journalism, and the BBC could have easily learned about the trajectory of mortars and from where the mortar in question could only have come: the “moderates” east of Damascus.

Channel 4 and Guardian deceptions

In a hotel in Aleppo in July 2016, I shared an elevator with Channel 4 reporter Krishnan Guru Murthy, without knowing who he was. I would later become very familiar with Channel 4 and Guru Murthy’s relentless anti-Syria propaganda and romanticization of the terrorist factions in Syria, white-washing their crimes, relying on Al-Qaeda and other very partial sources.

Guru Murthy produced a report embedded with the Nour al-Din al-Zinki faction, who he deemed “moderates,” although some months prior they had savagely beheaded Abdullah Issa, a Palestinian boy. Not initially a problem for Channel 4, they did later remove the incriminating video.

Not featured on Channel 4 or other corporate media reports were the nearly 11,000 civilians killed by the bombing and sniping of “rebels.”

I wrote about these attacks, and the over 4,000 Aleppo doctors disappeared by the media, along with hospitals and schools attacked by “moderates.” Corporate media was busy claiming “last doctors” in Aleppo.

When Krishan Guru Murthy, in July 2017, returned to Aleppo and interviewed MP Fares Shehabi, Guru Murthy refused to “get into history” over his lies, much less to acknowledge that the “moderates” he propagated about were Al-Nusra.

In April 2016, the Guardian reported that a Syrian or Russian airstrike “completely destroyed” the Quds hospital in Sukkari, Aleppo. The Guardian later claimed civilians were being treated in the same hospital after a chlorine gas attack, not researching that the sole chlorine gas factory in Syria had been taken over by Al-Nusra in 2012.

The original lie about Al-Quds’ destruction came from Médecins Sans Frontières, which claimed Quds had been “destroyed,” reduced “to rubble.” Since the Guardian was complicit in reproducing the lie, why didn’t the Guardian at least go to see the Quds hospital after Aleppo was secured? I did.

In June 2017, I stood inside the intact hospital. It was never destroyed.

I also met the boy, Omran Daqneesh, who, according to the Guardian, was injured by a Syrian or Russian airstrike in 2016. Mohammad Daqneesh said his son was only mildly injured, and not by an airstrike. He blamed media and those affiliated with the White Helmets for using his son in propaganda.

America’s fake war on ISIS

In June 2017, the American-led coalition illegally attacked Syria, shooting down a Syrian plane. America did so admittedly to protect its proxy forces, the Kurdish SDF, which the US is using not to fight ISIS but in its continued attempts to destabilize Syria and control its oilfields.

In September 2016, the US-led coalition waged a nearly one hour attack on a Syrian military position in Deir ez-Zor, enabling ISIS to take over the post.

In May 2015, convoys of ISIS streamed through hundreds of kilometers of open desert, taking over ancient Palmyra. The well-equipped, high tech, US-led coalition, offered no resistance, something which even Robert Fisk, openly sour about his dislike of the Syrian government, noted.

America has also “accidentally” delivered weapons to ISIS and has long sought to use a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria, aka Islamic State, as per a declassified US DIA document. One can always listen to John Kerry speaking in September 2016 about how America watched ISIS flourish. Excerpts include Kerry saying “We were watching. We saw that, that Daesh was growing in strength. And we thought Assad was threatened.

ISIS terrorist bedfellows with Israel

In July 2017, the Washington Post reported on an Israeli attack on Syria, citing Benjamin Netanyahu as saying they had attacked Syria “dozens” of times. Mint Press News reported on Israel giving medical treatment to over 3,000 terrorists. A 21st Century Wire article said the preference of Israeli politicians was even for an ISIS victory in Syria.

According to the Times of Israel, ISIS has opened fire on Israel and apologized. This is the jihadist group, ISIS, which doesn’t attack the natural target, Israeli regime occupying Palestine, but instead, collaborates with it.

Unbelievable memoirs

Eight-year-old Aleppo girl, Bana al-Abed, is incapable of speaking or writing in English, and has recently miraculously published her memoirs. For those not familiar with the shameful exploitation of this girl by her mother and terrorist father, I wrote about it in July 2017, also noting:

“The Bana narrative features an endearing child who causes otherwise rationally-thinking people to uncritically-accept transparent war propaganda rhetoric.” Rhetoric included calling for WW3.

Bana has been promoted by fiction writer J.K. Rowling, who shares the same sponsor: the Blair Partnership. Critiques on Amazon reveal that thinking people aren’t buying brand Bana, in spite of her UN appearance and rehearsed speech about children dying from bombs and hunger (which the United Nations retweeted, as all good neutral and credible institutions might).

The above examples don’t even begin to cover the depth of war propaganda on Syria, but they do serve as warnings to consider from where corporate media are getting their claims, and what agenda their claims serve. Hint: it isn’t an agenda of bringing peace to the Syrian people. Maybe it’s time to start believing us “Russian propagandists”: you know, those who actually go and speak to Syrians, instead of citing Al-Qaeda affiliated sources.

Eva Bartlett is a freelance journalist and rights activist with extensive experience in the Gaza Strip and Syria. Her writings can be found on her blog, In Gaza.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Absurdities of Syrian War Propaganda

Featured image: Banksky’s mock royal apology for Balfour (Source: Tikun Olam)

What do Banksy and Arthur Balfour have in common? Read on.

When I first started hearing about the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, I thought: “Ugh, not another minefield to navigate!”  It’s a Rorschach test for Israelis and Palestinians.  One sees triumph and the other defeat, from the same document.

I really didn’t want to write about this for a myriad of reasons.  Primary among which: it seemed a dubious document to celebrate.  Nor did it signify a great deal in terms of its actual impact on events.  Yes, it had symbolic value.  But it didn’t translate into actual state policy or concrete action.

But then I read about the “celebrations” planned for London with none other than the Zio-energizer Bunny, Bibi Netanyahu, in attendance.  That followed news that Jeremy Corbyn was refusing the invitation of the UK Israel Lobby to join the festive occasion.  Of course, the UK’s Lobby-fixtures, including the Jewish Chronicle and the Tory gutter press attempted to make a huge deal out of this.  As if Corbyn’s refusal involved some sort of anti-Semitic impulse.  They couldn’t possibly comprehend that a British politician might have sympathy for anyone other than Zionists.  Nor could they imagine that if Balfour meant anything to Palestinians, it wasn’t a happy meaning.

Several progressive activists have published their own appraisals and PressTV interviewed me last night (see video above) on the subject, so I thought I could have something new to say on the subject that might put this much-mentioned historical document in context.

First, let’s say what Balfour is and isn’t: it did not constitute British recognition of Israel as a state.  It merely said that the British ‘looked favorably’ on the establishment of a “Jewish homeland.”  Even more importantly and rarely remarked upon, it added the caveat that nothing in the document was meant to diminish the rights of the non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine.  In his own comments to the British press, Balfour’s great-nephew makes precisely this point in saying that Israel has refused to recognize this important phrase in denying Palestinians their own national rights to a homeland.

Balfour himself was not a Zionist.  He didn’t even like Jews.  Nor did most of the British élite of the day.  Youssef Munayer even calls Balfour a “white supremacist,” which is precisely right.  In fact, much like the Nazis who arose two decades later, he (along with Herzl himself) saw the creation of a Jewish homeland as a means of solving a problem.  If you could rid England and the continent of much of its Jewish population and safely ensconce them elsewhere, you would relieve the internal tension and conflict resulting from Jew hatred throughout Europe (i.e. the Russian pogroms and missions of Jews who fled them to Britain).  Europeans as a whole generally didn’t like Jews.  Getting rid of them in a benign way was thought to be an excellent means of resolving a thorny ethnic problem.

In American history, no less a figure than Abraham Lincoln endorsed shipping African-Americans back to Africa.  He, Thomas Jefferson and many of the most enlightened white intellectuals of their day could see no way that Blacks could integrate successfully into American society.  So we see the impulse to ethnically cleanse is by no means a European phenomenon alone.

Perhaps most importantly of all, the Declaration resulted in no concrete British policy resolved to implement it.  It was another 30 years before Israel declared its independence.  And Britain did not leave Palestine freely and of its own will.  It did not offer statehood to Israel.  The end of the British mandate resulted from the nation’s bankruptcy at the end of World War II and the need to rapidly shed the colonies which had been such a drain on the state treasury.  When the British freed their colonies they did so abruptly and in a manner that provoked mass slaughter and ethnic conflict.  This happened in both Palestine and in India.

Britain’s approach in mandatory Palestine vacillated depending on who seemed up and who seemed down on any particular day.  For every statement that seemed to favor one party, there was another that favored the other.  For every Balfour Declaration there was a Peel Commission report.  There was no clear policy that offered both sides enough so that they might be satisfied and feel their interests were represented and heard by the colonial overlords.  This in turn is what led to the current state of affairs and 75 years of endless bloodshed.

So the celebration in London of the centenary of Balfour is based on false premises.  Which is but one of the many reasons Jeremy Corbyn made a wise decision in skipping it.  There is no reason to rejoice.  Balfour was the product of a failed colonial system.  England has done little or nothing to promote peace or justice in Israel-Palestine.  Nor is it doing so today (witness Tony Blair’s feeble “Quartet” efforts).  And a celebratory dinner will not change that.

In fact, it will only remind Palestinians how little the world knows or cares about the reserve clause in the original document.  It will remind them that they are the forgotten party whose rights are ignored and dismissed.  It will bolster support for the most militant resistance against Israeli oppression and Occupation.

The Balfour anniversary is a source of sadness and bitterness.  Even historically, it doesn’t mean anything like what its proponents believe.  It is a sham.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Toxic Legacy of Balfour and British Colonialism in Israel-Palestine

Featured image: Clare Daly (Source: The Syria Times)

The Irish politician Clare Daly, who recently visited Syria along with European delegation, has affirmed that the West and the European Union are aggravating the Syrian people’s suffering by sanctions and the U.S. support for Saudi Arabia and Israel in the region.

She has spoken for many times before the Irish parliament about the terrible suffering that the Syrian people have had to endure and she pushed her country’s government to argue in the EU to lift sanction imposed on Syria and to oppose the influence of Israel as well as to stop the west’s facilitation to those who are waging war on Syria.

“Ireland is a small country in Europe but internationally we punch well above our weight. Our country is supposed to be neutral and our people are very proud of that position, even though our government bends the rules and facilitates the US military in using one of our airports in the west of Ireland. They say this is only allowed on the basis that the planes are unarmed and not involved in military exercises. This is ridiculous. Why do they keep flying through our airport every day if they are not involved in military exercises in the Middle East? We have used the parliament to highlight these issues, have been arrested breaking into the airport at Shannon to try and search the planes ourselves. This put a lot of attention on the issue and what is going on in the Middle East. We push our government to argue in the EU to lift the sanctions and to oppose the influence of Israel, and for the West to stop facilitating those who are continuing to arm and finance those waging war in Syria,” the politician said in an email sent to the Syriatimes newspaper about the role of the Irish Members of Parliament in explaining the reality of events in Syria.

She underlined that western powers or those they are bolstering, who are arming and financing the ‘rebels’ need to back off and facilitate an agreed negotiated settlement to end the war through the offices of the UN or an agreed international body.

“Pre-conditions to such negotiations like the removal of president Bashar al-Assad are unacceptable. It is not up to anybody other than the Syrian people to decide their representation,” Daly added, indicating that the EU delegation’s members, who recently visited Syria, will do what they can to allow Syria decides its own fate far away from outside interference.

“Incredible experience”

The Irish MP told us that the EU delegation came to Syria to see for themselves what life is like for ordinary Syrian people after seven years of war and their real feelings about what the future should hold.

“We had an incredible experience in a very short time. Syria is obviously a very beautiful country with an almost unrivaled history, wonderful food and friendly people. People have suffered much and the presence or effects of war are very obvious everywhere, but we met so many people who are proud of their country and want the chance to rebuild it, that it was a very humbling experience for us. People proudly spoke of Syria’s mosaic of different religions and traditions but all united by the love of their country,” Daly asserted.

She pointed out that the delegation visited areas that had been secured by the Syrian army after they had experienced terrible destruction of homes, buildings, and families.

“There was a strong determination to get things back to the way they were. The people we met who have been displaced are the most vulnerable, many are deeply traumatized and sad and they will need a lot of help and support to move on with their lives,” Daly underscored.

She concluded by saying:

“To witness the resilience of the human spirit in the face of huge challenges was really striking. We look forward to our return and will do what we can to urge the world to allow Syria decides its own fate, free from outside interference.”

By the end of last month [October], a delegation composed of activists from Ireland, Romania, Spain, Norway and Sweden visited Syria.

Since 2011, a foreign-backed terror war has been waged against Syria targeting its people, army, civilization and infrastructures in accordance with US-Zionist plot that aims to fragment the region and to have hegemony over its wealth.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Irish Politician to ST: The West, EU, US Aggravate Syrian People’s Suffering by Sanctions

Here’s your ‘Putin Did It!’ Survival Guide…

November 3rd, 2017 by Adam Garrie

This article first appeared on GR in November 2016.

As the Duran reported, it was only a matter of time before the ‘Putin Did It’ (see The Duran Lexicon for more) line crept back into the news in light of a re-opened FBI investigation, following the discovery more incriminating Hillary Clinton emails. Sure enough, Howard Dean, the man who ended his own presidential campaign by acting like a crazed hooligan on stage, has said that now the FBI and Putin are on the same side.

This comes days after Putin reassured the world that he really doesn’t want, need or care to meddle in the US election. Of course the usual suspects in the western mainstream media don’t listen to Putin because he’s just too damn reasonable. It seems that western mainstream media are confounded by Putin’s calm, his consistency, his logic and moreover by the fact that he doesn’t seem too perturbed about the issues that western pundits go hysterical over on a daily basis.

In order to make life easier for those who ‘question more’ in the following week,  I’ve come up with a list of the varieties of people who say ‘Putin did it’ and why.

1. THE OLD ANTI-SOVIET COLD WARRIOR WITH IMAGINARY NUKES AT THE READY

This is an increasingly small but vocal group of people who lost their raison d’etre after the illegal break-up of the Soviet Union. Much like the members of the CPSU who rallied against the leadership of Gorbachev in 1991, this variety of person was equally devastated by the loss of Soviet power. The absence of the USSR meant that they could no longer talk about nuking Moscow in order to ‘free the people’ from Communism. In an instant they went from being extreme defenders of liberty, to trigger happy weirdos.

But life has recently got a lot better for them. These people go home at night pretending that the leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is not Gennady Zyuganov but Vladimir Putin. To them the Soviet Union is back and so too is the great crusade against it.

Many of these people couldn’t actually care less about Hillary Clinton’s emails and her crimes against everyone from Bernie Sanders to foreign heads of state. They’re simply happy that a mainstream political figure has allowed them to once again feel relevant. The USSR is back, it must be destroyed by any means necessary and the former Goldwater supporter Hillary Clinton is their kind of gal. Put on your cowboy boots…

2. THE PATHOLOGICAL ANTI-RUSSIAN RACIST

This group has roots which date back far beyond America’s ascension as a world power. Unlike the previous group, these people are no laughing matter. Where the anti-Soviet cold warriors have a certain Dr. Strangelove value to them, one that even in 1960s America wasn’t fully taken seriously, the anti-Russian racists have been spreading vile propaganda in the west for centuries.

To these people, Russians are barbaric by design. They are expendable and their country is fit to be used by western powers as they see fit. This attitude reached a fevered pitch during the so-called ‘Great Game’ between Britain and Russia in the mid to late 19th century.

The kind of propaganda spouted at that time held that Russians have no culture, no education, no civilisation and most importantly,  that Orthodox Christianity is an inferior faith vis-à-vis varieties of Western Christianity. This was said in spite of Orthodoxy’s direct relationship to the Ancient Church.

This attitude was later elevated to the realm of pseudoscience when Sir Halford John Mackinder proposed that Russia ought to be used as a geographical pivot region that the west must control in order to better dominate the Orient. According to such people, Russia wasn’t even worthy of colonising, it was simply a geographical motorway that ought to be pacified in order to get to the final destination.

These ideas were refined and consequently became highly dangerous under the Nazis. Hitler sought Lebensraum or living space for the German race. In order to accomplish this, Slavic populations, mainly Russians, needed to be eliminated so Hitler could use the land to provide resources for the Germanic races.

Although few of the ‘Putin Did It’ brigade openly associate themselves with Hitler, their attitudes have a similar origin. It is a deep set attitude whereby those of western European lineage and those of a Western Christian persuasion feel they are implicitly superior to Russians, black people, Jewish people, Orthodox Christians, Arabs, all Asian people and native peoples of the Americas and Oceania.  Russia is the safest target for them because of the power and unity of the Russian state. But do not be fooled. These people are old fashioned western racists, they’re just more careful about whom they openly insult these days.

3. THE BORING, WILFULLY IGNORANT LIBERAL

‘Putin isn’t a liberal therefor he MUST be bad’: so goes the mantra of those who talk about Russia in a negative light and blame them for everything from the local health food shop running out of inedible garbage to the fact that their loser kids failed a recent maths exam.

For them, Russia has a DUTY to be a neo-liberal state, because that’s just the way the world should be. There’s a weirdly racist element to this thinking. Because they see Russia as a nation of ‘white people,’ they expect Russia to do as European countries do and embrace the post-identity liberal way where to quote the song Lola by The Kinks ‘Girls will be boys and boys will be girls It’s a mixed up muddled up shook up world’.

They are incensed not by Russia’s alleged lack of democracy but because Russia is too democratic and actively choose to do things the Russian way rather than the liberal European way. Of course this doesn’t fit the narrative, so in their minds, Putin is forcing Russians to have what they want in a totally undemocratic way.

If you’re looking for logic, don’t attempt a conversation with one of these liberals. These people know almost nothing about Russia, they simply cannot believe anyone who looks vaguely white wouldn’t want to be like good European liberals. Therefore it must be due to ‘oppression’.

The insincerity of their pseudo-compassion is easily exposed. Most of these people reckon they are Putin experts and can tell you made up stories concerning everything you need to know about Putin from his childhood to his present attempts to ‘rig the election’.

Less familiar to such people will be the names, Alexander Yakovlev, Yegor Gaidar and Anatoly Chubais. These people are often wilfully ignorant that western bandits like George Soros acted in collusion with Russian traitors in the 1990s to stave the Russian people. When they hear that in the liberal 1990s, young men were committing suicide left and right, the elderly were starving and homeless, young girls who would have been teachers, scientists, athletes or musicians were forced into prostitution; they just tend to cover their ears. To them, the precious liberal narrative is more convenient than the truth of what Russia’s neo-liberal experiment did to the lives of ordinary Russians.

So go on, ignore reality, and don’t choke on your gluten free smoothie. Keep calm and remember no matter the problem, ‘Putin did it’.

4. THE ‘CAN’T HAPPEN HERE’ TRUE BELIEVER

Unlike the previous groups, I almost pity these people. These are the people who were brought up to believe ‘the west is the best’. In the west the newspapers tell the truth and in other places they are full of lies. Western politicians are honourable men and women who go into public service to enhance the lives of their countrymen. In the west there is free speech and everywhere else there isn’t. In the west, everyone is honest.

WRONG!

These people are confounded to lean that western powers are as bad or worse than the faraway places they’ve grown up thinking are vastly underdeveloped and backward vis-à-vis the west. These people still believe the myth even though the age of Wikileaks, new media like The Duran and RT, social media and an inter-connected world, has made such beliefs increasingly difficult to maintain.

For them, the clichés about ‘truth justice and the American (or French, or British, or Swedish or Dutch) way’ must be clung onto because it makes them feel safe in the world and absolves them of any guilt for voting for war criminals and con-artists.

5. HILLARY CLINTON

She really does deserve her own category. Seneca once said, “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful”. This quote goes a long way in explaining the modus-operandi of Hillary Clinton. She will say anything to anyone in order to gain some sort of electoral, economic or general political advantage.

I truly believe that Hillary Clinton knows that Putin did NOT do it. But she has found a way to simultaneously exploit stupid liberals, wicked racists, old Cold Warriors and true believers. It was only after Trump and Putin said some vaguely positive things about one another that Hillary Clinton began blaming Putin for all of her own ills and beyond her, those of the wider world.

This demonstrates that the ‘Putin did it’ line is a child of opportunism rather than ideology. Had Trump and the leaders of China said vaguely positive things about each other ‘China did it’ could have easily been her go-to mantra.

However, Hillary Clinton underestimated Donald Trump. To quote George W. Bush, perhaps she even ‘misunderestimated’ Trump. Where many less independent minded leaders would have buckled under pressure and eventually said, ‘yes Putin is bad, sorry Mrs. Hillary you can spank me now’, Trump stuck to his principles and he ought to be lauded for it.

Trump has consistently said that whilst he doesn’t have a relationship with Putin he would like a good one because, cooperation between superpowers is better than conflict, because a common policy on ISIS is better than a hypocritical and confused one and because Putin is a man who inherently commands respect, something which Donald Trump finds rightly admirable.

The moral of the story is, Hillary Clinton can fool a lot of the people a lot of the time but she cannot fool everybody all of the time. Donald Trump’s indefatigability has made this especially so.

So there you have it. Your ‘Putin Did It’ survival guide. I have a feeling that over the next week it will be increasingly useful.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Here’s your ‘Putin Did It!’ Survival Guide…

The ISIS-held area is rapidly shrinking in the city of Deir Ezzor. On November 1, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) Tiger Forces and the Republican Guard liberated Jubaliyah neighborhood, the central park area, the school of law and education area and the southern part of Hamidiyah neighborhood.

Thus, over the last few days, ISIS has lost over 40% of the area that it had been controlling in the northern part of the city.

On November 2, the Tiger Forces and the Republican Guard advanced deeper in Hamidiyah engaging ISIS in an intense fighting. If the ISIS defense there collapses, the terrorist group will have no chances to resist further attacks of government forces any notable amount of time.

As soon as Deir Ezzor is liberated, the SAA and its allies will focus on clearing the rest of the western bank of Euphrates from ISIS.

On November 1, six Tu-22M3 strategic bombers flew over the territory of Iran and Iraq and carried out a massive strike on ISIS positions near the ISIS-held border town of al-Bukamal. The strikes destroyed outposts, ammunition and weapons depots belonging to the terrorist group.

Meanwhile, the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces seized the villages of al-Akidat and al-Bakaara east of Deir Ezzor city. 29 ISIS members were reportedly killed in the clashes there. Now, the SDF fully encircled the ISIS-held town of al-Busarityah and cut off the only road that could be used by the SAA to reach it. Soon, the SDF will start storming the town itself.

Late on November 1, Israeli warplanes bombed a copper factory in Hisyah Industrial Area 30km south of Homs city. Local sources added that the factory was hit with 7 unspecified munitions. In response, the 72 brigade of the Syrian Air Defense Forces launched an unspecified ground to air missile at the Israeli warplanes. The missile exploded east of al-Qusayr city near the Syrian-Lebanese border. No hits were reported.

The 72 brigade of the Syrian Air Defense Forces is mainly armed with the old-fashioned Soviet-made S-75 air defense system.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Featured image is from South Front.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Syrian SAA Forces Clearing Northern Deir Ezzor from ISIS

Video: The Longest US War: Korea 1950 – 2017

November 3rd, 2017 by Ajamu Baraka

This is a presentation by Ajamu Baraka.

.

.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: The Longest US War: Korea 1950 – 2017

Trump Wants Manhattan Incident Suspect Denied All Rights

November 3rd, 2017 by Stephen Lendman

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

The deplorable state of America finds ways of sinking to new lows – abroad against nonthreatening nations, at home against targeted individuals, mostly Muslims and people of color, the nation’s most disadvantaged.

What happened in Manhattan on Tuesday was dreadful, killing and injuring innocent victims – the stuff US imperial rampaging does globally on an industrial scale, causing millions of casualties, no accountability for perpetrators, the nation’s bipartisan criminal class matching the viciousness of Nazism’s worst.

New York suspect Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov deserves his day in court, his constitutional right.

The Geneva Conventions guarantee a fair trial for anyone charged with war crimes. Pre-Geneva, accused Nazis got one, though not enough of them.

America’s Sixth Amendment, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention of Human Rights, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights (the so-called Pact of San Jose), and other human rights laws affirm the right of a fair civil trial.

Not according to Trump, calling the US justice system a “joke” for the wrong reasons. He wants Saipov receiving “much tougher” treatment. He sounded deranged saying:

“We have to come up with punishment that’s far quicker and far greater than the punishment these animals are getting right now. They’ll go through court for years…We need quick justice, and we need strong justice.”

“I would certainly consider” sending Saipov to Guantanamo – a profoundly illegal black hole of injustice, along with other US global torture prisons.

On Wednesday, neocon John McCain bellowed “(t)ake him to Guantanamo. He’s a terrorist. He should be kept there. There’s no Miranda rights for somebody who kills Americans.”

Neocon Lindsey Graham also supports extrajudicial punishment, blustering Saipov “should be held as an enemy combatant,” the lawless designation discussed in a same day article.

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) represented abused Guantanamo victims for 15 years, detainees denied all rights.

Since 1966, CCR waged an uphill struggle against US injustice. It’s dedicated to advancing and protecting constitutional and international law guaranteed rights.

On November 1, it issued a press release on Saipov, saying the following:

“Guantanamo Bay is and always has been a prison exclusively for Muslims, which is undoubtedly the only reason Donald Trump made the idiotic suggestion to send Sayfullo Saipov there.”

“Fifteen years has proven no one will ever be successfully tried or ‘brought to justice’ at Guantanamo, and the president and his supporters within his own party are deluded if they believe otherwise.”

“Trump’s hatred of immigrants and Muslims emboldens white supremacists and strengthens terrorist groups like ISIS.”

“He cares little for the escalating violence inspired by his statements or the damage to institutions of democratic government he is intent on undermining.”

“The Center for Constitutional Rights has led the fight to close Guantanamo Bay and end torture there since the prison was established more than fifteen years ago.”

“If Mr. Trump sends additional detainees there, we will represent them and fight for them as we continue to fight for the men held there today.”

Wednesday on Fox News, legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said sending Saipov to Guantanamo would be “unfair, unlawful and unconstitutional.”

He’ll likely end up there anyway.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Featured image is from PopCulture.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump Wants Manhattan Incident Suspect Denied All Rights

The six-year violent fratricidal war in Syria caused significant damage to the government.  Syrians, who are unlikely to ever fully recover from the horror they’ve experienced, have to bear the brunt of devastating consequences. In this regard, there is only one question: who must be held responsible for this chaos and suffering of civilians?

Certainly, to admit mistakes is more difficult than to make them. This is proved by the recent statements of the Friends of Syria.

In an interview with Reuters, British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said that the United States, Britain and other countries opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad wouldn’t support the reconstruction of the country until there was a political transition “away from Assad”.

Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Satterfield confirmed that Syrians would be able to rely on assistance from the Friends of Syria only after the change of government. The American diplomat also mentioned that the restoration of Syria directly depended on political processes that should be determined exclusively at the Geneva talks.

It is quite difficult to accept the position of the Western countries since the U.S.-led Coalition’s air strikes caused most of the destructions in the country. According to Airwars monitoring organization, since the beginning of the ‘counter-terrorism’ operation in Syria, the Coalition Air Forces have inflicted more than 14,000 indiscriminate air strikes, which led not only to the destruction of infrastructure but also to the death of at least 5,500 civilians.

It also should be mentioned about Raqqa. In fact, the city turned into ruins due to the join operation of the Coalition and Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).  Certainly, nobody is surprised that representatives of the U.S. current administration refused to comment on the issues of further restoration of the city.

In fact, only Syria’s allies Russia and Iran provide real assistance in the restoration of cities and the provision of humanitarian aid.

Over the last two days, Russia delivered several tons of products and essentials to civilians in Aleppo and Eastern Ghouta.

Columns of humanitarian aid are also coming from Tehran. Iran helps Syrians in Deir Ezzor with food, medicines, and clothing. Moreover, the Iranian government plans to organize the delivery of more than 200 tons of humanitarian aid to Aleppo.

At the same time, during the meetings held within the framework of the 59th Damascus International Fair, the Syrian government signed a number of mutually beneficial agreements on joint construction with India, Iran, and Lebanon.

In fact, it turns out that only a few countries are interested in normalizing the situation in Syria. The West led by the United States is hard to give up the habit of spending money not for help, but for destruction. This is the main reason why Washington is not ready to take responsibility for the deed, despite the fact that the U.S. is guilty.

Sophie Mangal is a special investigative correspondent at Inside Syria Media Center where this article was originally published.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Who Must be Held Responsible for Ruined Syria? US-NATO Supported The Terrorists. U.S. Coalition Air Strikes Caused Most of the Destruction

How America Spreads Global Chaos

November 2nd, 2017 by Nicolas J. S. Davies

As the recent PBS documentary on the American War in Vietnam acknowledged, few American officials ever believed that the United States could win the war, neither those advising Johnson as he committed hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, nor those advising Nixon as he escalated a brutal aerial bombardment that had already killed millions of people.

As conversations tape-recorded in the White House reveal, and as other writers have documented, the reasons for wading into the Big Muddy, as Pete Seeger satirized it, and then pushing on regardless, all came down to “credibility”: the domestic political credibility of the politicians involved and America’s international credibility as a military power.

Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the 1954 Geneva Accords and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die was cast. The CIA’s support for the repressive Diem regime and its successors ensured an ever-escalating war, as the South rose in rebellion, supported by the North. No U.S. president could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited from them.

The critical “lesson of Vietnam” was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book Roots of War.

“At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing,” Barnet wrote, “It has become an impractical means of political domination.”

Losing the war in Vietnam was a heavy blow to the CIA and the U.S. Military Industrial Complex, and it added insult to injury for every American who had lost comrades or loved ones in Vietnam, but it ushered in more than a decade of relative peace for America and the world. If the purpose of the U.S. military is to protect the U.S. from the danger of war, as our leaders so often claim, the “Vietnam syndrome,” or the reluctance to be drawn into new wars, kept the peace and undoubtedly saved countless lives.

Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere, but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991.

Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA’s politicized intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country’s credibility as Johnson and Nixon did. His predictable response has been to escalate ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and West Africa, and to threaten new ones against North Korea, Iran and Venezuela.

Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only become more entrenched over time, as President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now, the lack of any actual military threat to the United States.

Ironically but predictably, the U.S.’s aggressive and illegal war policy has finally provoked a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans. As I explained in a recent article, North Korea’s discovery in 2016 of a U.S. plan to assassinate its president, Kim Jong Un, and launch a Second Korean War has triggered a crash program to develop long-range ballistic missiles that could give North Korea a viable nuclear deterrent and prevent a U.S. attack. But the North Koreans will not feel safe from attack until their leaders and ours are sure that their missiles can deliver a nuclear strike against the U.S. mainland.

The CIA’s Pretexts for War

U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. Fletcher Prouty’s book, The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World, was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher sent to Australia. But Prouty’s book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role of the CIA in U.S. policy.

CIA seal in lobby of the spy agency’s headquarters. (U.S. government photo)

Prouty surprisingly described the role of the CIA as a response by powerful people and interests to the abolition of the U.S. Department of War and the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947. Once the role of the U.S. military was redefined as one of defense, in line with the United Nations Charter’s prohibition against the threat or use of military force in 1945 and similar moves by other military powers, it would require some kind of crisis or threat to justify using military force in the future, both legally and politically. The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such pretexts for war.

The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years.

Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out.

Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq.

CIA in Syria and Africa

But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty meant. In late 2011, after destroying Libya and aiding in the torture-murder of Muammar Gaddafi, the CIA and its allies began flying fighters and weapons from Libya to Turkey and infiltrating them into Syria. Then, working with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Croatia and other allies, this operation poured thousands of tons of weapons across Syria’s borders to ignite and fuel a full-scale civil war.

Once these covert operations were under way, they ran wild until they had unleashed a savage Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria (Jabhat al-Nusra, now rebranded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), spawned the even more savage “Islamic State,” triggered the heaviest and probably the deadliest U.S. bombing campaign since Vietnam and drawn Russia, Iran, Turkey, Israel, Jordan, Hezbollah, Kurdish militias and almost every state or armed group in the Middle East into the chaos of Syria’s civil war.

U.S.-backed Syrian “moderate” rebels smile as they prepare to behead a 12-year-old boy (left), whose severed head is held aloft triumphantly in a later part of the video. [Screenshot from the YouTube video]

Meanwhile, as Al Qaeda and Islamic State have expanded their operations across Africa, the U.N. has published a report titled Journey to Extremism in Africa: Drivers, Incentives and the Tipping Point for Recruitment, based on 500 interviews with African militants. This study has found that the kind of special operations and training missions the CIA and AFRICOM are conducting and supporting in Africa are in fact the critical “tipping point” that drives Africans to join militant groups like Al Qaeda, Al-Shabab and Boko Haram.

The report found that government action, such as the killing or detention of friends or family, was the “tipping point” that drove 71 percent of African militants interviewed to join armed groups, and that this was a more important factor than religious ideology.

The conclusions of Journey to Extremism in Africa confirm the findings of other similar studies. The Center for Civilians in Conflict interviewed 250 civilians who joined armed groups in Bosnia, Somalia, Gaza and Libya for its 2015 study, The People’s Perspectives: Civilian Involvement in Armed Conflict. The study found that the most common motivation for civilians to join armed groups was simply to protect themselves or their families.

The role of U.S. “counterterrorism” operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the “global war on terror,” would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy objective.

“The more intimate one becomes with this activity,” Prouty wrote, “The more one begins to realize that such operations are rarely, if ever, initiated from an intent to become involved in pursuit of some national objective in the first place.”

The U.S. justifies the deployment of 6,000 U.S. special forces and military trainers to 53 of the 54 countries in Africa as a response to terrorism. But the U.N.’s Journey to Extremism in Africa study makes it clear that the U.S. militarization of Africa is in fact the “tipping point” that is driving Africans across the continent to join armed resistance groups in the first place.

This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early 60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on a continental scale.

Taking on China

What seems to really be driving the CIA’s militarization of U.S. policy in Africa is China’s growing influence on the continent. As Steve Bannon put it in an interview with the Economist in August, “Let’s go screw up One Belt One Road.”

Then-Chief White House Strategist Steve Bannon speaking at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland.

China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States “pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business.”

China is too powerful and armed with nuclear weapons. So, in this case, the CIA’s job would be to spread violence and chaos to disrupt Chinese trade and investment, and to make African governments increasingly dependent on U.S. military aid to fight the militant groups spawned and endlessly regenerated by U.S.-led “counterterrorism” operations.

Neither Ledeen nor Bannon pretend that such policies are designed to build more prosperous or viable societies in the Middle East or Africa, let alone to benefit their people. They both know very well what Richard Barnet already understood 45 years ago, that America’s unprecedented investment in weapons, war and CIA covert operations are only good for one thing: to kill people and destroy infrastructure, reducing cities to rubble, societies to chaos and the desperate survivors to poverty and displacement.

As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the safe havens of the world’s wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash on others.

But if that is the only “significant national objective” driving these policies, it is surely about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike.

Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist, beginning with his book on The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty’s analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA’s role in our current wars and the many ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy.

The Three Scapegoats

In Trump’s speech to the U.N. General Assembly, he named North Korea, Iran and Venezuela as his prime targets for destabilization, economic warfare and, ultimately, the overthrow of their governments, whether by coup d’etat or the mass destruction of their civilian population and infrastructure. But Trump’s choice of scapegoats for America’s failures was obviously not based on a rational reassessment of foreign policy priorities by the new administration. It was only a tired rehashing of the CIA’s unfinished business with two-thirds of Bush’s “axis of evil” and Bush White House official Elliott Abrams’ failed 2002 coup in Caracas, now laced with explicit and illegal threats of aggression.

How Trump and the CIA plan to sacrifice their three scapegoats for America’s failures remains to be seen. This is not 2001, when the world stood silent at the U.S. bombardment and invasion of Afghanistan after September 11th. It is more like 2003, when the U.S. destruction of Iraq split the Atlantic alliance and alienated most of the world. It is certainly not 2011, after Obama’s global charm offensive had rebuilt U.S. alliances and provided cover for French President Sarkozy, British Prime Minister Cameron, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Arab royals to destroy Libya, once ranked by the U.N. as the most developed country in Africa, now mired in intractable chaos.

In 2017, a U.S. attack on any one of Trump’s scapegoats would isolate the United States from many of its allies and undermine its standing in the world in far-reaching ways that might be more permanent and harder to repair than the invasion and destruction of Iraq.

In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to “make the economy scream” in preparation for the 1973 coup. But the solid victory of Venezuela’s ruling Socialist Party in recent nationwide gubernatorial elections, despite a long and deep economic crisis, reveals little public support for the CIA’s puppets in Venezuela.

The CIA has successfully discredited the Venezuelan government through economic warfare, increasingly violent right-wing street protests and a global propaganda campaign. But the CIA has stupidly hitched its wagon to an extreme right-wing, upper-class opposition that has no credibility with most of the Venezuelan public, who still turn out for the Socialists at the polls. A CIA coup or U.S. military intervention would meet fierce public resistance and damage U.S. relations all over Latin America.

Boxing In North Korea

A U.S. aerial bombardment or “preemptive strike” on North Korea could quickly escalate into a war between the U.S. and China, which has reiterated its commitment to North Korea’s defense if North Korea is attacked. We do not know exactly what was in the U.S. war plan discovered by North Korea, so neither can we know how North Korea and China could respond if the U.S. pressed ahead with it.

North Korean missile launch on March 6, 2017.

Most analysts have long concluded that any U.S. attack on North Korea would be met with a North Korean artillery and missile barrage that would inflict unacceptable civilian casualties on Seoul, a metropolitan area of 26 million people, three times the population of New York City. Seoul is only 35 miles from the frontier with North Korea, placing it within range of a huge array of North Korean weapons. What was already a no-win calculus is now compounded by the possibility that North Korea could respond with nuclear weapons, turning any prospect of a U.S. attack into an even worse nightmare.

U.S. mismanagement of its relations with North Korea should be an object lesson for its relations with Iran, graphically demonstrating the advantages of diplomacy, talks and agreements over threats of war. Under the Agreed Framework signed in 1994, North Korea stopped work on two much larger nuclear reactors than the small experimental one operating at Yongbyong since 1986, which only produces 6 kg of plutonium per year, enough for one nuclear bomb.

The lesson of Bush’s Iraq invasion in 2003 after Saddam Hussein had complied with demands that he destroy Iraq’s stockpiles of chemical weapons and shut down a nascent nuclear program was not lost on North Korea. Not only did the invasion lay waste to large sections of Iraq with hundreds of thousands of dead but Hussein himself was hunted down and condemned to death by hanging.

Still, after North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006, even its small experimental reactor was shut down as a result of the “Six Party Talks” in 2007, all the fuel rods were removed and placed under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the cooling tower of the reactor was demolished in 2008.

But then, as relations deteriorated, North Korea conducted a second nuclear weapon test and again began reprocessing spent fuel rods to recover plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.

North Korea has now conducted six nuclear weapons tests. The explosions in the first five tests increased gradually up to 15-25 kilotons, about the yield of the bombs the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but estimates for the yield of the 2017 test rangefrom 110 to 250 kilotons, comparable to a small hydrogen bomb.

The even greater danger in a new war in Korea is that the U.S. could unleash part of its arsenal of 4,000 more powerful weapons (100 to 1,200 kilotons), which could kill millions of people and devastate and poison the region, or even the world, for years to come.

The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction.

China has proposed a reasonable framework for diplomacy to address the concerns of both sides, but the U.S. insists on maintaining its propaganda narratives that all the fault lies with North Korea and that it has some kind of “military solution” to the crisis.

This may be the most dangerous idea we have heard from U.S. policymakers since the end of the Cold War, but it is the logical culmination of a systematic normalization of deviant and illegal U.S. war-making that has already cost millions of lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. As historian Gabriel Kolko wrote in Century of War in 1994, “options and decisions that are intrinsically dangerous and irrational become not merely plausible but the only form of reasoning about war and diplomacy that is possible in official circles.”

Demonizing Iran

The idea that Iran has ever had a nuclear weapons program is seriously contested by the IAEA, which has examined every allegation presented by the CIA and other Western “intelligence” agencies as well as Israel. Former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei revealed many details of this wild goose chase in his 2011 memoir, Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times.

When the CIA and its partners reluctantly acknowledged the IAEA’s conclusions in a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), ElBaradei issued a press release confirming that, “the agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran.”

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani celebrates the completion of an interim deal on Iran’s nuclear program on Nov. 24, 2013, by kissing the head of the daughter of an assassinated Iranian nuclear engineer. (Iranian government photo)

Since 2007, the IAEA has resolved all its outstanding concerns with Iran. It has verified that dual-use technologies that Iran imported before 2003 were in fact used for other purposes, and it has exposed the mysterious “laptop documents” that appeared to show Iranian plans for a nuclear weapon as forgeries. Gareth Porter thoroughly explored all these questions and allegations and the history of mistrust that fueled them in his 2014 book, Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare, which I highly recommend.

But, in the parallel Bizarro world of U.S. politics, hopelessly poisoned by the CIA’s endless disinformation campaigns, Hillary Clinton could repeatedly take false credit for disarming Iran during her presidential campaign, and neither Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump nor any corporate media interviewer dared to challenge her claims.

“When President Obama took office, Iran was racing toward a nuclear bomb,” Clinton fantasized in a prominent foreign policy speech on June 2, 2016, claiming that her brutal sanctions policy “brought Iran to the table.”

In fact, as Trita Parsi documented in his 2012 book, A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama’s Diplomacy With Iran, the Iranians were ready, not just to “come to the table,” but to sign a comprehensive agreement based on a U.S. proposal brokered by Turkey and Brazil in 2010. But, in a classic case of “tail wags dog,” the U.S. then rejected its own proposal because it would have undercut support for tighter sanctions in the U.N. Security Council. In other words, Clinton’s sanctions policy did not “bring Iran to the table”, but prevented the U.S. from coming to the table itself.

As a senior State Department official told Trita Parsi, the real problem with U.S. diplomacy with Iran when Clinton was at the State Department was that the U.S. would not take “Yes” for an answer. Trump’s ham-fisted decertification of Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA is right out of Clinton’s playbook, and it demonstrates that the CIA is still determined to use Iran as a scapegoat for America’s failures in the Middle East.

The spurious claim that Iran is the world’s greatest sponsor of terrorism is another CIA canard reinforced by endless repetition. It is true that Iran supports and supplies weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas, which are both listed as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. But they are mainly defensive resistance groups that defend Lebanon and Gaza respectively against invasions and attacks by Israel.

Shifting attention away from Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and other groups that actually commit terrorist crimes around the world might just seem like a case of the CIA “taking its eyes off the ball,” if it wasn’t so transparently timed to frame Iran with new accusations now that the manufactured crisis of the nuclear scare has run its course.

What the Future Holds

Barack Obama’s most consequential international achievement may have been the triumph of symbolism over substance behind which he expanded and escalated the so-called “war on terror,” with a vast expansion of covert operations and proxy wars that eventually triggered the heaviest U.S. aerial bombardments since Vietnam in Iraq and Syria.

Obama’s charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the most expensive military budget of any president since World War Two.

President Barack Obama uncomfortably accepting the Nobel Peace Prize from Committee Chairman Thorbjorn Jagland in Oslo, Norway, Dec. 10, 2009. (White House photo)

But Obama’s expansion of the “war on terror” under cover of his deceptive global public relations campaign created many more problems than it solved, and Trump and his advisers are woefully ill-equipped to solve any of them. Trump’s expressed desire to place America first and to resist foreign entanglements is hopelessly at odds with his aggressive, bullying approach to every foreign policy problem.

If the U.S. could threaten and fight its way to a resolution of any of its international problems, it would have done so already. That is exactly what it has been trying to do since the 1990s, behind both the swagger and bluster of Bush and Trump and the deceptive charm of Clinton and Obama: a “good cop – bad cop” routine that should no longer fool anyone anywhere.

But as Lyndon Johnson found as he waded deeper and deeper into the Big Muddy in Vietnam, lying to the public about unwinnable wars does not make them any more winnable. It just gets more people killed and makes it harder and harder to ever tell the public the truth.

In unwinnable wars based on lies, the “credibility” problem only gets more complicated, as new lies require new scapegoats and convoluted narratives to explain away graveyards filled by old lies. Obama’s cynical global charm offensive bought the “war on terror” another eight years, but that only allowed the CIA to drag the U.S. into more trouble and spread its chaos to more places around the world.

Meanwhile, Russian President Putin is winning hearts and minds in capitals around the world by calling for a recommitment to the rule of international law, which prohibits the threat or use of military force except in self-defense. Every new U.S. threat or act of aggression will only make Putin’s case more persuasive, not least to important U.S. allies like South Korea, Germany and other members of the European Union, whose complicity in U.S. aggression has until now helped to give it a false veneer of political legitimacy.

Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition, as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor. France under Napoleon and Hitler’s Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and destruction.

Americans had better hope that we are not so exceptional, and that the world will find a diplomatic rather than a military “solution” to its American problem. Our chances of survival would improve a great deal if American officials and politicians would finally start to act like something other than putty in the hands of the CIA.

Nicolas J. S. Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.  He also wrote the chapters on “Obama at War” in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card on Barack Obama’s First Term as a Progressive Leader.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How America Spreads Global Chaos

Inside Syria Media Center continues publishing some evidence of the U.S.-made weapons supply to ISIS and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra) terrorists in Syria.

According to Syrian General Ali Al-Ali, the United States illegally delivered at least 1,500 trucks with military equipment and weapons for terrorists in Syria between June 5 and September 15 this year.

The General reported that all Washington’s statements regarding this military equipment was intended for the U.S. allies were false. Ultimately, the weapons almost always come into the hands of terrorists. In support of his words, Ali Al-Ali analyzed some NATO weapons captured by the Syrian army from ISIS and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham army depots.

The Austrian Glock 19 pistol especially is among the most popular weapons. In 2014, ISIS released footage, where terrorists executed several hostages using such kind of pistols. Later, it turned out that the pistols were delivered to the Iraqi law enforcement agencies by the U.S. in 2003-2004.

The U.S.-made M16 Assault Rifle has become a symbol of terrorists in Syria. The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has repeatedly found military equipment stamped ‘Property of U.S. Govt’. This fact confirms that ISIS and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham terrorists use the U.S.-made M16 rifles, not unlicensed Chinese copies.

The Belgian FN FAL Assault Rifle that earlier became standard rifle ammunition for member states of NATO is often found in ISIS weapons deports. This 7.62×51mm NATO battle rifle equipped with sniper scope is used to conduct aimed fire and neutralize enemy’s manpower during military operations in urban conditions.

Besides, the German Heckler & Koch MP5 Submachine Gun used by the U.S. and European law enforcement agencies, is also popular among ISIS fighters. All data of this weapon supplies is strongly classified, and there isn’t such kind of information in any open sources. Probably, the existence of these weapons, including highly specialized MP-5K, as well as the unceasing weapons landing is directly linked to military operations of the U.S.-led international coalition in Syria and Iraq.

Against this background, it also should be mentioned about ISIS weapons depot in Al-Mayadeen. The SAA High Command announced that ISIS terrorists had used a huge arsenal of M16 and FN FAL assault rifles, U.S.-made machine guns, AA mounts, grenade launchers, and even British 155 mm howitzer.

Besides, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi admitted that the U.S.-made M2A1 heavy machine gun also fell into the hands of terrorists. This weapon is usually installed on Humwee vehicles. We remind that the Iraqi Army lost about 2,500 of these armored vehicles only in Mosul.

In fact, terrorists from all over the Middle East prefer to use weapons delivered from the U.S. Their interest is easy to be explained. The U.S. weapons are often delivered in circumvention of international law, so it is easier to get it. According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) data, the United States is an absolute leader in the number of signed contracts regarding weapons supply over the past 5 years.

In this regard, Syrians strongly oppose arms dealers, who continue to be enriched by killing civilians. Syrian enemies are politicians who have unprecedented profits from indiscriminate weapon trade. They force Syrians to fight against one another in the senseless fratricidal war, squashing the government forces and armed opposition.

Continuing to profit from the war, the U.S. and European weapons lobby earns millions of dollars by delivering weapons to different unstable regions. Entire corporations are working to create new ways for illegal weapons supply. They have learned to make money on human lives even during World War II, and successfully continue these traditions nowadays. That’s why only 13 congressmen voted for the law that prevents weapons supply to terrorists (2 per cent of the U.S. House of Representatives). It’s simply not profitable for the U.S. and European politicians.

Anna Jaunger is a freelance journalist at Inside Syria Media Center where this article was originally published.

Featured image is from Zero Hedge.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Deliveries of Weapons and Military Equipment for Terrorists in Syria

An Acceptable Obscenity: Adani Coal Giant Cultivates Queensland

November 2nd, 2017 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Townsville.

The cicadas are studding the night with their sound, and occasionally, the curlews manifest with calls that string out a melody of mournful death. The reminder of Queensland, and certainly this part of the Australian state, is total.

As the dawn breaks, an election is being fought for the state, and its politicians are generally of one unchanging mind: Adani’s Carmichael coal mine is good for Australia and Queenslanders, and ratepayers need to help.

A conspiracy of sorts has been made between Adani and various collaborators it has gotten on board, those individuals on the ground who have essentially become the commissioned harlots for the Indian giant down under.

The sense of Adani’s generous largesse and mind swaying techniques have been evidenced by its extensive campaign to win over the relevant mayors of Queensland and the premier of the state. Rockhampton’s Mayor Margaret Strelow received over $1,600 in an assortment of hospitality gifts, which were recorded in the Rockhampton Regional Council’s official register in April this year. (These officials have no problem sharing Adani’s capacious bed of incentives.)

Another dipping into this pot of subsidised corruption is Mayor Jenny Hill of Townsville, who has decided that going with the mining momentum, however archaic and fictional it might be, is the way to go.

Her explanation to the 7.30 program on ABC is worth noting for its hair-tearing perverseness, its near gargoyle like disingenuousness. Not only was it fine to fund a billionaire with public money, it was also entirely appropriate to be corrupted in doing so. “We accepted a gift to fly to Mumbai to see their solar plant because are very keen to set up solar facilities in the north.”

This, from a labour crippling poisoning coal giant keen to muddle along in crude extraction mode, demonstrates either the mayor’s sense of moral arrested development, or Adani’s stunning act of deeply penetrative seduction. Never mind the foreplay and the rough love: Adani has managed to convince politicians at the local level that they are worth it.

Both Councilor Strelow and Mayor Hill, it is worth noting, are bending over in grotesque contortion to assist Adani with using money that is not theirs (the good rate payers’, in short) to fund a $36 million airstrip at the proposed Carmichael coal mine. Neither seen a problem with their conduct.

The Townsville City Council, for instance, made their decision to supply $18.5 million in shrouds of pure secrecy, refusing to seek consultation with public figures or groups. The explanation supplied was as crude as it was unsatisfactory: throwing such money at Adani was feasible given the savings achieved from the redundancies of 300 people.[1]

All, it seemed, was above board, including Adani’s own gravy train of mayoral sponsorship. In Hill’s words,

“I don’t think there’s an issue with that – it’s been properly declared and the community can find out on our website.”[2]

This is the sort of dizzying honesty that deserves a gold medal and a singular bullet, the latter to reassure the elector that such members should never reach mayoral office. They are happy to betray confidence and independence to a foreign despoiling entity in plain sight and expect resounding thanks.

There are voices noting the absurdity of the stance.

“Why does a billionaire,” argues Peter Newey, convenor of Townsville Residents and Ratepayers Association with steely sensibility, “want two councils in Queensland to pay $36 million for an airstrip?” As convenor of the Townsville Residents and Ratepayers Association, Newey insisted that Gautam Adani “would be able to afford at least two dozen of them and then gold plate them.”[3]

Other local figures are simply concerned that such money could be well used to fund local infrastructure projects instead of coddling a mining monster.

“I despaired, to be honest,” claimed a member of the city’s city image committee, Lucy Downes, “because that money could have been used to reactive the CBD.”[4]

An interesting sentiment that seems to come out is the sense of cleverness: the local, trough skimming officials here are intent on making sure that they fawn and butter as long as they can, but still assure the “people”, those sad estranged electors, that they have their backs. If Adani does not come good with their bank finance, the air strip is not going to happen.

Hill is particularly one who believes she can straddle two chairs and still claim a Zen like balance. Embracing Adani and loving the environment are two fundamentally consistent principles in this muddled acquiescence. “We put extra regulation into areas like licensing requirements while rate payers up north pay to make sure our wastewater is handled in a way that wont hurt the Reef.”[5] A perfect world, one that reconciles insatiable plunder with immaculate conservation.

Local councillors are acting as any councillor in any malnourished, post-colonial state would. They are up for purchase, and they are proud of it. To that end, there is no room to be smug, self-satisfied and exceptional here. Dictators rolling in the sponsorship of the US Central Intelligence Agency would have been envious.

This is Australia, where the term post-colonial suggests, and is loaded, with other meanings. Not, however, when it comes to a molesting, mine renting giant like Adani. That cap has been doffed, and local government is happy to fork out.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge and lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]

Notes

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on An Acceptable Obscenity: Adani Coal Giant Cultivates Queensland

In his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on October 30, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told lawmakers that the US is working to create additional de-escalation zones in Syria. The secretary did not say where exactly the zones will be built. It’s logical to assume that the top diplomat meant the southern and south-eastern parts of Syria under the control of US-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and Kurdish militias.

The area accounts for about one third of the national territory with approximately 70% of hydrocarbons in Syria. Tillerson emphasized that he was not talking about demarcation zones to divide the country. He said the regime change was not the goal but the US executive will approach lawmakers for authorization to act against the government of Bashar Assad, if need be.

The secretary did not say that the plan presupposes an increase in military presence but, once established, additional zones will inevitably require more military personnel to carry the mission out. If the creation of the zones is coordinated with other actors, it won’t be Americans only. Russia, Jordanian and US militaries are controlling the de-escalation zones in the provinces of Deraa, Quneitra and As-Suwayda located in the south-western part of Syria. If Mr. Tillerson was talking about a unilateral move, then the US military presence will grow substantially, including armor units and other heavy military equipment.

The issue of setting up additional de-escalation zones was not on the agenda of the Astana talks on Syria held on October 30-31.The US was invited as an observer but nothing was said about the plan Secretary Tillerson announced to Congress. Creating de-escalation zones is never all roses. For instance, the process is not running smoothly in the province of Idlib. Turkish forces control the north of the province but the bigger part of the territory is under the control of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham terrorist group, which is excluded from peace talks.

“There is a pretty high level of tension there and there is still a threat of offensives by radical groups deployed there,” said Alexander Lavrentyev, the head of the Russian delegation at the Astana talks on the Syria crisis, adding “But we hope that our Turkish partners will in the end fulfill their part of the obligations concerning the Idlib de-escalation zone and will stabilize the situation.”

If done unilaterally, the establishment of additional zones mentioned by Tillerson means that the United States administration has taken a decision to keep the pro-Syria government forces away from the territory controlled by the US-led coalition. It’ll hardly be a contribution to the peace process. It coincides in time with France pushing a new Syria initiative at the UN The US and Great Britain have already expressed their support of the French proposal. It cannot be ruled out that setting up additional de-escalation zones Mr. Tillerson talked about is a part of US-UK-French plan of post-war settlement in Syria.

Moscow is pushing an initiative of its own. President Putin’s proposal to convene the congress of Syrian religious and ethnic groups, including the Kurdish-led authorities in northern Syria, scheduled for Nov. 18 in Sochi was discussed on the sidelines of the Astana meeting (October 30-31). The idea to create the “Syrian National Dialogue Congress” was first mentioned at the 14th annual Valdai Discussion Club meeting (October 16-19). Vladimir Putin believes that the congress could be an important step toward a political settlement and could also help draft a new constitution for the country. Special UN envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura agreed to participate in the event. About 1,500 representatives of 33 parties and movements have been invited to attend.

Moscow’s plan presupposes participation of the US and even major powers outside the region — Saudi Arabia, the United States and Egypt — in the peaceful settlement based on Syria’s territorial integrity.

So far, the negotiations between the opposition and the Syrian government have been rough-going. The idea is of Russia-sponsored reconciliation forum is opposed by the opposition High Negotiations Committee and Syrian National Coalition (SNC). They may obstruct the process but it won’t diminish Russia’s role as a key player able to pressure regional powers for concessions and prepared to show flexibility itself. It’s important that Russia’s diplomatic initiative has the backing of Damascus, Tehran and Ankara.

Perhaps, the prospects of Russia-sponsored initiative’s success pushed the US administration to announce the plans to build additional de-escalation zones in Syria. If the US-backed coalition established the zones unilaterally to present other actors with a fait accompli, it would be the way to divide Syria contrary to what the UN-sponsored Geneva peace effort, as well as the Russia-Iran-Turkey-initiated Astana talks, has tried to achieve. If not, it should become part of international agenda. The US plan to build additional de-escalation zones was announced as a slam dunk during congressional hearings. The way it was done makes one think it’ll be a unilateral move taken to obstruct the Russia’s peace plan. The division of the country into zones controlled by opposing coalitions runs counter to the interests of Syrian people. This is a very worrisome development which can potentially hinder the prospects of stable peace in Syria.

Alex Gorka is a defense and diplomatic analyst.

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Division of Syria? US to Build Additional “De-Escalation Zones”: Tillerson

The anti-Iran powers in the U.S. again try to smear Iran as allied with al-Qaeda. The accusations will be used to justify further hostilities against the country.

Suddenly an anonymous, and likely fake, document appears and is prominently launched into public circulation. To provide plausibility for the publishing the new CIA director Mike Pompeo ordered his staff to release additional data allegedly found in Osama Bin Laden‘s compound in Abbottabad in Pakistan.

These “new” papers were first released to the neoconservative anti-Iran lobby Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Among the “hundred thousands” of pages a mysterious 19 page document is claimed to prove Iranian collaboration with al-Qaeda. The way the release was handled and the prominence put on this one specific paper indicates that the now released stash was “spiked” with this document to initiate hostilities against Iran.

We have been here before. Fake documents produced by the CIA and neo-conservative think-tanks were used to allege that Saddam Hussein was buying Uranium in Niger (copy below). False claims were made that Saddam had contacts with the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack in New York.

Former CIA Career Analyst Ned Price explains the politics behind the new release:

Ned Price‏ @nedprice – 6:30 PM – 1 Nov 2017

  • @CIA released what it claims are the final public files from Bin Laden’s lair. I’m all for transparency, but this isn’t about that.
  • In Jan, DNI, which led the declassification effort, released what it said was the final tranche of Bin Laden files. Link
  • The DNI-led review was overseen by career intel officials, who concluded that, w the Jan files, all those of public interest were released.
  • But a funny thing happened when CIA Director Pompeo came into office. I’m told he re-launched a review of the files.
  • In doing so, he took officers away from important missions to pore—and re-pore—over the millions of documents.
  • How can we be sure this was a CIA effort? Unlike previous releases, today’s files are hosted on CIA.gov, not the DNI site.
  • He said as much at the gathering of a conservative group, @FDD, opposed to the Iran deal in September. Link
  • As luck would have it, CIA provided an advance copy of today’s files to @LongWarJournal, this group’s publication. Link
  • The ploy is transparent despite the fact that the newly-released documents don’t tell us anything we didn’t already know.
  • What’s not as transparent are the motives of Pompeo, the administration’s leading and most influential Iran hawk.
  • Remember Cheney on @MeetThePress, pointing to Atta’s supposed Prague meeting w Iraqi officials? It was a key element of the march to war.
  • History doesn’t repeat itself but it does rhyme. Need to remain vigilant to ensure Pompeo isn’t able to write it.

The CIA’s outlet for these papers, the FDD, writes about the cache:

The CIA is releasing hundreds of thousands of documents, images, and computer files recovered during the May 2011 raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

The CIA provided FDD’s Long War Journal with an advance copy of many of the files. It will take years for experts and researchers to comb through this treasure trove of information. However, we offer some preliminary observations below.

It is astonishing, and quite suspicious, that the FDD immediately ‘found’ one very specific document out of “hundreds of thousands which will take years to comb through”. This one specific document allegedly ‘proves’ that Iran is in cahoots with al-Qaeda:

The files provide new details concerning al Qaeda’s relationship with Iran.One never-before-seen 19-page document contains a senior jihadist’s assessment of the group’s relationship with Iran. The author explains that Iran offered some “Saudi brothers” in al Qaeda “everything they needed,” including “money, arms” and “training in Hezbollah camps in Lebanon, in exchange for striking American interests in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf.” Iranian intelligence facilitated the travel of some operatives with visas, while sheltering others. Abu Hafs al-Mauritani, an influential ideologue prior to 9/11, helped negotiate a safe haven for his jihadi comrades inside Iran. But the author of the file, who is clearly well-connected, indicates that al Qaeda’s men violated the terms of the agreement and Iran eventually cracked down on the Sunni jihadists’ network, detaining some personnel. Still, the author explains that al Qaeda is not at war with Iran and some of their “interests intersect,” especially when it comes to being an “enemy of America.”

This very document is the sole one in the stash FDD now uses to insinuate cooperation between Iran and al-Qaeda. Other Bin Laden documents that were included in earlier releases provided the exact opposite. In 2012 Reuters headlined: Documents show tense al Qaeda-Iran relationship:

Al Qaeda’s relationship with Iran’s government has been fractious at best and openly antagonistic at worst, according to documents confiscated from Osama bin Laden’s hideout in Pakistan and made public on Thursday.

The one new document that now changes the old assessment by 180 degree is of course the one the Telegraph and other neoconservative outlets immediately point out: Trove of Bin Laden documents reveal Iran’s secret dealings with al-Qaeda.

But how come that an assessment from a “senior jihadist” received by Bin Laden is anonymous? How does FDD know that the author is “senior”? Why doesn’t he have a name?

The alleged “senior jihadist” paper wants us to believe that Iran offered al-Qaeda “training in Hezbollah camps in Lebanon”? That is ludicrous. Al-Qaeda always had an anti-Shia ideology and agenda. It is not plausible that the Shia majority Iran would ask the Shia organization Hizbullah to train the anti-Shia killer gangs of al-Qaeda.

Al-Qaeda is an enemy of Iran. After the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001 some al-Qaeda members and their families fled towards Iran. They had no other place to go. All of them were immediately detained or put under house arrest. A deal was made in which al-Qaeda promised to refrain from attacking Iran while Iran would keep these hostages unharmed. The al-Qaeda members were not “guests” in Iran. In its yearly Country Reports on Terrorism the U.S. State Department notes:

Iran remained unwilling to bring to justice senior al-Qa’ida (AQ) members it continued to detain, and refused to publicly identify those senior members in its custody.

In 2015 Iran released some al-Qaeda members in exchange for an Iranian diplomat al-Qaeda had taken hostage in Yemen. That is not the record of a friendly relation.

The 19-pages document is not plausible. It was obviously produced and prominently launched for a specific political purpose. It contradicts earlier released papers as well as the historic record.

Professor Max Abrams notes:

Max Abrahms @MaxAbrahms – 4:05 AM – 2 Nov 2017

  • The regime change playbook plays on American fears of Salafist terrorists by claiming the target-leadership supports them.
  • For Saddam it was that he supported Al Qaeda. For Assad it was that he supported ISIS. For Iran it will increasingly stress Al Qaeda ties.

Add to that the equally implausible recent claims that Russia is supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan. (With what? Rusty AK-47s?)

It seems likely that the “never-before-seen 19-page document” with “a senior jihadist’s assessment” was written up in Langley or Tel Aviv. It was then put into the stash of the now released Bin Laden files to give it a somewhat plausible origin. FDD was specifically pointed to that very document to bring it into public circulation.

This is clearly reminiscent of the Bush/Cheney regime’s campaign against Iraq in which faked documents claimed that Saddam was buying Uranium from Niger and that he had contacts with the perpetrators of 9/11. The release of this document is primitive warmongering propaganda.

So primitive indeed that many will fall for it.

PS:

Others are equally suspicious of this release. Ankit Panda in The Diplomat asks: Was the bulk release of Osama Bin Laden’s Abbottabad data trove an act of transparency or something else?

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Neocons Push Dubious Paper to Allege Iran – Al-Qaeda Connection

Democrats, Class and Russia-gate Magic

November 2nd, 2017 by Phil Rockstroh

Recently, Democratic Party elites have purged progressives from positions of power within the Party; have been exposed in creating and promulgating, and swallowing whole the dodgy Russian Dossier subterfuge; and have gone round-heeled for war criminal and torturer-in-chief George Bush the Lesser — yet Democratic partisans and lesser-of-two-evils, fainting-couch jockeys still retail in the fiction that the Democrats present a viable alternative to their more crass Republican doppelgängers.

It must take hours of dedicated practice to become such virtuosos of self-deception.

Desperate liberals have convinced themselves that the risible, Russiagate fool’s mythos will provide a deus ex machina miracle to rid the (sham) republic from the likes of boxy-suit-clad, two-legged toxic waste dump who ascended to the presidency due to the Democratic Party gaming their primary and nomination process for a candidate who performed the seemingly impossible — to wit, preventing the craven Trump from defeating himself.

The best thing Republicans have going for them is, the Democrats themselves, from their corrupt-to-their-reeking core leadership class down to their willfully and belligerently obtuse rank-and-file. In particular, professional and political-class liberals’ refusal even to acknowledge the grim plight of the besieged U.S. working class, and when they deign to notice their economic lessers, at all, they, as a rule, evince an aura of condescension and scorn.

Apropos, I recall a piece published in the New York Times after Trump’s “pussy grabbing” palaver came to light, late in the 2016 presidential campaign. Quoting from the article, headlined: “Inside Trump Tower, an Increasingly Upset and Alone Donald Trump,” published Oct 9, 2016:

“But the real source of comfort to Mr. Trump seemed to be the small band of supporters waving Trump signs on the Fifth Avenue sidewalk outside the building. His fans clashed with people walking by, including a woman who told a female Trump supporter that she should go back to her ‘trailer.’”

It is a given that Trump’s misogynist remarks displayed the very emblem of mouth-breather inanity. Yet the demeaning jibe bandied by the passing pedestrian, who I’m certain would self-identify as “progressive” in her politics, was emblematic of liberal classism. When was the last time you witnessed an affluent liberal expressing umbrage in regard to their caste’s proclivity for class-based shaming?

The supercilious mindset is the result of an insularity borne of privilege. Moreover, when do liberals ever converse, one on one, with members of the laboring class, unless, of course, the situation involves the de facto master/servant relationship involved in a service industry exchange?

On a personal basis, liberals with whom I used to clash when I was a resident of Manhattan, almost to a person, were completely removed from and, worse, utterly incurious, about the lives of the working class. When traveling around my native South, for example, when visiting my wife’s family in the rural South Carolina Low Country, I found the people there far more receptive to a socialist critique of the capitalist order than that of liberals. Why? Unlike upscale liberals, the working class, on a day-by-day basis, endure perpetual humiliation under depraved capitalism.

Why do liberals refuse to acknowledge class-based deprivation as a defining factor in the angst and animus of the laboring class?

In short, an honest reckoning would cause Liberalcrats to acknowledge classism is, as is the case with sexism and racism, hurtful, destructive, and flat-out reprehensible. Moreover, an acknowledgement would call them to account for their own privilege thus revealing the imperative to make amends and provide restitution for their complicity in the oppression inflicted on the less fortunate by capitalism, the system that is the source of liberal affluence and the progenitor of their snobbery.

A Buffer for the Rich

The Liberal Class have, on an historical basis, acted as the buffer zone between leftist, minority, and laboring-class aspirations and the capitalist over-class — i.e., the bestower of liberacrat privilege. As the man limned in lyric, “same as it ever was.” Thus we come upon a reason for the mistrust held by people languishing on the boot-on-the-neck side of the capitalist class divide for economically privileged liberals.

Moreover, when was a last time you noticed a laboring class person parroting that the meany-pants Russian Bear ate poor, little Hillary’s homework fool’s mythos? The Cold War 2.0 tall tale that avers:

“Putin has penetrated the precious bodily fluids of the U.S. electoral system,” as a Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper of the Liberal Class might rant, thereby coming off like a liberal version of Alex Jones reading the minutes of a John Birch Society meeting, circa 1955, on communist infiltration of the Ladies’ Auxiliary Bingo Club, due to reports of an inordinate number of winners wearing red poodle skirts.

In short, there is a howling, class chasm between the cultural criteria that separates affluent liberals from the struggling laboring class. How could sneaky Vladi and his fake news-wielding squads of internet Cossacks be responsible for the neoliberal economy, comprised of low wage, no benefits, no future mcjobs, that plague the working life of the latter? Thus the Russiagate storyline holds little resonance for downscale working people.

The rise of rightist demagogues and their angst-ridden, resentment-reeking followers, both on an historical and present day basis, can be traced to a primary source: the loss of hope and the daily doses of humiliation inflicted on the working class by capitalist economic despotism. In the hollow regions of the psyche where hope has been banished, rage rises and fills the aching void.

Adding to the host of miseries, an odious aspect of the capitalist greedscape imparts, in both an overt and subliminal basis, the insidious message: The psychical injuries inflicted by the economic order are caused by personal failings. If internalized, concomitant feelings of shame will torment the mind of the sufferer — feelings freighted with intense self-reproach that tend to manifest themselves in a host of pathologies, e.g., intense anxiety and severe depression.

Hence, the dark art of shame displacement, in the form of racist and xenophobic tropes, can and will be retailed by demagogues. Don’t blame the capitalist Plundering Class, they exhort, instead blame immigrants and minorities (who, in reality, are also victims of capitalism’s inherent depravities) for your dismal prospects. Build an unscalable border wall, deport the interlopers en masse, put an end to the practice of “reverse racism” (of which, polls reveal the majority of white people, in utter defiance of reality, believe is widespread) then America’s greatness will be restored and the usurped futures of hard-working, true Americans will be seized back from  undeserving hordes of interlopers.

A deft demagogue’s tropes of blame shifting can serve to dissipate feelings of aloneness and mitigate the miasmic shame attendant to capitalist economic despotism, a phenomenon that liberals, and history confirms the tragic fact, ignore at the peril of all concerned.

Russia-gate to the Rescue

And what is the Democrats plan? From all appearances, a full spectrum deployment of … more of the same.

Thus we arrive at the question: How can they display such a yawning disconnect from reality? And we shamble into the tawdry reality: The Democratic Party elite and their cynical operatives possess the sum total of nada desire to be connected with anyone other than their economic elite benefactors — withal, the only constituency to whom they possess any degree of fealty.

Thus Democratic partisans cling to the salvation fantasy that an act of deus ex machina will soon be at hand. But how many times now has Trump’s trajectory toward impeachment been assured by some new revelation … yet nothing substantive comes of the vaporous evidence?

Present-day Democrats bring to mind the image of a sad, aged prom queen, passed over by time, possessed by magical-thinking-borne fantasies involving the appearance of an imaginary gentleman suitor whose arrival will restore her faded glory.

The crackbrained fantasies shield Democratic partisans from being buffeted by the reckoning: They are affiliated with the go-to Party of Wall Street and of neoliberal and militarist imperium.

It comes down to this: Almost everyone, at this point, sees through Trump’s popinjay ways. Barack Obama, aka former President Citigroup von Drone, was a far more effective con man. How so? Liberals had the Wall Street bagman and multicultural imperialist Obama’s back. At present, after his two terms, he is luxuriating in the cash-redolent embrace of his High Dollar benefactors, as all the while, bedecked in their broken tiara and torn prom dress regalia, Democratic Party loyalist pine away for another sweet lie-proffering, political Lothario to replace the likes of Obama’s charming vapidity.

“I don’t want realism. I want magic” — Blanche DuBois, from Tennessee William stage play, “A Streetcar Named Desire.”

What a cringe-inducing sight it is. One almost could be moved to pity in regard to Democrats’ Blanche DuBois theatrics. But, of course, gentle, vulnerable Blanche never acted as an apologist for drone murder nor blamed Russian meddling for her troubled plight.

Unlike impoverished Blanche, blown and buffeted by circumstance into the seedy precincts of (un-gentrified) New Orleans’ French Quarter, it is difficult to work up any degree of sympathy for contemporary Democrats, enclosed as they are in their insular, bristling, psychical citadels, from where they unloose volleys of supercilious scorn upon those who remain unmoved by their partisan casuistry and are rankled by the condescension they direct at those who are not graced with their privileged status.

Phil Rockstroh is a poet, lyricist and philosopher bard living, now, in Munich, Germany. He may be contacted: [email protected] and at FaceBook: http://www.facebook.com/phil.rockstroh 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Democrats, Class and Russia-gate Magic

Top legal and security officials for Facebook, Twitter and Google appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday, in a hearing targeting “Extremist Content and Russian Disinformation Online.”

Over the course of four hours, senators argued that “foreign infiltration” is the root of social opposition within the United States, in order to justify the censorship of oppositional viewpoints.

Russia “sought to sow discord and amplify racial and social divisions among American voters,” said Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California. It “exploited hot button topics…to target both conservative and progressive audiences.”

Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa said Russia helped promote protests against police violence in Ferguson, Baltimore and Cleveland. Russia, he said,

“spread stories about abuse of black Americans by law enforcement. These ads are clearly intended to worsen racial tensions and possibly violence in those cities.”

Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii demanded, for her part, that the companies adopt a “mission statement” expressing their commitment “to prevent the fomenting of discord.”

The most substantial portion of the testimony took place in the second part of the hearing, during which most of the Senators had left and two representatives of the US intelligence agencies testified before a room of mostly empty chairs.

Clint Watts addresses a nearly-empty hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee

Clint Watts, a former U.S. Army officer, former FBI agent, and member of the Alliance for Securing Democracy, made the following apocalyptic proclamation:

“Civil wars don’t start with gunshots, they start with words. America’s war with itself has already begun. We all must act now on the social media battlefield to quell information rebellions that can quickly lead to violent confrontations and easily transform us into the Divided States of America.”

He added,

“Stopping the false information artillery barrage landing on social media users comes only when those outlets distributing bogus stories are silenced—silence the guns and the barrage will end.”

As this “civil war” rages on, he said, “our country remains stalled in observation, halted by deliberation and with each day more divided by manipulative forces coming from afar.”

The implications of these statements are staggering. The United States is in the midst of a civil war, and the necessary response of the government is censorship, together with the abolition of all other fundamental democratic rights. The “rebellion” must be put down by silencing the news outlets that advocate it.

That such a statement could be made in a congressional hearing, entirely without objection, is an expression of the terminal decay of American democracy. There is no faction of the ruling class that maintains any commitment to basic democratic rights.

None of the Democrats in the committee raised any of the constitutional issues involved in asking massive technology companies to censor political speech on the Internet. Only one Republican raised concerns over censorship, but only to allege that Google had a liberal bias.

The Democrats focused their remarks on demands that the Internet companies take even more aggressive steps to censor content. In one particularly noxious exchange, Feinstein pressed Google’s legal counsel on why it took so long for YouTube (which is owned by Google) to revoke the status of Russia Today as a “preferred” broadcaster. She demanded,

“Why did Google give preferred status to Russia Today, a Russian propaganda arm, on YouTube? … It took you until September of 2017 to do it.”

Despite the fact that Feinstein and other Democrats were clearly pressuring the company to take that step, the senators allowed Richard Salgado, Google’s Law Enforcement and Information Security Director, to present what was by all appearances a bald-faced lie before Congress.

“The removal of RT from the program was actually a result of…is a result of some of the drop in viewership, not as a result of any action otherwise. So there was … there was nothing about RT or its content that meant that it stayed in or stayed out,” Salgado stammered, in the only time he appeared to lose his composure during the hearing.

Salgado’s apparently false statement is of a piece with Google’s other actions to censor the Internet. These include changes to its search algorithm, which, behind the backs of the public, have slashed search traffic to left-wing websites by some 55 percent, with the World Socialist Web Site losing some 74 percent of its search traffic.

Stressing the transformation of the major US technology companies into massive censorship operations, Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island asked the representatives of the firms, “I gather that all of your companies have moved beyond any notion that your job is only to provide a platform, and whatever goes across it is not your affair,” to which all answered in the affirmative.

When pressed by lawmakers to state how many people were employed by Facebook to moderate content, Colin Stretch, the company’s general counsel, said that Facebook employed “thousands” of such moderators, and was in the process of adding “thousands more.”

While the senators and technology companies largely presented a show of unity, just how far the companies were willing to go in censoring users’ content and helping the government create blacklists of dissidents was no doubt a subject of contentious debate in the background.

On Friday, Feinstein sent a letter to Twitter’s CEO demanding that the company hand over profile information—possibly including full names, email addresses, and phone numbers—related to “divisive” “organic content” promoted by “Russia-linked” accounts.

Although the senators largely steered away from the issue of “organic content” in their questions, a remark by Sean Edgett, Twitter’s acting general counsel, made clear that the “organic content” Feinstein’s letter was referring to included the social media posts of US-based organizations and individuals. Edgett said “organic tweets,” include “those that you or I or anyone here today can tweet from their phone or computer.”

The New York Times reported over the weekend, however, that Facebook has already begun turning lists of such “organic content” over to congressional investigators. Given that Facebook has said that just one “Russia-linked” company had posted some 80,000 pieces of “divisive” content, including reposts from other users, it is reasonable to assume Facebook and Twitter are being pressured to turn over information on a substantial portion of political dissidents within the United States.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Former FBI Agent Says Tech Companies Must “Silence” Sources of “Rebellion”

Wednesday’s hearings by the House and Senate Intelligence committees on “extremist” political views served as the occasion for members of Congress to urge technology companies to flagrantly violate the US Constitution by censoring political speech, carrying out mass surveillance, and muzzling journalists in pursuit of the government’s geopolitical aims.

The hearings revolved around allegations, promoted ceaselessly in recent months by the intelligence agencies, leading figures within the Democratic Party, and newspapers such as the New York Times, that social opposition to the political establishment results from “fake news” promoted by Russia.

As Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff put it, “Russia” promoted “discord in the US by inflaming passions on a range of divisive issues” and sought to “mobilize real Americans to sign online petitions and join rallies and protests.”

The basic problem, however, as Schiff put it, is “not just foreign.” The algorithms used by Facebook and Twitter have the “consequence of widening divisions among our society.” Schiff complained:

“What ends up percolating to the top of our feeds tends to be things we were looking for,” as opposed to US government propaganda disseminated by the establishment media, which he referred to as “true information.”

Congressman Adam Schiff

In line with Schiff’s assessment, members of Congress who participated in the hearings spent the bulk of their time demanding that the companies censor such “fake” news, which they equated with the writings of exiled journalist Julian Assange and other political dissidents.

It is a testament to the decay of American democracy that it was left to the representatives of Facebook and Twitter, who have been broadly accused of violating users’ privacy for their own financial gain, to inform members of Congress about the ABC of constitutional law.

In an exchange that embodied the total contempt for freedom of speech that pervades the ruling elite, South Carolina Representative Trey Gowdy demanded that Facebook and Twitter block their users from making inaccurate statements about the current day of the week.

“Can I ‘say today is Thursday’,” the South Carolinian demanded. “What are you going to do with that?” Gowdy asked which constitutional amendment protects the right of people to make such statements, totally oblivious that almost all false statements are protected under the First Amendment.

Colin Stretch, Facebook’s general counsel, fighting back a skeptical smile, replied:

“There is Supreme Court precedent on that…”

Facebook General Counsel Colin Stretch

Gowdy, befuddled, demanded: “On which side?” Stretch answered:

“That it is, in most cases, protected.” He continued: “On Facebook, our job is not to decide whether content is true or false.”

Although the representatives of the technology companies largely played along with the narrative of “Russian meddling” in American politics, their resistance to the most flagrant censorship demanded by the government piqued the ire of the senators leading the witch-hunt.

“I don’t think you get it,” fumed Senator Dianne Feinstein, who said the past year had seen “a cataclysmic change” in American politics. This is “the beginning of cyber warfare,” she declared, and technology companies “have to really take a look at that and what role you play.”

Senator Mark Warner, for his part, complained that his accusations had been “frankly blown off by the leaderships of your companies and dismissed.”

Earlier this month, Google removed Russia Today (RT), a Russian-sponsored TV station and online news outlet that reports stories largely censored by the mainstream press, from its list of “preferred” channels on YouTube. Feinstein took issue with Google’s statement that it revoked RT’s status as a preferred channel for non-political reasons, and demanded to know why Google had not acted against RT earlier.

Google’s general counsel Kent Walker replied:

“We have carefully reviewed the content of RT to see that it complies with the policies that we have against hate speech, violence, etc. So far, we have not found violations.”

California Democratic representative Jackie Speier asserted that RT “seeks to influence politics and fuel discontent in the United States.” She asked:

“Why have you not shut down RT on YouTube? … It’s a propaganda machine, Mr. Walker, the intelligence community says it’s an arm of one of our adversaries.”

The clashes continued. Senator Tom Cotton demanded to know why Twitter refused to turn its platform over to the CIA in order to conduct mass surveillance. He asked:

“Do you see an equivalency between the Central Intelligence Agency and the Russian intelligence services?”

Sean Edgett, Twitter’s general counsel, replied:

“We’re not offering our service for surveillance to any government.”

Cotton likewise demanded that Twitter censor WikiLeaks’ editor Assange.

“The current director of the CIA, Mike Pompeo, as well as this committee, has labeled WikiLeaks a non-state hostile intelligence service who aids hostile foreign powers like the Kremlin,” he said. “Yet, to my knowledge, Twitter still allows him to operate uninhibited.”

Receiving a reply from Twitter general counsel Edgett that the company applies its policies “without bias,” Cotton retorted:

“Is it biased to side with America over our adversaries?”

In yet another incitement for technology companies to violate the Constitution, this time the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, Texas Democratic Congressman Joaquin Castro asked:

“Are you also intending to turn over to the committee any kind of direct messages” on accounts suspected of being linked to Russia?

When Edgett pushed back that this would be possible only through legal channels, Castro responded:

“Certainly you’re not making the argument that a Russian account, a fakely created account, has some protection of privacy here.”

Edgett replied:

“Some users may end up being fake. Others will be real.”

The most surprising element of the hearings, however, was the extent to which Walker, Google’s general counsel, sought to separate Google’s search tools from the social networks operated by Facebook and Twitter when it comes to “fake news.”

In reference to a question regarding fake news, Walker interjected:

“I think there’s a distinction between say Google search, whose goal is to provide accurate, relevant, comprehensive information and social network concerns,” such as those related to Twitter and Facebook. “We think the heart and soul of the products is to try to provide useful and, to the extent we can, accurate information to users.”

This was in addition to his prepared testimony, where he noted:

“At Google News, we use fact check labels to spot fake news. At Google search, we have updated our quality guidelines and evaluations to help surface more authoritative content from the web.”

Based on the stated goal of fighting “fake news,” Google has implemented sweeping changes to its search algorithm that has led search traffic to 13 leading left-wing, progressive and anti-war sites to plunge 55 percent. Search traffic from Google to the World Socialist Web Site has fallen by 74 percent, and the site has been blocked from Google News.

Wednesday’s testimony makes clear the political motives behind Google’s actions. Rather than seeking, as it publicly claims, to provide “true” and “authentic” content, Google is acting as the proxy of the US government and its agencies to muzzle its critics and political opponents.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Lawmakers Demand Tech Companies Censor Journalists and Conduct Mass Surveillance

Featured image: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Photo credit: US Marshals Service / Wikimedia

For over two years now, WhoWhatWhy has been trying to get the government to give us the details of the justification behind incarcerating convicted Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev under a repressive confinement regime known as Special Administrative Measures (SAMs). SAMs make it nearly impossible for the media to have any access to prisoners.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) refuses to budge and continues to deploy the dubious logic that to confirm or deny the existence of SAMs would be an unwarranted invasion of Tsarnaev’s privacy. This was in response to a request we filed back in 2015 through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), seeking documents about the conditions of Tsarnaev’s confinement. The DOJ denied our request and subsequent appeal.

And yet, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), a division of DOJ, readily confirms that Tsarnaev is in fact being held under SAMs.

WhoWhatWhy twice submitted requests to interview Tsarnaev to the warden of the maximum-security federal penitentiary in Florence, Colorado, referred to as ADX Florence. We sent one in October 2015, and another in August 2017; both times we were told we could not interview him because “Inmate Tsarnaev has Special Administrative Measures,” which, among other things, “restricts [his] communication, to include contact with the media.”

Essentially a form of solitary confinement, SAMs typically bar prisoners from communicating with anybody outside their prison cells, except for a very small number of pre-approved individuals, such as attorneys and inmates’ family members. SAMs were originally justified as a way to prevent members of organized crime from sending to compatriots outside the prison messages that could conceivably result in death or serious bodily injury. In the case of Tsarnaev, this justification rings hollow since DOJ insists that he and his brother Tamerlan had no “nexus” to any terrorist group and acted completely on their own.

But it also has the effect of giving the government total control over the narrative and backstory of a troubling event like the Boston Marathon bombing. No one from the media can speak with Tsarnaev and even his defense team and family are severely restricted in what they can reveal about their communications with him.

ADX Florence

The US Penitentiary, Administrative Maximum Facility in Florence, Colorado. (ADX Florence) Photo credit: FBP / Wikimedia.

Back in April 2016, we highlighted the Kafkaesque situation for a prisoner under SAMs.

We wrote about how DOJ denied our first request under FOIA exemption 7(C); the department stated that “lacking [Tsarnaev’s] consent … even to acknowledge the existence of such records … could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of his personal privacy.” 7(C) is meant to protect the privacy of individuals whose records are held by law enforcement agencies.

We appealed, pointing out that BOP had already confirmed the existence of the SAMs, and it was the very existence of the SAMs that prevented us from getting Tsarnaev’s “consent.” However, DOJ affirmed the denial of our initial request under a slightly modified “categorical” invocation of exemption 7(C) and added for good measure that it was not even “required to conduct a search for the requested records.”

The day after our article ran, officials in the DOJ’s Office of Information Policy (OIP) emailed each other links to the article. How do we know? Because we FOIA’d our FOIA request.

We had hoped to gain some insight into the decision-making process behind the rejection of our FOIA request and appeal. The results were not very enlightening.

We obtained 29 pages from the DOJ’s OIP in total — 10 of which are the requests and appeals we sent, with their corresponding responses. Another three and a half pages are blacked out and labeled “Non-Responsive Records.” We’re still waiting on records related to the initial request, which are processed by a different office.

It’s not clear what, if anything, OIP officials had to say about our article other than linking to it. Most of the substance of each email between OIP officials is redacted.

Melanie Ann Pustay, OIP

OIP Director Melanie Ann Pustay. Photo credit: DoJ

The balance of the heavily redacted records are processing worksheets and emails between OIP employees. Anything related to decision-making about the appeal is blacked out under (b)(5), the infamous “withhold it because you want to” exemption. FOIA experts roundly criticize the exemption because of its broad language and its increasing use by executive branch agencies.

It’s Who You Know?

In our ongoing effort to chip away at the wall of silence surrounding Tsarnaev, we also sent him a letter asking if he was willing to be interviewed. We were hoping to preempt any “without his consent” reasoning that we had encountered previously. The envelope was returned — opened — and accompanied by a notice indicating that the “correspondence was not delivered to the inmate because the inmate is not approved to correspond from [sic] you.”

Interestingly, director Peter Berg of Patriots Day, the Hollywood production about the Boston Marathon bombing, was quoted as saying he had corresponded with the incarcerated Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

“I did a lot of research on them,” director Peter Berg supposedly told Total Filmmagazine. “I met women who had dated them. I met the boxing coach of the older brother. I met the landlord. I wrote two letters to Dzhokhar in prison; he wrote one back [emphasis added].”

We sought confirmation of the above statement from Berg’s production company. No one responded to our multiple phone messages or emails seeking clarification. It’s not clear whether Berg misspoke, was misquoted, or whether he actually did let slip the fact that he was granted special access to this otherwise gagged individual of great public interest.

We know, from the fact that DOJ monitors news stories about itself, that they take a keen interest in how they are seen by the public. Is it possible Berg, with his favorable-to-law- enforcement portrayal of the marathon bombing, was granted special access to this mystery of a young man?

We’ll let you know if anyone from Berg’s office gets back to us.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Department of Justice (DOJ) Continues to Block Media Access to Convicted Boston Marathon Bomber Tsarnaev

Featured image: Carles Puigdemont

From Brussels, where he fled to escape prosecution by Spanish authorities, deposed Catalan regional premier Carles Puigdemont appealed yesterday for the European Union to intervene in the secession crisis. Last week, Madrid invoked Article 155 of the Spanish Constitution to impose an unelected regime in Catalonia in response to the October 1 Catalan independence referendum. Now Puigdemont is asking the EU to broker a deal between the Popular Party government in Madrid and the ousted Catalan authorities.

Workers in Catalonia and across Spain face an attempt by the Spanish ruling elite to seize the Catalan regional state apparatus, purge the public service and crush all opposition to the EU’s agenda of austerity and militarism by mobilizing tens of thousands of Guardia Civil and soldiers. The danger of bloody police-military repression in Catalonia is looming.

Puigdemont’s appeal to Brussels expresses the political bankruptcy and reactionary role of Catalan bourgeois nationalism in this explosive and dangerous situation. There are mass protests against Article 155 in Catalonia, fears in the European ruling elite of a mobilization of the working class, and popular opposition to Article 155 across Spain. Puigdemont’s reaction to this growing popular opposition is to seek a deal with both Madrid and the EU, which has repeatedly made clear its support for Madrid’s policy of authoritarian rule in Catalonia.

Speaking from Brussels, Puigdemont lamented “the grave democratic deficit that exists in the Spanish state” and urged Brussels to intervene “to protect the values of the EU.” He said he wanted to base the Catalan regional government partly in Brussels for a time so as to escape “the violence and belligerence” of Madrid. Calling for a defense of Catalan “institutions and self government,” Puigdemont at the same time endorsed Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy’s call for snap elections in Catalonia on December 21.

Though these elections will be held at gunpoint, amid a massive military-police deployment following the vicious crackdown on peaceful voters during the October 1 referendum, Puigdemont nevertheless claims that Madrid’s December 21 election call constitutes a “democratic plebiscite.”

Polls by the Centre d’Estudis d’Opinió show that an election held today would return a pro-independence parliament in Barcelona virtually indistinguishable from the parliament that was the basis for Puigdemont’s government before he was removed by Madrid.

The Junts pel Sí (JxS—“Together for Yes”) coalition would receive 60 to 62 seats, and the petty-bourgeois Candidatures of Popular Unity (CUP) would receive eight to nine. This would give the JxS-CUP coalition a majority in the 135-seat Catalan parliament.

Puigdemont did everything he could to suggest that Rajoy’s December 21 election would be a truly democratic expression of the will of the Catalan population.

“I will accept the results, but will the Spanish government accept them if they are not favorable [to Madrid]?” Puigdemont asked, adding that Rajoy might somehow accept a unilateral declaration of independence by Catalonia if the December 21 vote gave the majority to secessionists.

Puigdemont’s appeals for a deal with the EU and the political establishment in Madrid aim to promote absurd illusions. The EU will not intervene in Spain to preserve “democratic values” any more than Madrid is seeking a “democratic” consultation of the Catalan population by calling the December 21 poll. The EU and government leaders in Germany, Britain and France have repeatedly insisted that Rajoy is the only person in Spain with whom they will negotiate.

Madrid invoked Article 155 to suspend the powers of the Catalan parliament. Whatever majority is returned by the December 21 election will be powerless from the standpoint of Spanish law to name a government, pass laws or take any substantive action. Puigdemont’s attempts to present the Catalan parliamentary election as “democratic” amounts to applying a “democratic” gloss to the dictatorial policies of Madrid.

The only way forward in the struggle against the turn toward dictatorship by the Spanish and European capitalist class is the independent revolutionary mobilization of the working class, on the basis of a socialist and internationalist perspective. The defense of the elementary democratic and social rights of the working class across Spain and Europe requires a struggle against the attempt by Madrid and the EU to impose a government by force on an entire region of Spain. The crackdown on Catalonia must be stopped, and Spanish troops and police withdrawn from the region.

Such a struggle can be mounted only in opposition to all factions of the Spanish political establishment, including its supposedly “left” factions such as the middle-class Podemos party, and to the Catalan nationalists. Despite the bitter conflict between the ruling elites in Madrid and Barcelona, they are reacting to growing popular opposition to the crackdown in Catalonia by closing ranks against the working class and shifting further to the right.

Mass protests of hundreds of thousands of people in Barcelona have pointed to the broad popular opposition to Madrid’s crackdown in Catalonia. Residents of Spanish-speaking working class districts of Catalonia, such as L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, have denounced Spanish police units as “occupation forces,” and there is growing fear in ruling class circles of an explosion of opposition in the working class.

Earlier this week, the French daily Le Bien Public warned that “no one can predict the reactions of non-Catalan populations who make up entire suburbs of Barcelona and can be aggressive.” It cited a social democratic official in Barcelona as saying, “In meetings, in cafés, we avoid talking about it and that’s for the best. It’s a powder keg.”

Yesterday, the right-wing and bitterly anti-Catalan independence daily El Mundo published a poll showing broad opposition in Spain to Madrid’s crushing of Catalan self-rule. Despite a month of wall-to-wall anti-Catalan propaganda in the press by papers like El Mundo, only a small minority of Spaniards support the onslaught against Catalonia led by Rajoy’s Popular Party, the Citizens party and the Spanish Socialist Party (PSOE).

The poll found that 57 percent of Spaniards and 76 percent of Catalans wanted Catalonia to hold a peaceful referendum on independence. Large majorities opposed Catalan independence (80 percent in Spain 58 percent in Catalonia) and believed that independence was, in fact, impossible (71 percent in Spain and 56 percent in Catalonia). But only a small minority approved a policy leading to “less self-government” in Catalonia: 27 percent in Spain and 10 percent in Catalonia.

This is a devastating popular repudiation not only of Rajoy’s crackdown, but also of the press campaign to support it based on denouncing Catalans and promoting “Spanish unity” protests attended by fascist organizations such as the Falange of Spanish dictator Francisco Franco. This turn towards dictatorial forms of rule, which is unanimously supported by the EU and the major European governments, faces deep opposition among workers. This is the objective social basis for a revolutionary counteroffensive against European capitalism and its drive to dictatorship.

It is also an exposure of Puigdemont’s impotent appeals to Madrid as well as the reactionary role of Spain’s Podemos party. The latter has done nothing to mobilize its 5 million voters to oppose the turn to dictatorship in Spain, and Podemos General Secretary Pablo Iglesias has spent much of his time on the phone in talks with Rajoy. When Rajoy announced plans to the Spanish Congress to invoke Article 155, Iglesias fell in line with press demands for national unity behind the crackdown, telling Rajoy:

“Today is not a day for polemics. I want to reflect with you.”

Podemos did not capitulate to Rajoy because Rajoy’s policy was temporarily recording high poll ratings due to the neo-fascistic frenzy in the Spanish press. Rather, it capitulated because an appeal for opposition to Rajoy would have found broad support and risked provoking a confrontation between the workers and the ruling class, which Podemos, a petty-bourgeois tool of the political establishment, is determined to avoid.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Catalan Premier Appeals to EU as Opposition Mounts to Madrid’s Crackdown

It took the Turkish parliament more than ten years to acknowledge something which is known and carefully documented: Five so-called non-nuclear states including Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey have stockpiled and deployed in their various military bases 150 tactical B61 nuclear weapons  directed at Russia, Iran and countries in the Middle East. Nobody seems to be concerned and the matter has not been the object of media coverage. 

Belgium is reported to have 20 B61 nuclear weapons under national command, Turkey has 50.

Double standards. Compare that to the DPRK’s 10 nuclear weapons, heralded as a “threat” to the security of the Western World. 

While the nuclear warheads are made in America, they are entirely under national command.

In other words, these five European countries including Turkey are de facto  “Undeclared Nuclear Weapons States”. 

Michel Chossudovsky, November 1, 2017


The United States has a total of 150 nuclear weapons in five NATO member countries, including Turkey, according to a report on worldwide nuclear arms prepared by the Turkish Parliament.

The report, titled “Data on Nuclear Weapons,” said there were around 15,000 nuclear weapons at 107 sites in 14 countries as of July this year, daily Milliyet reported on Oct. 31.

“Nearly 9,400 of these weapons are in arsenals for military use and the rest are standing idle to be destroyed,” the report read.

It added that some 4,150 of the weapons in arsenals are ready to be used at any minute, while 1,800 are in “high alarm” status, which means they can be prepared for use in a short period of time.

According to the report, 93 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons belong to Russia and the U.S.

The report also said that nuclear weapons belonging to the U.S. are present in five NATO countries that do not themselves have nuclear weapons.

Saying there are nuclear weapons belonging to the U.S. in five NATO countries that do not have nuclear weapons.

“There are nearly 150 U.S. nuclear weapons in six air bases in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey, which are NATO countries that don’t themselves own nuclear weapons,” it added.

The U.S., China, Russia, France and Britain are nuclear-armed state parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, while India, Pakistan and Israel never became parties even though they own nuclear weapons.

According to the data in parliament’s report, Russia has 7,000 nuclear weapons, the U.S. has 6,800, France has 300, China has 260, Britain has 215, Pakistan has 130, India has 120, Israel has 80 and North Korea has 10 nuclear weapons.

During the Cold War, the U.S. placed nuclear weapons in NATO countries, including Turkey, as part of the organization’s nuclear sharing program. Some of the nuclear weapons placed in the 1960s are still in Turkey today.

At the time, negotiations were carried out between Ankara and Washington in the 1950s and they were concluded at the beginning of the 1960s.

Among those weapons, B61 type bombs are still in the İncirlik air base in the southern Turkish province of Adana. Nuclear warhead Jupiter missiles that were sent to the country during the same time period were only kept in the country between 1961 and 1963.

According to data from the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), the number of B61s in Turkey is estimated to be nearly 50.

Hurriyet Daily News

Featured image is from Hurriyet Daily News.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Has 150 Nuclear Weapons in Five NATO Countries: Turkish Parliament Report

Selected Articles: War against Iran or North Korea?

November 2nd, 2017 by Global Research News

Global Research’s work is critical in the face of mainstream media disinformation and we have managed to remain independent, acting as a vital information portal. Our financial situation is nonetheless precarious.

We need the support of our readers. 

Consider Making a Donation to Global Research

We have been able to develop our activities thanks to the contribution of Global Research readers.

For those who are willing and able, we ask you to support our projects by forwarding, crossposting, etc our articles, starting with this selection to get critical, unreported stories and information out as a means to challenge the tide of misinformation being used as a smokescreen for imperialism and war. 

*     *     *

North Korea and the Danger of Fake History

By 38 North, November 01, 2017

As the North started to dig in its heels and resist moving forward with more inspections, the US and South Korea simply restarted Team Spirit. And finally, even before the suspension, senior US military officers had questioned the exercise’s value, arguing that they could accomplish the same military objectives at far lower cost and less political clamor from the North.

US Masses Ships and Aircraft Outside North Korea

By Peter Symonds, November 01, 2017

US Defence Secretary James Mattis has again warned North Korea that the United States military is ready and able to obliterate the country of 25 million people unless it abandons its nuclear arsenal. The threat, backed by an unprecedented US military build-up in North East Asia, places the region and the world on the brink of a catastrophic war.

Iran: Next Target of US Military Aggression in the Wake of the Invasion of Iraq. The 2005 “Military Roadmap”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, November 01, 2017

In the wake of the war on Iraq (2003), the Bush administration  officially identified Iran and Syria as the next stage of “the road map to war”.  

Israel Buys the US Congress: Sabotaging the US-Iran Peace Negotiations

By Prof. James Petras, November 01, 2017

Israel ’s projection of military power, its capacity for waging offensive wars at will, is matched by its near-total impunity.  Despite their repeated violations of international law, including war crimes, Israel has never been censored at an international tribunal or subjected to economic sanctions because the US government uses its position to veto UN Security Council resolutions and pressure its NATO-EU allies.

North Korea and the “Axis of Evil”

By Brian S. Willson, October 30, 2017

North Korea lost thirty percent of its population as a result of US led bombings in the 1950s. US military sources confirm that 20 percent of North Korea’s  population was killed off over a three period of intensive bombings.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: War against Iran or North Korea?

There is more than a little irony in Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to attend a “celebration” dinner this week in London with his British counterpart, Theresa May, marking the centenary of the Balfour Declaration.

Palestinian objections to the 1917 document are well-known. Britain’s Lord Balfour had no right to promise a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, on the land of another people.

But Israelis have been taught a different history in which they, not the Palestinians, were betrayed.

In 1939, Britain appeared to revoke its pledge, stating “unequivocally” that it would not establish a Jewish state in Palestine. Limits on Jewish immigration were imposed, at a time when Europe’s Jews were fleeing the Nazi Holocaust.

It was for this reason that nearly a quarter of a century ago, in his book A Place Among the Nations, Netanyahu accused Britain of perfidy.

One can understand the reluctance of Israelis today to concede the pivotal role provided by Britain. The Balfour Declaration is an embarrassing reminder that a Jewish state was the fruit of a transparently colonial project.

In fact, Britain assisted the Zionists as best it could, given the need to weigh its imperial interests. Restrictions on immigration were introduced under the severe strain of a three-year armed uprising by Palestinians, determined to prevent their country being given away.

Historian Rashid Khalidi has noted that the Palestinian revolt of the late 1930s included possibly the longest-ever anti-colonial general strike. It posed such a threat that Britain committed thousands of extra soldiers to repress the insurgency, even as war loomed in Europe.

By the time Britain departed Palestine in 1948, it had overseen three decades in which the Zionists were allowed to develop the institutions of statehood: a government-in-waiting, the Jewish Agency; a proto-army in the Haganah; and a land and settlement division known as the Jewish National Fund.

By contrast, any signs of Palestinian nationalism, let alone nation-building, were ruthlessly crushed. By the end of the Arab revolt, less than a decade before the Palestinians would face a campaign of ethnic cleansing by the Zionists, Palestinian society lay in ruins.

Israel learnt two lessons from Britain that guided its subsequent struggle to quash Palestinian attempts at liberation.

First, Israel continued the draconian measures of British colonial rule. In the early 1950s, Menachem Begin, leader of the pre-state Irgun militia and a future Israeli prime minister, famously called Britain’s emergency regulations “Nazi laws”.

Nonetheless, they were incorporated into the military orders Israel uses against Palestinians under occupation. Significantly, the regulations are also still in force inside Israel against the country’s large minority of Palestinian citizens, one in five of the population. Israel has yet to end its seven-decade state of emergency.

The other lesson derives from the wording of the Balfour Declaration. It referred to the native Palestinians – then 90 per cent of Palestine’s inhabitants – as “existing non-Jewish communities”. It promised only to protect their “civil and religious rights”, denying them recognition as a nation deserving of political and social rights.

Israel followed suit. Palestinians in Israel were characterised as “the minorities”, or generic “Israeli Arabs”, rather than Palestinians. Israel’s perverse nationality laws assign them largely religious classifications as Druze, Arameans (Christians) and Arabs (increasingly synonymous with Muslims).

In occupied East Jersualem, Palestinians are denied all national and institutional representation. And in the West Bank, the powers of the Palestinian Authority – supposedly the Palestinians’ fledgling government – extend no further than acting as a security contractor for Israel and carrying out municipal services like garbage collection. In practice, the PA’s severely circumscribed authority is confined to a tiny fraction of the West Bank.

As a result, the Palestinians’ national ambitions have shrunk precipitously: from Yasser Arafat’s struggle for one secular democratic state in all Palestine, to today’s enclaves in Gaza and slivers of the West Bank.

Israel has consistently rejected for Palestinians the very self-determination it once demanded from the British.

Netanyahu’s government is preparing to nullify any lingering hopes of Palestinian statehood with the most significant move towards annexation of Palestinian territory in 40 years, when Jerusalem was annexed. The plan is to greatly expand Jerusalem’s boundaries to include large Jewish settlements in the West Bank like Maale Adumim.

In addition, Netanyahu has reportedly promised $230 million to build five highways in the West Bank, aiding movement between Israel and the settlements.

Is there an opposition? Avi Gabbay, new leader of the centre-left Zionist Union, sounds no different from the far-right. Last month he stated:

“I believe all of the Land of Israel [historic Palestine] is ours.”

No West Bank settlement would be evacuated, even for the sake of peace, he added.

Britain fulfilled its promise to the Zionists in full, but broke even its feeble commitment to the Palestinians to protect their civil and religious rights. An apology from Britain is long overdue, as are efforts to repair the damage it initiated 100 years ago.

A version of this article first appeared in the National, Abu Dhabi.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Balfour Declaration: Britain Broke Its Feeble Promise to the Palestinians

Thus far, books written by poor, self-employed, independent-minded authors have little influence on our society. But immense influence is exerted by the words published by our education, entertainment and news industries – industries controlled by wealthy elites who use the media to make you think you are living in a good world.

Despite the fact that they [government spy agencies] continually pump out fairy tales – about 9-11, WMDs, Benghazi, the death of bin Laden, ISIS, Syria, and most recently the claim that Russia hacked U.S. elections – this group of sacred cow spy agencies insists that they must be believed above all?

“‘Putin’s Not on Our Team’: Obama Worried Americans Trust Russia More Than U.S. Govt,” SHTFPlan.com

***

Introducing the Fiction of Civilization

Before civilization, men and women lived without fictions about the world they lived in.… Well, that’s a lie. Our prehistoric ancestors were much more connected to Nature, yet they were also immersed in lies about the origins of Earth and its plants and animals. They did not recognize that their myths were lies because they enjoyed their myths. We, on the other hand, have ‘scientific’ explanations of the origins of the universe and everything in it, and we value these myths even though they are boring and useless to us.

Our greatest myth is that we inhabit a good or civilized world. Every civilization has people who defend and praise it because they profit from it while the majority sees no benefits. The ruling minority uses propaganda and religion to deceive everyone about life in their world. From its origin, literacy was a tool employed by the ruling class to spread lies about civilization and life generally, and these lies were designed to give people the false pride,hope and fear they need to remain patient and submissive.

Nowadays, literacy is rampant. A vast web of deceptive literature is being developed and expanded to keep people ignorant. This web includes books, textbooks, newspapers, magazines, laws, radio, television, film, and videos. In the developed world, people are completely immersed in a centrally-controlled media and all its lies and fictions.

Literacy is not the only tool with which reality has been falsified. Science and engineering is complementing the falsification process. We now live in a world of fake flowers, fake homes, fake health and fake happiness. Everyone is working to make everything shallow, illusory and fake.

The puppet masters, the shadow casters, the rulers of the world – the authors of the world – they profit from making everything fake and false. And, I was astounded to learn that their false world includes all the elements found in popular fiction: staged and fake conflicts, fake heroes, fake villains, fake scenery, fake rewards and even fake happy endings.

The Evil Authors of Conflict

Like authors of fiction, the authors of the world always hide their personal feelings and thoughts from the public, hide behind narrators or spokespersons and other members of the media. And, like novelists, our politicians and similar ‘authors’ of the world strive to make everyone believe their stories, their promises, their excuses and their fakeries.

For success, a good novel must have conflict. Without conflict, authors cannot generate hope and fear, the two drugs which hook readers. The authors of the world also profit by creating conflicts and problems such as poverty, pollution, disease and war.

How effective are the authors of the world at creating conflict? Poverty is widespread and growing because the authors of the world profit by making others poor.

Recently, Ben Bernanke and Milton Friedman admitted that the Fed caused the 1929 stock market crash that turned a recession into the Great Depression. You can be sure they created it intentionally, for profit.

In military and intelligence circles, violent conflicts are planned in secret meetings by people who are positioned to profit from war. Any war America participates in is a war it probably secretly started or fueled, and is a war it certainly intends to profit from.

The authors of the financial world created the 2008 financial crash by intentionally selling sub-prime mortgages to people who could not pay their mortgages. When the disaster occurred, the authors of disaster profited by demanding government financial support for them and their banks.

The authors of the world do not care if people die in their manufactured conflicts and disasters. They treat people like lifeless and disposable characters.

The authors of our lives profit from disaster. Wars keep citizens from understanding that their real enemies are their own rulers, and perpetual wars keep the multibillion dollar military industry rich. Finally, wars were used as an excuse to introduce income taxes that were never cancelled with war stopped. Similarly, useless and dangerous medicines keep the pharmaceutical industry rolling in money. In the insurance industry, the more problems exist the more the industry profits. The more money the real estate and construction industries make. The faster our electronic devices are outdated, the …

Without conflicts, problems and disasters, civilization cannot make anyone rich. In fact, capitalism is a system that pits people against one another, creates a state of perpetual economic conflict that makes a few rich, many poor, and encourages the poor to blame themselves for their poverty.

The authors of the world always want more wealth because the wealth they pursue is false wealth.

The authors of the world want us to think they are heroes, angels, geniuses and philanthropists so that they can stay in power, and, in some cases, because their egos need boosting. They are so far removed from a state of mental health that even if we showed paradise to them, they would probably hate it, fear it, or be unable to understand and enjoy it.

Unreliable Narrators

The authors of the world are totalitarian rulers. Like the totalitarian authors of fiction, they hide behind narrators, behind messengers, behind the media. They shape our understanding of the world by dictating the contents of national curricula and by dictating editorial and advertising policies, and by directing the movie, television and publishing industries, and by managing how search engines direct the public’s attention.

The mainstream media narrates the lies of the authors of the world. The mainstream media includes most of our smiling news and entertainment professionals and most of our wonderful educational and political professionals. They parrot the fictions dictated to them by the authors of the world. Narrators cannot think independently; they are the creations or voices of their authors. Educators, reporters, politicians and entertainers do not even realize that their job is to prop and promote the fictions that enrich their rulers, employers and ultimately their authors.

The mainstream narrators create our fictional world by using the following tactics:

  1. Oversimplification: the media reduces the complex and infinite chain of causes and effects, blames one immediate cause, usually a convenient cause that does not implicate the reader, narrator and the ‘author.’ Thus, we blame terrorism on radical Islam and ignore the evidence that authors are secretly creating conflict behind the scenes and that anyone can be radicalized by poverty and oppression. Oversimplification always leads to black and white thinking about good and evil. If a man is arrested for domestic violence, journalists do not investigate the many causes for his insanity because their masters do not want readers to understand that economic stresses and cultural bankruptcy are complex causes of crime. They do not want these causes discussed because economic stress and cultural bankruptcy are the twin pillars of their profits.
  2. Emotionalism: by simplifying tragic events, our narrators prevent thinking and encourage emotional responses that suit the authors of the world. Simplistic thinking means not-thinking, which leads to strong emotional responses that prevent rational behaviors.
  3. De-emphasis: if a story could elicit moral outrage against the authors of the world, the mainstream media de-emphasizes the story with a bland, objective and unemotional report. Potentiallydangerous stories can also be placed in the back pages and kept short. Anything that might implicatethe authors in criminal and inhumane practices can be smothered with tranquilizing viewpoints and distracting stories about other people.
  4. Omission: blatant censorship means we do not read stories or see movies about central banking crimes, about the weaponization of financial tools (see “Financial Imperialists Attack Russia,” by Paul Craig Roberts), or movies about the power of masonic and satanic cults on our leaders and celebrities (Eyes Wide Shut is a rare exception that cost writer and director Stanley Kubric his life), about the horrible consequences of the wars our taxes fund, about the two US reporters who were imprisoned for daring to report on protests against an oil pipeline, and so on.
  5. Falsification: faked news stories are common. The story about Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction is a well-known example. After fake news stories are published, the truth is only admitted by the media if the evidence becomes too obvious. See this, this and this.
  6. Desensitization: if it bleeds, it leads. Violence sells movie tickets, video games, books and tickets to sporting events, and it sells newspapers unless the violence implicates our government or one of our transnational corporations.The media treat violence in war as sacred and violence by petty criminals and non-allied governments as evil. We are also being desensitized to poverty and disease, not because the media feeds us endless images of poverty and disease but because the media teaches us that our civilization is wonderful and poverty must be blamed on a few poor people or on politicians while disease must be blamed on genetics or on bad lifestyle choices. Civilization and its authors are always innocent.
  7. Sexualization: The media distracts the public by exploiting sexiness and sex – even though both sexiness and sex are dying from rising levels of stress, rising obesity rates, rising ill health, and a culture that views human beings as possessions and showpieces. Sexual dis-orientation is a consequence of our sick culture. The media, rather than warning against the destruction of healthy heterosexuality, tells the public that alternative sexualities are good rather than ultimately unsustainable symptoms of serious problems.

Why can’t we rely on reporters, teachers, entertainers, and politicians? To answer this question, simply examine the authors who control these narrators:

1a. The government guarantees that education will not teach children to be critical of any government policies. The narrative imbibed by students is that governments rarely if ever do harm and governments have an unspoken right to exist and to exert power.

1b. Corporations are acquiring control of education and its contents by directly funding research, by offering grants, by offering co-op work for students, by writing textbooks, and by advertising and selling products inside schools. The corporate bias prevents students from understanding how corporations impoverish the world and destroy the living environment.

2a. Corporations control the news industry by simply paying for advertising. To avoid losing advertisers, news outlets avoid reporting stories about corporate crime and corruption.

2b. The government controls the news media because the media rely on the government to provide journalists with stories about wars abroad and other foreign events.To make matters worse, as news outlets slash their budgets, the media increasingly rely on what the government tells them and is increasingly unwilling to ask critical questions. The movie industry is controlled by military agencies and corporations that provide directors with access to military hardware. Unless the movie industry presents war in a positive light, it loses access to the military’s weapons. Thirdly, the news industry has been infiltrated by both military and intelligence agencies and agents (CNN). These are some of the reasons that the anti-war movement is never presented in a positive light, and this is why the media communicates zero criticisms of our weapons exports, our war budget and our use of weapons to do ‘good’.

3. The news and entertainment media are controlled by ever fewer owners. Sometimes the owners are billionaires who want to control what people think and say. Most English-speaking media outlets are owned by fewer than a dozen author-dictator-billionaires about whom the media will never narrate a significant truth.

Fake Heroes

Who are our heroes? Before civilization arrived, our ancestors had no need for heroes and saviors. They rarely prayed to animal spirits and dead ancestors. After civilization arrived, our need for heroes increased because civilization is brutal. One trick of the ruling class was to persuade the conquered and submissive masses that their rulers are their saviors.

Egyptian rulers were among the earliest to claim hero status. The crux of the Egyptian deception was the pharaoh. State propaganda claimed that the pharaoh could “keep his people safe, dispense justice, ensure the adequate rising of the Nile, [and] care for the continued existence of those in the beyond” (Andre Dollinger). This lie appealed to the masses because without it, spending their lives in the service of the pharaoh would feel hopeless and degrading. The lie that the pharaoh was the people’s hero was used to keep Egyptians submissive, poor, and miserable.

All classical empires have used variations of the Egyptian fake hero. The Emperor of China, or Son of Heaven, claimed he was responsible for the security and prosperity of his people.

Slowly, the ruling classes of the world shifted from relying entirely on brute force for dominance to relying on both force and deception. This development always coincided with the arrival of literacy, for literacy gives the ruling class power to centralize communication and stop dialogue. Thanks to paper and ink, and now thanks to electronics, the lies of a few ruling liars can spread into space and time, brainwashing and indoctrinating hundreds of millions.

In ancient India, rather than instituting the worship of a human pharaoh, or emperor, or other fake but living hero, the ruling class instituted a religion in which gods and monks are the fake heroes. Any poor man who struggled in life was encouraged to be ‘heroic’ and join a Hindu monastery where he wouldn’t be a threat to social stability. Buddhism introduced an imaginary human being named Buddha, a man who became a godlike hero by conquering desire and issuing rules meant to preserve the social order.

Literacy and hero-worship spread to Christian Europe. The rulers of Byzantium and Rome dictated religious texts whose stories, prayers and instructions were narrated by priests to most of Europe. The difference between the Hindu-Buddhist and Christian model of brainwashing is mostly one of predatory intensity. The Christian ruling class developed a ‘hero’ who is more seductive than Egyptian and Asian ones: he saves humans during his life on Earth, suffers pain and execution for his followers, and maintains a ‘loving presence’ on Earth. Fiction can hardly be more seductive.

And, more than any other religious institution before it, the Catholic Church itself became a fake hero. The Pope even claims to be the embodiment of Jesus Christ on Earth.

As the Catholic Church declined, republican and especially democratic governments rose and claimed hero status. They pretended to care about a growing middle class and about the poor. But democratic governments are democratic in name only. They are always controlled by wealthy elites who tell the masses that a centralized ‘democratic’ government can represent their interests and be their hero. Now, millions of people are dependent on government welfare and healthcare programs, so they are actually convinced that governments are good instead of evil. Such people never contemplate the fact that during the 250 years of its existence, America’s promise of equality has never been fulfilled – not in any sense except the fact that now traditional slavery is history and the new slavery embraces everyone equally – or almost equally. Meanwhile, with each passing year, wealth inequality increases.

During the past 50 years, America’s political heroes have become even faker. A short list of actor-politicians includes Clint Eastwood, a former mayor; Arnold Schwarzenegger, a former governor of California; Ronald Reagan, the former president of the U.S.; and now President Donald Trump, an accomplished reality show actor whose fine acting ability was noted by film director Oliver Stone. Indeed, just recently Russia’s President Putin commented that President Trump is a very different person in private. And Putin is not an exception; he had a career in the spy world – a world where lying and pretending are the rule, which means that he is well qualified to lead Russia’s democracy. And Canada’s current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau majored in theater arts. Canadians should hardly be surprised that the promises Justin during his election campaign were scripted and quickly ‘forgotten.’

Our fake political heroes are constantly promising to save people from misery, but generally speaking their policies only serve to promote economies that destroy mental and physical health, destroy our environment and widen the income gap between the rich and the poor.

Beyond religion and politics, the modern world is full of fake heroes.

The medical industry is constantly inventing fake heroes. Each new drug and medical procedure is a miracle and a savior, yet non-communicable diseases continue to multiply, and deadly communicable diseases are threatening to return.People believe our heroic, so-called scientists will discover cures and solutions, but they only create larger problems. In fact, the death rate in the U.S. goes down when its doctors go on strike.

Our corporations are constantly producing heroic products – products they say will save us from stress, toil and boredom, but their products achieve the opposite. The automobile, for example, vastly increased the death rate caused by traveling, vastly increased debts, and vastly increased stress for pedestrians.

Obviously, history has demonstrated that no heroes will ever come to improve civilization; civilization is designed to create disasters and conflict. Yet people continue to believe in and celebrate imaginary religious, political, scientific, medical, military and other heroes.

Of course, every-day heroes rescue people from fires, floods, famine, debts and sickness, and such heroes can lessen our general misery. But no hero is powerful enough to eliminate war, poverty and disease. And the little improvement we occasionally muster depend on social movements, not on individual heroes. As activist and historian Howard Zinn noted, positive change does not stem from politicians but from people demanding change from their leaders. Well, perhaps that was true in the good old days. I live in a different world. The door of dialogue has been shut, and the revolutionary impulse has been tamed by a vast network of prisons, by medicine-prescribing doctors and by the mind-numbing media.

We cannot rely on the old civil-rights model of heroism. Organized protests and petition writing has barely slowed our descent into Hell. Depending on others to be heroic is convenient and foolish. In capitalist democracies, fools never seem to tire of electing leaders to be their heroes and make capitalism profitable for everyone. All too often, the elect fake heroes, I mean they elect liars. We are now so deeply mired in fakery that even humanitarian and civil rights groups are secretly funded by and controlled by greedy, megalomaniacal capitalists.

Fortunately, heroism and revolution are still possible. Individuals can take heroic actions by simply reducing their dependency on money, by improving their diets, by being more active, by rejecting modern medicine, by eliminating or reducing their dependency on electricity, by creating communities, by disinvesting from consumerism, and by reducing their tax payments.

Fake Villains

Civilization has always created enemies. Native people are its original enemies. It takes their land and resources even though at first encounter native peoples are typically welcoming and generous to foreigners. To consider them enemies of progress is to indulge in fiction.

Originally, native ‘villains’ rebelled and genuinely threatened the civilizations that threatened them. From ancient Greece to pre-prohibition America, native peoples have waged armed rebellions and, similarly, slaves organized violent revolts. But natives and slaves are never the real villains; they are always the victims.

Armed rebellions persisted throughout the Middle Age and into the modern age. But once the most developed states evolved into nuclear states with welfare, prisons and schools for everyone, then armed rebellions stopped. This was a victory. However, the state still needed enemies, or villains, because without them, the police and military industries have no excuse to exist and profit. So, they invented villains. The U.S. provoked war, secretly funded its future enemies, and later even staged attacks against itself in Cuba, Vietnam, New York (9-11), and so on. This practice of staging or faking enemy aggressions has a long history. A list of false flags can be perused this.

Now, in its ravenous quest for villains, the state arms proxy armies and mercenary groups and sometimes fights them, or claims to fight them (ISIS, etc.). No scheme is to evil if it keeps the war industry alive and helps establish global dominance and profits. During the 20th century, U.S. elites secretly sold military hardware and knowledge to countries that the media portrayed as villainous. Thus, during WWII, it openly armed Britain and secretly armed Germany and perhaps even the U.S.S.R. In the end, Russia deserves most of the credit for stopping the Nazi regime, but the masters of deception in the U.S. proudly claim that they saved Europe from the evil Nazis and Communists, even though they turned Europe into a cemetery, profited from their deeds and – thanks to WWII – they became to world’s sole superpower and economic super-predator.

Before WWII, Japan’s flourished – like a disease – as it colonized its neighbors. The U.S. saw it as a rival, it desired war and secretly provoked Japan into bombing Pearl Harbor. This provided an excuse to destroy the evil Japanese. When Russia became too powerful after WWII, it was dragged into a war with Islamic-Afghani tribes secretly armed by the U.S. When Iran refused to cooperate with U.S. interests, the U.S. created an enemy for it in Iraq. When Iraq’s leader, Sadam Hussein, rightly refused to cooperate with U.S. and Western European corporate interests, he was turned into an enemy and crushed. Ditto for Ghaddafi in Libya.

The need for fake villains extends far beyond the police and military industrial complex. In the West, people enjoy a veritable buffet of fake villains: sports teams, tv-movie villains, devils, weeds, Jews, witches, Muslims, communists, anarchists, terrorists, homosexuals, republicans, democrats, measles, and so on. None of these enemies pose a real threat to humanity, but our authors encourage us to fear imaginary threats because this prevents us from recognizing the real enemy, ourselves, and we shall always be our own enemies until we learn to live in loving harmony with our Nature and Neighbors.

Rather than pursuing harmony with Nature, nowadays, our most brilliant scientific minds are in laboratories inventing diseases. People who seek unlimited power and profits want us to be sicker than we already are. Another form of medical fakery is the popular custom of misdiagnosing diseases. Now we have a million diseases that describe symptoms rather than the common, underlying disease: Civilization Insanity. This monstrous disease conquers the Earth using the Four Weapons of a Horrible Life and Death: Stress, Poor Nutrition, Chemical Toxins and Radiation (too much or too little sunlight, and too much exposure to nuclear radiation, x-rays, radio-waves, WiFi-waves, etc.).

Rather than pursuing harmony with their neighbors, our most brilliant pre-crime policing minds are busy instigating and arranging evil for profit and power. Police even aid and abet the drug smuggling gangs they call the enemies of peace, and rather than arresting the state’s criminal leadership and all the corporate thugs who are leading humanity down the road of slavery and death, they arrest the people who do the least damage: illegal immigrants, marijuana users, parking violators and petty thieves.

Now, even our revolutions are fake. Foreign agents are secretly paid by tax free corporate foundations linked to Wall Street to start revolutions in countries that do not serve American interests. Domestically, secret agents also encourage and provoke otherwise peaceful activists to act violently so that the police have an excuse for crushing them.

Civilization wasn’t always so secretive and deceptive. In the beginning, power belonged to the masters of violent conflict. They only deceived themselves. Gradually, as the authors of the world became literate and developed a media apparatus, they learned to deceive and to create complicated forms of fake-democracy founded on fake election choices, empty promises, cool propaganda, impenetrable legislation and other deceptive communications.

The definition of a villain is constantly evolving. Christian brutes called native peoples godless heathens; now foreign governments are called regimes or communists and foreign leaders are called tyrants, despots, violators of human rights and threats to world peace.

Who are the real armed and dangerous villains? Why are the targets of fake terrorist attacks never Israel, Riyadh, Washington, Wall Street, the City of London, Westminster Palace, corporate headquarters and government buildings in general? (note: the Pentagon was largely vacant during the 9/11 attack, and the ATF’s offices in the Oklahoma city building were conveniently empty when the bombing occurred). When a foreign nation’s government buildings are attacked, as happened in Iran in June 2017 and in Argentina in 1994, the nation in question is one that refuses to cooperate with the puppet masters of our globalized theater of greed and cruelty.

Not coincidentally, the same pattern of villain-creation exists in our even more deadly medical and food industries. The real villains – the men in charge of these industries – either do not want to admit or do not even understand that they are responsible for creating unhealthy, sick and prematurely dead people. Instead of being self-critical, they continually blame some new boogeyman like cholesterol, carbs, calories, fructose, cannabis and genetics. And, not satisfied with their perpetually failing war on disease, the worst actors in the medical industry are not averse to creating villains – I mean diseases – with deliberately addictive, toxic and/or infectious vaccines and other drugs.

In conclusion, wherever the real villains profit from fighting fake villains, fake villains and conflicts will be manufactured. This occurs most prominently in the medical and military fields, but also in education, politics and even in economics. Today’s fake villain is the bully who was never loved at home; tomorrow’s fake villain is the sluggish economy, or Chinese currency manipulators. The media has villainized supreme actor President Donald Trump by focusing on imaginary and petty offenses while it ignores his true villainy as war-mongering puppet of banks and corporations. Trump’s diction, costume and face are unique, but his role is typical of presidents in the Grand Washington Theater.

Fake Scenery

Every dramatic performance has its fake scenery for ‘atmosphere’ and ‘mood.’ Modern artists are not interested in real scenery, certainly not in interacting with Nature in a manner that promotes mutual health. For the modern artist, the civilized artist, Nature is decoration, a visual and auditory ornament that has almost no connection to human life.

Civilization is the dramatic performance in which we are immersed. Civilizations are constantly creating fake, unnatural and unhealthy scenes and sceneries. The earliest civilizations invested enormous energy in building lifeless structures from raw stone and cut rock that people thought could connect them to gods and spirits. The megalithic sceneries they created continue to be ogled by tourists and praised by anthropologists and other worshippers of stones and superstitions.

Modern civilization is superficially different. Our belief that prayer and personal rituals can connect us with gods has freed our daily energy for creating an economy that produces a different kind of fake scenery, a scenery designed not to foster imaginary contact between humans and spirits, but a scenery designed to produce false wealth for a ruling class.

The megapolis culture is so ugly that it demands ornamentation. The ancient Romans and Greeks loved their monumental stone architecture, but they needed perfumes and incense, and they needed their windowless walls, floors and ceilings covered with pictures of Nature and anthropomorphic gods and biomorphic spirits. Now we are constantly looking away from the ugliness of our cities, their sewers, prisons, factories, slaughterhouses, hospitals, ghettos, dental offices, tax offices, retirement homes and so on. We prefer to look at bouquets, photographs, voice recordings, television shows, movies, computer games, video-calls, and so on. We view our fake world through the fakery of images. We live in the temple of Shadow and Image, two steps removed from Nature and Life.

We love our cities because we do not know how unhealthy they are for us and Nature. Forests are destroyed, huge mines and quarries are dug, enormous volumes of plastics and other toxins are processed and fossil fuels are burned and so on and on. Inside our buildings, humans live like robots living in virtual worlds. But we still long for something more, so we create the illusion of life with indoor plants, paintings of wild landscapes, pets, wildlife and splashes of color. And, to reinforce the illusion of a healthy environment, we surround our buildings with ornamental trees and lawns.

How lifeless are our cities? They need constant infusions of life from rural and foreign lands. Our cities are biological deserts populated with rats and sick beings whose minds and bodies do not function well. Lifeless engines and automobiles move bodies to and fro. Cables and wires deliver electric energy to citizens who press buttons. Leaders, teachers, specialists and computer software programs do our thinking for us. And yet, most people believe that cities have more life in them than pristine Nature.

Modern cities are gigantic Potemkin villages whose sole purpose is to create the dramatic illusion that life is fine and civilization is healthy. In the earliest cities, that illusion was quite easy to maintain; now, it is crumbling. In the biggest cities on Earth, pollution levels are so extreme that people struggle to breathe and rarely see blue sky. But, instead of choosing to fix their problems, people in the most polluted cities immigrate to ‘cleaner’ cities, the CAUSE cities found in Canada, Australia, the U.S. and Europe.

What is a clean city? A clean city isn’t necessarily healthier. City streets full of ‘dirty’ cows and cow dung might ruin fresh water supplies, but as a fuel cow dung is relatively clean. And dirty cities and homes covered in dust and bacteria keep our immune systems functioning and healthy. Processed and packaged foods probably contain no fungi or bacteria, but it isn’t very life-supporting either.

We are so brainwashed that we could look at a dead blue lake and a field of green corn growing on nearly dead soil and think we are looking at a healthy environment.

But even the cleanest cities do not satisfy us. Citizens of CAUSE cities frequently long to leave their stressful urban environments and escape to a rural or natural scene, even to a ‘beautiful’ tropical resort that, unfortunately, is just as unsustainable as any city. Disney resorts or ‘parks’ are arguably the greatest fake sceneries on the planet.

CAUSE cities are more scenic and cleaner than Third World cities because their environmental pollution regulations are stricter, but CAUSE cities rely on affordable imports from countries whose imports are affordable because they are heavy polluters. The scenic CAUSE nations are simply outsourcing their labor and pollution – at least non-military related manufacturing-based pollution. What immigrants don’t understand is that the scenic CAUSE nations produce the most garbage per person, and CAUSE nations produce and consume the most toxic foods and medicines. CAUSE nations might look good, but they are the leading cause of world-wide natural scenery destruction, they also lead the world in unsightly obesity and non-communicable diseases, and behind all their alluring sexiness, they suffer from crashing fertility rates, crashing birth rates and, I suppose if they could measure it, they would even find crashing love rates.

Fake Wealth

Real wealth is the goal of humanity. Real wealth is the happiness and health that does not turn into misery before death; but for this wealth to exist, we also need the land, climate, leisure, food, community, children, shelters and culture that produce it.

But presently real wealth is being destroyed and replaced by fake wealth.

Presently, billions of human beings live with land poverty and no longer know what good land is. We used to walk relatively free on the Earth; now most of the land belongs to the state and the ultra-wealthy; the middle class owns tiny lots of land; the billions of poor have just enough to slave and die on.

Presently, hundreds of millions of people – most of them in CAUSE nations – are living with fake climate wealth and real climate poverty. They need clothes to be warm during the day, and they need heated and air conditioned homes to feel comfortable during the day, and they need store-bought vitamin D and imported fruit during the winter.

Presently, people in rich nations are inundated with fake food or foods that belong to other animals and cannot optimize human health: meat, dairy and grains are false foods of the first category; in the middle category I place highly processed foods; in the third false food category I place laboratory-produced chemicals and genetically modified garbage (gmG). To make matters worse, most of our farming happens on soil depleted of essential minerals and micro-organisms, so the industry has found ways to produce big, fat, unhealthy (mineral and nutrition deficient) food. We pay for empty calories and worse, we pay for poison.

We are so poor, we don’t have access to what our ancestors enjoyed in abundance without cost: fresh air and fresh water. In the developed world, we pay for toxic, fluoridated, chlorinated and demineralized water (The Flouride Deception, Christopher Bryson; The Case against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There, Paul Connett & James Beck; Fluoride: Drinking Ourselves to Death, Barry Groves).

We have sacrificed Nature’s true wealth for the false wealth of technology. Cars are icons of wealth, but they indebt us, crush us (fatally, a million lives per year), poison us, and make us fat and unhealthy.

Our homes are popular objects of wealth, but they are built at great cost to the environment (Construction’s Impact on the Environment, Sourceable.net), and banks use them to enslave us with mortgages, a word from the Old French meaning death (mort) pledge (gage), so it is a promise unto death. Mortgages were always intended to keep people slaving for banks until death. Moreover, modern homes poison and endanger us (“Indoor Air Facts no.4, Sick Building Syndrome,” EPA). Modern home ownership destroys our health and our finances, therefore a home makes us poor.

We think husbands and wives make us wealthy, meaning happy and healthy, but statistics and personal observation reveal that the average marriage produces a paltry happiness, much stress, very few orgasms for women and inferior ones for men. Actually, our spouses are not married to us; they are married to their jobs, electronic gadgets, cars, stores, and their ‘image’ of themselves.

Women in particular and people generally lack mental and emotional wealth. Their fragile happiness is too easily broken by jokes and insults. In other words, they have fragile ideas about themselves. Whether they are obese, unenergetic, bossy, or obsessively clean, whatever their physical or mental disorder, they usually deny it, defend it, ignore it, and refuse to recognize and correct it. Many people imagine that they are sexy, smart, friendly or chic – even though they have no good evidence for any such claims. In other words, the self-images that people value so highly are a form of fake wealth.

The image of the ideal man varies according to culture, but it is always deceptive or false. American society has promoted the idealized image of a muscular, clean shaven, large-jawed, man with enormous genitals. Such men are treated as if they represented sexual wealth, but these features have little to do with our ability to produce happiness or pleasure. In fact, regarding the clean-shaven feature, I have a pet theory that our beards exist to stimulate women’s skin, especially around the neck and shoulders. If this is true, the clean-shaven man is an impoverished man.

Women’s real sexual wealth has also been ruined by a culture that makes people unfit for sex, both physically and mentally. But the media persuades us that sexiness still exists. It flaunts women with big breasts, curvy buttocks, long legs and red lips as if these features produce sexual satisfaction. Foolish men obsess over these features and hunt for trophy wives, while foolish women use everything from clothing to surgery to make their bodies match this image so that they can ensnare the hunters.

Even modern children have become objects of false wealth. Many children are idealized by parents who could not recognize a good child if they met one. Not only are we deluded about our children, but our culture takes our children away from us; it turns our children into their children – the children of government-trained educators and the media in general. Modernity has turned the biological parent into a prison guard, slave driver, chauffeur and secret Santa Claus. The educational and entertaining role of the parent has been outsourced to teachers, coaches, televisions, doctors and daycare facilitators. In short, our children are not half as good as we like to think, and they certainly are not ours.

How poor is the modern citizen? Ironically, in nations reputed to be the wealthiest, people are burdened with the greatest debts on Earth. Adults, students, governments and small businesses are living in debt, close to bankruptcy, close to being homeless and hungry. In the U.S., the average working adult needs to save 100% of two years’ of income to pay all their personal debts. And, to pay the U.S. governments’ debts, workers would need to save 100% of two more years of income.

Ironically, the myth of wealth is nowhere more evident than in the U.S., the allegedly wealthiest nation on Earth, a nation that – paradoxically – is also crippled with disease, debt, violence, depression and other consequences of progress. Michael Parenti’s observation that capitalist civilizations always makes the few rich by making the many poor applies to all economic and political systems. In theory, communist nations reduce the extremes of wealth and poverty creation, but they do not replace the religion of false wealth creation with a culture that knows how to produce real wealth.

Money is the ultimate fake wealth (“Bank Admits: Money Is Fake, Fictional, Not Real,” Clinton Kirby). Banking elites create money, or rather credit, from nothing and loan it to us as if it were real. They even command us to return their fake wealth with interest payments earned through real work. And the more money they print from nothing and shove into the economy, the deeper we go into debt and the more we destroy the real wealth on our planet.

The Myth of Progress and the Happy Ending

The myth of progress is crucial to keeping people pacified and apathetic. Lets look at some of the problems with this alluring myth:

  1. Scientists claim that prehistoric people had shorter life spans. Early humans had radically different diets from us, so their hair, bone and tooth composition at the age of 70 could resemble ours at the age of 30. Rather than assume that they died young, at about 30, I assume that they lived healthier and longer than we do. Moreover, the most developed nations have already reached peak life-spans. American lifespans are beginning to shrink (“White Americans Are Dying Younger as Drug and Alcohol Abuse Rises,” Sabrina Tavernise) and the rest of the developed world will soon follow suit. More importantly, over the past few millennia, leisure, or free time, has steadily disappeared. Now you can live until you’re 65, but, unless you’re unemployed, you won’t have time (“For US Workers, Vacation Is Vanishing,” Mark Ames).
  2. The quality of life is steadily decreasing. Now our teenagers and preteens commit suicide, billions use prescription and non-prescription drugs to alleviate stress and illness, young children wield guns in war zones, and billions of people live in poor health, prisons and loneliness. Why aren’t these shocking facts thoroughly studied in schools or reported daily on the evening news? What are we afraid of?
  3. Civilization cannot ‘progress’ without giving us progressively more unsatisfying jobs and more toxic and addictive goods and services. The happiness provided by an expensive yacht is miniscule compared to the happiness provided by a happy child or lover. A life spent in luxurious homes and vehicles is less fulfilling than a life spent in a humble, healthy environment.
  4. With few exceptions, false wealth inequality is progressing everywhere while real wealth is vanishing (“The Super Rich Are out of Sight,” Michael Parenti; “Central Banks as Engines of Income Inequality and Financial Crisis,” Jack Rasmus; Foreclosing the Future: The World Bank and the Politics of Environmental Destruction, Bruce Rich).
  5. Unlike billions of religious people living today, our pre-civilized ancestors were not obsessed about earning a trip to a better world after they die; they usually enjoyed life, so they did not talk or write about going to better worlds.

Who is happy enough to forego the imaginary happy endings offered by our religions? Who is happy enough to laugh at the culture that pursues weekends and vacations as happy endings to endless misery? Who is happy enough to laugh at the happy endings provided by authors of fiction, the entertainment industry and the gambling and sports industries? Even the purchase of a new piece of clothing can be a sort of happy ending for hard work. But none of these little happy endings provides genuine happiness.

Conclusion: The Demise of State and Corporate Funded Myth-Making and the Rise of “Folk Media”

When metropolitan civilizations were still small, the tribes of the uncivilized majority did not beg to join them; in fact, they shuddered, fought and avoided them as long as possible. Most have been swallowed up by the relentless spread of civilization. And, amazingly, the propaganda of the ruling class has nearly everyone believing that civilization is a blessing, and that the more developed the civilization, the better.

Although our education, entertainment and information industries are still dominated by corporate and government status quo voices, their monopoly is being challenged with some success by the rise of alternative or folk media. Parents are turning to home-schooling and the de-education movement. People are also leaving the mainstream news and entertainment media matrix and preferring alternative or folk media. MSM journalists are mutinying and joining independent and even foreign media outlets such as Telesurtv, Al Jazeera and Russia Today (RT). Moreover, whistleblowers and anonymous leakers continue the fight against propaganda, and folk educators are publishing videos and books that challenge mainstream propaganda.

The internet is crucial. Others have observed that as the printing press helped Protestantism break the publishing monopoly of the Catholic Church, so the internet is helping folk media destroy the publishing monopoly of the Capitalist Empire.

Alternative, independent, viewer-funded media are “folk media.” Their values are identical to the ones identified in folklore composed by people living in Eurasian and North African civilizations.

Folk media protests against all manifestations of state and corporate oppression, and this includes war, censorship, taxation, pollution, and poverty. But folk media does more than protest. As my recent purchase of Ecovillage: 1001 ways to heal the planet demonstrates, folk media also celebrates the birth of a better world, a world that will revive the wisdom of our ancestors and, wherever possible, refine that wisdom.

Here are a few examples of news and education related folk media: globalresearch.ca, thebureauinvestigates.com, corbettreport.com. newsbud.com, disobedientmedia.com, therealnews.org, itccs.org, naturalnews.com, pressfortruth.com, theantimedia.com, commondreams.org, counterpunch.org, honestreporting.com, and inforwars.com.

Do I have too much faith in the internet? The printing press and the Protestant Reformation did not destroy the Catholic Church; in fact, in many ways they made life worse and more fearful.

The first printing presses were controlled by the ruling elites, so they spelled ruin for folklore and folk wisdom. Now the ruling elites are trying to use the internet to spread corporate and state propaganda for the benefit of the Capitalist Church. Governments in China and Russia are already censoring the internet, just as in the U.S., corporations like Facebook, Google and Youtube are working to censor the internet for the U.S. government and themselves. But none of this should worry us. The knowledge we need can easily be remembered without the internet, without even books. Communication technologies can speed the spread of vital knowledge, but mouths and ears can do the job.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How the Corporate and State Sponsored Media Transform Reality into Fiction

Video: ISIS Defense Collapsed in Deir Ezzor City

November 2nd, 2017 by South Front

On October 31, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) Tiger Forces and the Republican Guard liberated the neighborhoods of Kanamat, Khassarat, Badr and Old Airport from ISIS in Deir Ezzor city. Government troops also advanced al-Hamidiyah, Sheikh Yassin and al-Ardhi.

Earlier, the SAA and its allies liberated liberation of worker 1, worker 2 and Afri neighborhoods. Thus, government forces retook about third of the area, which was controlled by ISIS in the northern part of the city.

On the same day, the Russian attack submarine ‘Veliky Novgorod’ launched 3 Kalibr cruise missiles on terrorist targets near the ISIS-held town of al-Bukamal. The missiles destroyed several fortified command points, where militants and vehicles were deployed, and a large weapons depot.

In Iraq, the army and the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) have liberated the subdistrict of Ubaydi from ISIS east of the ISIS-held border town of al-Qaim. Now, the army and the PMU will likely focus on further clearing this bank of the Euphrates from ISIS in order to set a foothold for an advance on al-Qaim itself.

Iraiq forces launched an advance on the ISIS-held town of al-Qaim last week. Since then, they had liberated a large area east and south of it and reached the outskirts of the town.

The liberation of al-Bukamal and al-Qaim may be considered as a strategic loss of the US-led coalition. Washington had been seeking for a long time to build a buffer zone controlled by its proxies between Syria and Iraq arguing that in other cases Iran would be able to provide military assistance to the Assad government via a land route.

Meanwhile, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and the Iraq Federal Government allegedly reached an agreement over the border crossings of Faysh Khabur and Ibrahim al-Khalil. According to the agreement, troops of both the Federal Government and the KRG will be stationed there. So, Baghdad will be able to monitor the traffic between the KRG and Turkey as well as between the KRG and a part of Syria controlled by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). This development will also have long-standing consequences for the US and its proxies in the region.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Featured image is from South Front.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: ISIS Defense Collapsed in Deir Ezzor City

Urgent warnings of a radiation leak have been issued after the collapse of a tunnel under North Korea’s 7,200 foot high Mount Mantap, under which the country tests their weapons systems.

The accident, believed to have happened on 10th October – though it only came to light on 31st October – is a disaster which is reported to have killed two hundred people. Were it anywhere else on earth it would surely be a headline tragedy, with Heads of State sending their condolences and offering assistance.

Apparently, however, the parents, sons, daughters which are the workforce of The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) are children of a lesser God and the ‘phone lines, emails are seemingly silent; the Eiffel Tower and Brandenburg Gate have not been lit with the nation’s colours in memory of those lost and mourned.

Dangers of radiation are the only headlines, assistance to attempt to assess and curtail it by the world’s expert bodies and institutions; hands held out in the light of a major disaster, have not been forthcoming.

Initially, a tunnel collapsed on 100 workers, and an additional 100 went in to rescue them, only to die themselves under the unstable mountain,” Business Insider reports. (Photo: TV Asahi/Screengrab)

Business Insider’s Alex Lockie reports that according to North Korean sources, the tunnel initially “collapsed on 100 workers, and an additional 100 went in to rescue them, only to die themselves under the unstable mountain.” (1)

Not only is there no help from the “international community”, but: “If the debris from the test reaches China, Beijing would see that as an attack on its country, Jenny Town, the Assistant Director of the U.S.-Korea Institute and a Managing Editor at 38 North, previously told Business Insider.”

Conveniently forgotten is America’s fecklessness testing in Nevada, where the mushroom clouds could be seen a hundred miles away and: “Las Vegas experienced noticeable seismic effects” (“Nevada Test Site”, Wikipedia) and the fate of the called “down-winders” who suffered radiation related diseases from the nuclear fallout.

“No one has shown more contempt for other nations and for the well-being of their own people than the depraved regime in North Korea …” Donald Trump told the UN General Assembly in September.

He is clearly ignorant of the feckless nuclear history of his own country.

Also forgotten are the US and UK atomic testing in the Pacific (1946-1962) for which servicemen – unwarned of the dangers – who survived, fought for compensation for cancers and deformities of their children until the end of their lives. A few, now very elderly, still fight on.

The population of Bikini Island of course, was evacuated and still remains so radioactive that families or descendants have not been able to return. More of America’s disposable populations.

Whilst it is still not certain whether North Korea has developed nuclear weapons, they have been testing the possibilities in response to over sixty years of US threats. However, unlike the US, their tests have been undertaken under a vast mountain and: “Successive tests have so far not caused any radiation leaks in nearby regions, analysts said.” (2)

Exercise Desert Rock I (Buster-Jangle Dog) 002.jpg

November 1951 nuclear test at Nevada Test Site. Test is shot “Dog” from Operation Buster, with a yield of 21 kilotons of TNT (88 TJ). It was the first U.S. nuclear field exercise conducted with live troops maneuvering on land. Troops shown are 6 mi (9.7 km) from the blast. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

However, in the week of the collapse there was a stark warning that:

“Continued nuclear testing by North Korea could trigger a radioactive leak, South Korea’s chief meteorologist warned this week. Nam Jae-Cheol, the head of the Korea Meteorological Administration, said the hollow space in the bottom of the mountain where the tests are conducted could implode, leading to radioactive material seeping through.”

Moreover:

“Scientists from the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Geology and Geophysics last month also warned about the possibility of a catastrophic implosion in the mountains …”

Meanwhile the same report states that North Korea, surely in the light of Trump’s apocalyptic threats to the nation of just 25.4 million, “was reportedly conducting mass evacuation drills and blackout exercises in recent days amid increased threats of nuclear war.” Poignant and shaming.

But if there is, rightly, such fear of radiation leakage, what, as he has threatened, if Donald Trump unleashes his threat of “fire and fury like the world has never seen”?

On 22nd October, Trump decided that he was preparing to put the US fleet of B-52 fully nuclear capable bombers on 24-hour alert.

“This is yet one more step in ensuring that we’re prepared”, Gen. David Goldfein, Air Force Chief of Staff, told Defense One.

The first targets, as Trump has made clear, would be the DPRK’s weapons facilities, which would make the horror of the current leak fears pale in to insignificance. And as said before, the region, indeed the planet could be rendered incinerated history.

The US President, now in a tight corner, with impeachment an approaching possibility and with seemingly increasingly fading grasp reality, might just resort to such insanity as a diversionary tactic.

Time for neighbouring countries and US allies to use this disaster to put out the hand of friendship, offer help, diplomacy and normality to a country which has literally built itself up from the ashes, of every town, city and village destroyed by America little over sixty years ago.

And the time to act is now. Next week might be too late.

Incidentally Donald Trump is to leave for the region and for South Korea on Sunday. He was to visit the border area, a must-do photo-op for visiting warmongers. The day the possible radiation leak was announced, he cancelled the visit.

Trump has a phobia. In his 1997 book “The Art of the Comeback”, he wrote about how he hated shaking hands because of the risk of germs:

“One of the curses of American society is the simple act of shaking hands, and the more successful and famous one becomes the worse this terrible custom seems to get.

“I happen to be a clean hands freak. I feel much better after I thoroughly wash my hands, which I do as much as possible.”

There are other reports alleging that he prefers to drink with a straw in case the vessel he drinks out of carries the germs of others.

When Theresa May visited him a week after his taking office, there was speculation that the reason he held her hand so tightly ascending stairs was because of  his fear of germs on handrails grasped by others before him.

For all his “fire and fury” perhaps he has just realized that no amount of washing can flush off radiation. Any chance that is why he has so suddenly cancelled his visit to the border? Just wondering.

Notes

1. https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/10/31/fears-radiation-leak-soar-after-north-korea-nuclear-site-collapse-kills-200

2. http://www.ibtimes.com/south-korean-scientists-warn-north-koreas-nuclear-tests-could-trigger-radioactive-2608031?utm_source=internal&utm_campaign=right&utm_medium=related1

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on North Korea Nuclear Testing Tunnel Collapse, Fears of Radiation Leaks, Will Trump Resort to “Fire and Fury” Insanity?

In Iraq, as in Syria, the imminent extinguishing of the mini-state of the so-called Islamic State (ISIS or IS) is raising the question of whether U.S. objectives in Iraq really are focused on countering IS or will balloon into some other reason to keep American forces there indefinitely. The most common rationale voiced by those arguing for an indefinite stay is to counter Iranian influence. The rationale echoes alarms sounded by the Trump administration and others about an Iran supposedly on the march and threatening to bring most of the Middle East under its sway. The alarms are filled with unsupported zero-sum assumptions about what any Iranian action or influence means for U.S. interests.

Those tempted to succumb to the alarms as they apply to Iraq should bear in mind two important realities about the Iraqi-Iranian relationship.

The first is that the biggest boost to Iranian influence in Iraq was the U.S. invasion of March 2003. One effect of the whole costly, unpleasant history of the United States in Iraq—including the initial conquest, later surge, and all the ups and downs of occupation—is that Iranian influence is much greater now than it ever was while Saddam Hussein was still ruling Iraq. If Iranian influence were the overriding worry about the Middle East that the rhetoric of the Trump administration makes it out to be, this record strongly suggests that an unending U.S. military expedition would not be a smart way to assuage that worry.

The second key reality is that Iraq and Iran, for reasons of geographic proximity and a bloody history, are necessarily huge factors in each other’s security. Outside actors can’t shove aside that fact by talking about filling vacuums, pursuing their own self-defined rivalries, or imposing zero-sum assumptions that do not correspond to ground truth in the Persian Gulf region.

The extremely costly Iran-Iraq War, begun by Iraq and fought from 1980 to 1988, is the most prominent part of the bloody history and a formative experience for leaders in both countries. Accurate figures on the war’s casualties are not available, but deaths numbered in the hundreds of thousands for each country. According to mid-range of estimates of those killed in the war, the combined death toll was probably somewhere around three-quarters of a million. The war was the deadliest conflict in the Middle East over the past half century.

Against that historical backdrop, it behooves the leaders of both Iraq and Iran to keep their relationship on an even keel. Although the two neighbors still have differing interests, it is in their larger security interests for cordiality to prevail over conflict in their bilateral relationship. The governments in both Baghdad and Tehran appear to realize that.

It helps that the two countries have, along with their differing interests, some important parallel interests. Chief among those right now are their interests in quashing IS and in not letting Kurdish separatism tear pieces out of each country’s sovereign territory. These interests also align with declared U.S. objectives about fighting IS and upholding the territorial integrity of Iraq, although this fact often seems to get overlooked in the United States amid the obsession with opposing Iran and confronting it everywhere about everything.

Interests in Peace and Stability 

Many countries, including the United States, share a general interest in peace and stability in the Middle East—for numerous reasons, including how the lack of peace and stability encourages the sorts of violent extremism that can have consequences beyond the region. It follows that having more cordiality than conflict in the Iraq-Iran relationship, which was so disastrously explosive in the recent past, also is in the general interest.

That peace and stability inside Iraq is in Iran’s interest as much as in other countries’ interests gets overlooked amid obsession-related caricatures of Iran as fomenting instability wherever and whenever it can. Persistent instability in a country with which Iran shares a border of more than 900 miles is not in Iran’s interest. It is ironic that this fact seems hard to accept by those who habitually use the term “spread of instability” in opining about security issues in the Middle East.

Iranian leaders also are smart enough, and informed enough about Iraqi affairs, to realize how destabilizing narrow-minded sectarian favoritism would be and how easy it would be to overplay their own hand. However empathetic the Iranians are to their Shia co-religionists, they realize that Sunni-bashing policies do not constitute a formula for stability on their eastern border. They also are aware of Iraqi nationalist (and Arab) sensitivities. They can see such sensitivities even in cleric and militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr, commonly described as a Shia zealot, who recently made friendly visits to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which are among the chief regional rivals of Iran.

Amid these realities, it is jarring and inappropriate for the United States, in obsessively seeking confrontation with Iran, to lecture the Iraq government about how the Iranian-supported militias need, in the words of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, “to go home.” It is not surprising that such preaching raised the dander of the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, which pointed out that the militias in question, although armed and trained in part by Iran, consist of Iraqis. Abadi further stated, in response to this U.S. effort to tell the Iraqis how to organize their internal security efforts, “No side has the right to intervene in Iraq’s affairs or decide what Iraqis should do.”

Abadi later understandably expressed his frustration with Trump administration efforts to make his country a playing board for Washington’s game of seeking confrontation with Iran. Abadi said,

“We would like to work with you, both of you [meaning the United States and Iran]. But please don’t bring your trouble inside Iraq. You can sort it [out] anywhere else.”

Iraqis are contemplating not only how the Iranian-backed militias have done much of the heavy lifting in defeating IS in Iraq. They also can see most recently the constructive behind-the-scenes Iranian role in resolving the standoff with the Kurds over Kirkuk and nearby oilfields in a way that advanced the objective of Iraqi territorial integrity and sovereignty with minimal bloodshed. Abadi’s own government can rightly claim most of the credit for this result, and the prime minister’s domestic political stock has risen as a result. But to the extent that any outside player played a positive role, it was Iran. The United States does not appear to have contributed to the outcome to any comparable degree.

American Lack of Understanding

Two basic reasons explain the U.S. obtuseness in failing to recognize and understand the regional geopolitical realities mentioned above. One is the demonization of Iran and fixation on opposing it everywhere on everything, to the exclusion of attention given to the many other facets of security issues in the Middle East.

The other reason is the chronic difficulty that Americans, relatively secure behind two ocean moats, have had in understanding the security problems, and responses to those problems, of nations without similar geographic blessings. This was the reason that, during the Cold War, “Finlandization” became a U.S. term of derision aimed at countries that deemed it advisable to observe certain policy limits in order to live peaceably as neighbors of the Soviet Union. It is today a reason for failing to appreciate fully how Iraqis analyze what is necessary to live peaceably in their own neighborhood.

Such understanding would come more easily to Americans if they had experienced wars with their North American neighbors that had been as bloody as the Iran-Iraq War. And perhaps such understanding would come if today Iran were lecturing the Canadians and Mexicans about how to organize their internal security and how they need to reduce U.S. influence.

Paul R. Pillar is Non-resident Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Studies of Georgetown University and an Associate Fellow of the Geneva Center for Security Policy. He retired in 2005 from a 28-year career in the U.S. intelligence community. His senior positions included National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia, Deputy Chief of the DCI Counterterrorist Center, and Executive Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence. He is a Vietnam War veteran and a retired officer in the U.S. Army Reserve. Dr. Pillar’s degrees are from Dartmouth College, Oxford University, and Princeton University. His books include Negotiating Peace (1983), Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy (2001), Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy (2011), and Why America Misunderstands the World (2016).

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Iraq and Iran, Sharing a Neighborhood. U.S. 2003 Invasion of Iraq: A Boost to Iranian Influence

Featured image: The charge of the Australian Light Horse at Beersheba, 1917, painted by George Lambert in 1920, shows troopers with bayonets in their hands and .303 rifles slung across their backs. Veterans complained that the formidable defences and determined Ottoman defenders are missing. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

“The tradition of man and horse is part of us. It is part of Australia.” – Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, Oct 31, 2017

Exaggerated truths have been flowering in the rhetoric following the visit of Australian politicians to ceremonies commemorating the light horse charge at Beersheba. Not a single wisp of objectivity has manifested itself in covering the proceedings, the re-enactment, and the flowing guff. Even the national broadcaster has decided to play along.

Reporting on this event has often been prefaced with the sense that a regretful amnesia has set in. The Allies should be grateful to those of the Australian horsemen who rode their cause into history.

“From a solemn ceremony to a dusty desert re-enactment,” went an ABC account, “it was a day of commemoration in southern Israel to mark 100 years since the Battle of Beersheba.”[1]

That battle had been but a subset of other skirmishes and engagements between the Allied forces under the command of British General Sir Edmund Allenby and the forces of the Ottoman Empire. The aim of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force was simple and ruthless: capture Gaza, enter Palestine and knock out Imperial Germany’s ally.

The Australian angle on this, aided by New Zealand enthusiasts, is equally simple. Allied efforts had stalled in the Middle Eastern campaign. An assault on October 31, 1917 as part of third Battle of Gaza had failed to make an impression. Furthermore, water was needed – desperately.

Then came the assault by the 4th Light Horse Brigade at dusk. Turkish defences at Beersheba, manned by some thousand or so riflemen, nine machine guns and two aircraft, eventually capitulated. But what florid, alloyed Australian accounts often fail to note is the role of softening played by three British divisions the morning of October 31.

Shelling from 100 guns had alarmed the Turkish forces sufficiently to force them west and south west of Beersheba. The wells, however, were still in their control. As Brigadier General William Grant put it,

“men you’re fighting for water. There’s no water between this side of Beersheba and Esani.” [2]

The fall of Beersheba emboldened the British forces to break the Ottoman line near Gaza on November 7, leaving the way open into Palestine.

There is nothing like a military re-enactment to thrill the jingo lurking under the flesh, readying the chests to be given a true thumping.

“The leaders of our three nations are here assembled,” intoned Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, “because we are honouring an extraordinary battle, an extraordinary campaign, which made history, which fulfilled history.”

The Israeli Prime Minister saw this as a lesson of worthy history and true character building, a fine example of Australasian prowess in the Negev Desert.

“We learned about the ethos of courage of Australian and New Zealand’s soldiers.”

It was, continued Benjamin Netanyahu, the sort of “spirit of fortitude and courage and willingness in the defence of our land and our values.” The observation is so anachronistic as to beggar belief, but such is the power of the union between patriotism and real estate, between rushed blood and disturbed soil.

Australian and New Zealand forces had tasted a number of decent, murderous defeats, with these countries’ youth butchered at Gallipoli in a Winston Churchill-inspired effort to inflict defeat on the Ottoman empire. They suffered even more in the lethal trench battles of the Western front.

The charge of the 4th Light Horse at Beersheba a century ago, for that reason, seems a moment of ecstasy, one freed from the lethal constipation of the Western front, the inability of forces to make headway and forge victory. It was also a murderous stalemate held together by industrial slaughter, the machinery of modern war.

The cavalry charge was a form of retro-warfare, an example of nostalgia on horseback and daring risk. It could well have gone so wrong, and it was drawn from the old British fantasy of previous charges, not least of all that of Lord Cardigan’s efforts in the Battle of Balaclava in October 1854 against Russian forces. Despite the slaughter inflicted upon them then, hasty glorification followed. “All in the valley of Death,” went poet laureate Alfred, Lord Tennyson, “Rode the six hundred”.

There is, of course, a law of consequence operating here. Beersheba, for one, is now in Israeli territory. If we were advocates of Pascal’s Cleopatra nose theory of history, we could say that even a victory of this small magnitude altered the political geography of the region. The point is again made by the ABC. “The victorious campaign redrew the map of the Middle East.”

Prime Minister Turnbull was even blunter, almost to the point of boasting. These men “spurred their horses through that fire, those mad Australians […] and took the town of Beersheba, secured victory that did not create the State of Israel, but enabled its creation.”[3]

Since that painful redrawing, nation states have warred, bickered and slaughtered. New states emerged, the offspring of part treachery, part opportunity, and colonial fantasy. Undertakings were ignored as the Ottoman Empire sundered. Irritable tribes were artificially captioned by fictional boundaries. Fitting, then, that the Beersheba commemorations should take place on Israeli soil.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge and lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]

Notes

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Madness on Horseback: Australia Commemorates The Light Horse Charge at Beersheba against the Ottoman Empire

Russiagate Investigations Discredited, Continue Anyway

November 1st, 2017 by Stephen Lendman

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

After months of investigations by Congress and special counsel Mueller, no evidence was found suggesting Russian collusion with Trump to harm Hillary and help him triumph last November.

No evidence exists. No collusion occurred, no Russian meddling in America’s electoral process or any others.

Ongoing sham investigations represent exercises in mass deception, exposing deep-seated Washington corruption, deplorable governance, and betrayal of the public trust – nothing else.

Fabricated accusations of Russian meddling in last November’s presidential election surfaced over a year ago.

Yet not a shred of evidence proves them – lots of smoke, no fire, clear proof of a corrupt political system too debauched to fix, a bipartisan conspiracy against democratic values, rule of law principles, and public accountability.

Russiagate investigations continue ad nauseam, one of the greatest hoaxes in modern times, most Americans none the wiser.

Polls show their minds have been manipulated to believe untruths, the power of media-supported repetitive persuasion, a virtual daily drumbeat of disinformation, Big Lies and fake news – failing to rise to the level of bad fiction.

Congressional investigations since January uncovered nothing. Special council Mueller’s work began with his appointment last May.

All he’s been able to come up with are charges against individuals connected to lobbying for Ukraine – unconnected to Russia or Trump.

Putting it mildly, Russiagate investigations by him and Congress laid an egg, proving one thing only – that no Illegal or improper Russia/Trump connections exist, no Russian meddling in America’s political process, nothing but Big Lies claiming otherwise.

The indictment against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates said nothing about Trump or Russia, Ukraine mentioned repeatedly.

The so-called investigation into Russia hijacking America’s political process seems farcical, a bad joke, much ado about absolutely nothing.

It’s well known that Manafort lobbied for Ukraine from 2006 – 2016. Yet no accusations of wrongdoing were levied until over a year after Russiagate surfaced.

Mountains of evidence show Hillary guilty of war crimes, racketeering and perjury. Yet no one in Washington dares lay a glove on her – not Congress or Trump’s Justice Department.

No special counsel was appointed to investigate her high crimes and levy charges. The double standard needs no elaboration.

Former FBI director James Comey rejected recommending criminal charges against her on any number of credible charges, despite loads of evidence justifying them.

Yet groundless accusations let the Russiagate probe persist. Trump most often is dead wrong.

He’s right about the “dishonest media” and “witch-hunt” investigations into alleged ties between his campaign and Russia, along with phony accusations of Russian meddling into America’s political process.

Guilt is shared by both right wings of its duopoly governance – the shame of the nation.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russiagate Investigations Discredited, Continue Anyway

North Korea and the Danger of Fake History

November 1st, 2017 by 38 North

John Adams once said, “facts are stubborn things.” If the Massachusetts founding father were alive today pondering the challenge of North Korea, he might have revised his famous quote to, “myths are stubborn things.”

Perhaps no problem has been the victim of more egregious myths than North Korea. The constant stream of articles about the “hermit kingdom” when, in fact, North Korea isn’t an isolated outpost on Mars, the incessant narrative that Kim Jong Un is crazy (the same was said about his father) and recurring claims that Pyongyang is on the brink of collapse (since the early 1990s) have made it hard to have a reasoned policy debate. But perhaps the most insidious myths have to do with the history of US policy towards North Korea.

Many of us here at 38 North have spent our professional lives studying North Korea—some have spent decades in the US government trying to deal with the growing threat from Pyongyang. Since we have lived through that history, the constant misrepresentation of what happened in the past by government officials, experts, academics and the media is more than disappointing, particularly since there are shelves of books on that history that most people haven’t bothered to read. It is also dangerous. This failure (or refusal) to understand history has led the US down the wrong path more than once in trying to cope with the North and still could, in the future, with potentially disastrous consequences for the US as well as our close allies, South Korea and Japan.

Cases in point are two recent articles in the New York Times, which, on balance, has done great reporting on the unfolding crisis. The first, “How Trump’s Predecessors Dealt with the North Korean Threat” by Russell Goldman, has a clear theme that they have been snookering us all along. Well, that may have been true for part of the time, but it wasn’t true for all of the time. The article completely misrepresents what happened under the Clinton administration, asserting that North Korea accepted the carrots offered by the administration in the 1994 US-North Korea Agreed Framework—two multi-billion dollar reactors and heavy fuel oil shipments—then cheated when it was supposed to be denuclearizing and learned the lesson that it could profit by provoking the West.

Sounds pretty straightforward, but unfortunately, it is fake history. If the author had bothered to do more research, he would have learned that in 1993, US intelligence estimated that North Korea could have enough nuclear material to build about 75 bombs by the beginning of the next decade. The Agreed Framework ended that threat. In 2002 when the agreement collapsed, the North only had enough material to build less than 5 nuclear weapons. Moreover, Pyongyang had made the mistake of allowing key nuclear facilities to deteriorate into piles of junk. So it couldn’t restart them. In effect, a plutonium production program that had cost tens, maybe hundreds, of billions of dollars to build had been trashed because of the agreement. True, Pyongyang had started to cheat by exploring a uranium enrichment program that could also produce bomb-making material, but that program was nowhere near as advanced and wouldn’t reach fruition for years. Sounds like a good deal to us. But none of this is mentioned in the article.

A second example is an excellent article by Motoko Rich a few days ago on the upcoming US-South Korean joint exercises and whether they should be cancelled in return for North Korea halting its missile tests. Reporters often rely on pundits to provide information. But in this case, the pundit was completely wrong on a critical historical issue relevant to the current policy debate. He stated that when the United States and South Korea previously agreed to cancel military maneuvers, the Team Spirit exercise, in the early 1990s in exchange for the North allowing international inspections of its secret nuclear installations, “the North quickly reneged and continued to develop its nuclear program.”

Once again, fake history. In fact, the suspension of Team Spirit in 1992 led the North to sign an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) allowing inspections of its main nuclear facility. That in turn, led to the discovery by international inspectors that the North may have been secretly producing a small amount of nuclear material that could be used to build the bomb. That never would have happened without the temporary suspension of the exercise. Moreover, as the North started to dig in its heels and resist moving forward with more inspections, the US and South Korea simply restarted Team Spirit. And finally, even before the suspension, senior US military officers had questioned the exercise’s value, arguing that they could accomplish the same military objectives at far lower cost and less political clamor from the North. Sound familiar? Today, many experts are arguing the same thing about the current large US-South Korean joint exercises.

Reasonable people can disagree about how to deal with the North Korean nuclear threat. But history matters, so let’s get our facts straight. That’s the only way to have an informed policy debate.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on North Korea and the Danger of Fake History

Former Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort Indicted

November 1st, 2017 by Stephen Lendman

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Last May, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed former FBI director Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate any connection between Trump’s campaign and Russia.

After months of work, he found nothing, instead got a grand jury to indict Manafort and his business partner Rick Gates – charges unrelated to Trump’s campaign or Russia.

Manafort and Gates were indicted on 12 counts, including conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to launder money, operating as unregistered foreign agent, false and misleading Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) statements, other false statements, and seven counts of failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts.

Charges relate to their earlier lobbying for Ukraine.

Note: AIPAC has been an unregistered agent for Israel since 1953 – no charges ever brought for operating illegally, nothing holding the sinister group accountable.

Whatever Manafort, Gates, and Papadopoulos did or didn’t do, at most it was minor compared to decades of AIPAC’s support for Israeli high crimes, along with malicious lying, fear-mongering and promoting naked aggression against its adversaries.

Manafort and Gates will appear in court for the first time Monday afternoon. In response, Trump tweeted:

“Sorry, but this is years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign. But why aren’t Crooked Hillary & the Dems the focus?????”

“…Also, there is NO COLLUSION.”

Hillary remains an unindicted war criminal, racketeer and perjurer, no one in Washington daring to lay a glove on her or husband Bill, both belonging in prison.

Instead, they used their public positions to become super-rich – through lucrative book deals, speeches, and a self-enrichment foundation, masquerading as a charitable NGO.

In January, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) falsely accused Russia, and Vladimir Putin personally, of ordering an “influence campaign” to harm Hillary and “undermine public faith in the US democratic process (sic).”

In October 2016, ODNI and DHS expressed confidence that Russia hacked DNC and Hillary emails, falsely accusing its government of interfering in America’s electoral process.

In over a year, not a shred of evidence was presented, proving the accusations – nothing from House, Senate and Mueller investigations.

Accusations were fabricated to delegitimize Trump and bash Russia, media scoundrels playing the lead role as agents of the imperial state.

Paul Manafort, Rick Gates and George Papadopoulos await their day in court, innocent unless proved otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.

Charges against them have nothing to do with Russia or Trump! Over a year of providing no evidence of a connection to Trump’s campaign, or an effort to harm Hillary’s, just spurious accusations, shows it’s virtually certain no credible proof of Russian meddling in last year’s presidential election will surface.

How can it when nothing happened – when accusations against Russia were fabricated!

Investigations by Congress and Mueller are exercises in mass deception, a waste of time and money, Western media failing to expose the chicanery.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Former Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort Indicted

On October 30, the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) renewed their operations against ISIS in the eastern countryside of Deir Ezzor city. SDF units seized Fudayn, Sijri, Jaar, Wandiyah and Kharijiyah along the road between al-Busariyah and as-Suwar.

According to pro-Kurdish sources, the SDF also entered Jadid Uqaydat and Jadid Bu Khayr cutting off the last road that could be used by the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) to reach the ISIS-held town of al-Busariyah on the eastern bank of the Euphrates.

Some fighting was also reported between the SDF and ISIS in al-Qusayr located east of al-Busariyah. However, the US-backed force will likely start storming al-Busariyah in full force only after it secures the entire area north of it.

In Deir Ezzor city, the SAA Tiger Forces and their allies reached the Khadijah School area in the district of Hamidiyah in the northern part of the city. In coming days, the Tiger Forces supported by Russian military advisers will likely increase pressure on ISIS terrorists inside Deir Ezzor. The liberation of the city is an important part of the wider effort to drive ISIS out of eastern Syria.

According to pro-government sources, the SAA and Hezbollah advanced east of the T2 Pumping Station near the Iraqi border and captured the settlements of Shammas and Baktal. However, it’s unlikely that the larger advance towards al-Bukamal is possible while the western flank of the assault group is not secured or Iraqi forces are not in control of the entire countryside of the Iraqi border town of al-Qaim.

In northern Hama, government troops liberated Rasm Abu Miyal and Murayjeb Jumlan from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda).

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Featured image is from South Front.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Syria’s SAA Tiger Forces Advance Deep Inside ISIS-held Part of Deir Ezzor City

In the two days demolition drive by Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in assistance with Delhi Police demolished more than 1000 houses at Kathputli Colony, in West Delhi on October 30th and October 31st 2017. During the demolition, Police lathicharged on the residents mercilessly and also shot some Tear gas on them. On the basis of a Public Notice served on October 25th to evict the place in 5 days, they carried out this drive. They demolished some 100 houses on day one with 5 Bulldozers on place and they came with greater force on next days to brutally demolishing the rest. The gross Human Rights Violation was done by Delhi Police in two days where they just behaved like they are meant to Peace and Tranquility but they have been brought by DDA to bring as much fear they can create through their Lathis and Abusive Languages. They beat anyone who tried to say a word, they pushed anyone, they grabbed the collars of anyone who resisted, be it man, woman or a child.

People from different communal groups living in the vicinity of each other for decades now. In the early 1970s, a handful of performers from Rajasthan settled in West Delhi’s Shadipur region. Artists who were primarily puppeteers and musicians often moved throughout the capital to perform and over a period of time Shadipur became a convenient location for the same. Over time, they were joined by a variety of artists and people from states like Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Bihar, Orissa and Jharkhand and together they formed a single settlement known as Kathputli colony (The term refers to string puppet theatre).

Raheja Plan

Raheja Plan

The Actual Case:

Kathputli Colony was planned for the In-Situ Slum Redevelopment under Rajiv Was Yojana in 2009  through Public Private Partnership where contract was given to Raheja Developers (Can also be read Builders at many places) for this at Rs 6.22 Crore. Raheja developed a plan of 170 Premium and 2800 EWS Flats for the area. People were happy with the project initially when the first survey was done. There were some 2631 eligible beneficiaries as per the first survey. To which the builders slyly added an Office Complex and Mall on his “share” of 35% of the land, while They were allotted only 18% in the contract. This then raised the height of the 2800 EWS flats to 15 stories. It enraged the residents as they didn’t want such a tall dwelling unit and such change in plan.

Secondly, The survey was done after the plan where Raheja developed a plan for 2800 families and families in Survey came out to 2631. It also raised the questions that how was it possible that Raheja with the numbers and planned the units for such exact families.

Thirdly, People were sent to the Transit Camp for a duration of 2 years by Force, by Greed or By Fear to Anand Parbat whereas many people refused to go and after a long struggle they go a High Court Order in their favour in March 2014 for a Resurvey where DDA accepted that there are more families than the last survey and they planned to shift them to Narela till the Project is completed. Narela is situated on the outskirts of Delhi and is more than 30 KMs from their current location which lacks the basic services for living.

Kathputli16

Kathputli15

Kathputli14

Kathputli13

Kathputli12

Kathputli11

Kathputli10

Kathputli9

Kathputli8

Kathputli7

Kathputli6

Kathputli5

Kathputli4

Kathputli3

The Current Situation

As of now, after the two days of demolition just 50 or 60 houses have remained in Kathputli Colony till the article was finally drafted. The notice for this demolition was served on October 25th but people didn’t know about it as there were no Public Announcement or Individual Notification done. People were forced out from their houses and anyone who refused to go were beaten by Police. By the afternoon all the nearby shops were closed, the entry and exit points were seized by Police. No one was allowed to enter in to the colony. Looking at such scary scenes, People were very scared. One elderly woman hung herself as her house was demolished. She is still critical in hospital, some social activists (Ex MP Annie Raja and others) were also thrashed and manhandled by Police.

One of the residents said that their children are missing from afternoon and they didn’t return till late evening. A father in 60s was performing the post death rituals of his son when he was thrown out from his house and he was wandering with those stuff to perform the ritual. There are many such stories in the Colony from two days. Police didn’t let people sleep in nights as they came every hour to ask them to leave or they will throw them. The Police from Ranjit Nagar Police Station were the main culprits here. They also open fired in night whose evidence (A Bullet) was produced by residents in the morning when I was interacting with them and they also brought it to the Press Conference organised by National Alliance for People’s Movements and Delhi Solidarity Group. Other Organisations like Basti Bachao Sangharsh Smiti is also working with people to help them to face this hard time.

In a Public Interest Litigation filed for the case, High Court has ordered a Stay for ten days and has asked the SHO of Ranjit Nagar to maintain the Status Quo strictly. A bigger struggle on the violation of Human Rights is still to be fought.

Ankit Jha is a Social Worker who has done Masters in Social Work from Delhi School of Social Work, University of Delhi and now working on urban housing rights issues.

All images in this article are from the author.

  • Posted in Uncategorized
  • Comments Off on Home Demolition in Delhi: Thousands Rendered Homeless, Kathputli Artists’ Colony Demolished, Death of Democracy!

In the two days demolition drive by Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in assistance with Delhi Police demolished more than 1000 houses at Kathputli Colony, in West Delhi on October 30th and October 31st 2017. During the demolition, Police lathicharged on the residents mercilessly and also shot some Tear gas on them. On the basis of a Public Notice served on October 25th to evict the place in 5 days, they carried out this drive. They demolished some 100 houses on day one with 5 Bulldozers on place and they came with greater force on next days to brutally demolishing the rest. The gross Human Rights Violation was done by Delhi Police in two days where they just behaved like they are meant to Peace and Tranquility but they have been brought by DDA to bring as much fear they can create through their Lathis and Abusive Languages. They beat anyone who tried to say a word, they pushed anyone, they grabbed the collars of anyone who resisted, be it man, woman or a child.

People from different communal groups living in the vicinity of each other for decades now. In the early 1970s, a handful of performers from Rajasthan settled in West Delhi’s Shadipur region. Artists who were primarily puppeteers and musicians often moved throughout the capital to perform and over a period of time Shadipur became a convenient location for the same. Over time, they were joined by a variety of artists and people from states like Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Bihar, Orissa and Jharkhand and together they formed a single settlement known as Kathputli colony (The term refers to string puppet theatre).

Raheja Plan

Raheja Plan

The Actual Case:

Kathputli Colony was planned for the In-Situ Slum Redevelopment under Rajiv Was Yojana in 2009  through Public Private Partnership where contract was given to Raheja Developers (Can also be read Builders at many places) for this at Rs 6.22 Crore. Raheja developed a plan of 170 Premium and 2800 EWS Flats for the area. People were happy with the project initially when the first survey was done. There were some 2631 eligible beneficiaries as per the first survey. To which the builders slyly added an Office Complex and Mall on his “share” of 35% of the land, while They were allotted only 18% in the contract. This then raised the height of the 2800 EWS flats to 15 stories. It enraged the residents as they didn’t want such a tall dwelling unit and such change in plan.

Secondly, The survey was done after the plan where Raheja developed a plan for 2800 families and families in Survey came out to 2631. It also raised the questions that how was it possible that Raheja with the numbers and planned the units for such exact families.

Thirdly, People were sent to the Transit Camp for a duration of 2 years by Force, by Greed or By Fear to Anand Parbat whereas many people refused to go and after a long struggle they go a High Court Order in their favour in March 2014 for a Resurvey where DDA accepted that there are more families than the last survey and they planned to shift them to Narela till the Project is completed. Narela is situated on the outskirts of Delhi and is more than 30 KMs from their current location which lacks the basic services for living.

Kathputli16

Kathputli15

Kathputli14

Kathputli13

Kathputli12

Kathputli11

Kathputli10

Kathputli9

Kathputli8

Kathputli7

Kathputli6

Kathputli5

Kathputli4

Kathputli3

The Current Situation

As of now, after the two days of demolition just 50 or 60 houses have remained in Kathputli Colony till the article was finally drafted. The notice for this demolition was served on October 25th but people didn’t know about it as there were no Public Announcement or Individual Notification done. People were forced out from their houses and anyone who refused to go were beaten by Police. By the afternoon all the nearby shops were closed, the entry and exit points were seized by Police. No one was allowed to enter in to the colony. Looking at such scary scenes, People were very scared. One elderly woman hung herself as her house was demolished. She is still critical in hospital, some social activists (Ex MP Annie Raja and others) were also thrashed and manhandled by Police.

One of the residents said that their children are missing from afternoon and they didn’t return till late evening. A father in 60s was performing the post death rituals of his son when he was thrown out from his house and he was wandering with those stuff to perform the ritual. There are many such stories in the Colony from two days. Police didn’t let people sleep in nights as they came every hour to ask them to leave or they will throw them. The Police from Ranjit Nagar Police Station were the main culprits here. They also open fired in night whose evidence (A Bullet) was produced by residents in the morning when I was interacting with them and they also brought it to the Press Conference organised by National Alliance for People’s Movements and Delhi Solidarity Group. Other Organisations like Basti Bachao Sangharsh Smiti is also working with people to help them to face this hard time.

In a Public Interest Litigation filed for the case, High Court has ordered a Stay for ten days and has asked the SHO of Ranjit Nagar to maintain the Status Quo strictly. A bigger struggle on the violation of Human Rights is still to be fought.

Ankit Jha is a Social Worker who has done Masters in Social Work from Delhi School of Social Work, University of Delhi and now working on urban housing rights issues.

All images in this article are from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Home Demolition in Delhi: Thousands Rendered Homeless, Kathputli Artists’ Colony Demolished, Death of Democracy!

Russian genetic material is being harvested all over the country, purposefully and professionally, President Vladimir Putin has said, possibly hinting at the US Air Force’s earlier move to acquire Russian tissue samples.

Putin was presiding over a meeting of Russia’s Human Rights Council Monday, when he was informed of live broadcasts from polling stations during the recent regional elections being inundated with foreign viewers.

Council member Igor Borisov said the statistics showed that nearly a million views came from abroad. He hinted at a sinister motive behind those viewings.

“The question is, why so many interested people are watching our elections and, in fact, recording the images of people, and how those images will be used further,” queried Borisov, who is also the chairman of the Russian Public Institute of Electoral Rights.

While his skepticism might be enough to set some conspiracy theorists on edge, Putin followed up with comments that will perhaps push them over.

“Images are one thing, but do you know that biological material is being collected all over the country, from different ethnic groups and people living in different geographical regions of the Russian Federation? The question is – why is it being done? It’s being done purposefully and professionally. We are a kind of object of great interest,” Putin told the Council.

He never specified who was behind the shady dealings in Russians’ biological samples.

While the Russian president’s claims may sound like the stuff from X-Files, it’s actually grounded in fact.

In July, the US Air Force Air Education and Training Command issued a tender on FedBizOpps, a US government website, seeking to acquire samples of ribonucleic acid (RNA) and synovial fluid from Russians. All samples – 12 of RNA and 27 of synovial fluid –“shall be collected from Russia and must be Caucasian,” the tender said. What exactly was meant by ‘Caucasian’ is open to interpretation. It also wants information on the donor’s sex, age, ethnicity, weight, height and medical history. Notably, the Air Force said, it would not consider tissue samples from Ukraine.

While such samples might be needed for purely medical research purposes, wanting only Russian tissue samples specifically, is what sent speculations into overdrive.

Is the Pentagon working on a biological weapon to target Russians? Perhaps unlikely speculated Franz Klintsevich, the first deputy chairman of the Federation Council’s Committee for Defense and Security, but adding that it’s a scenario that cannot be totally ignored.

“I’m not saying that it is about preparing a biological war against Russia. But its scenarios, are, no doubt, being worked on. That is to say, in case the need arises,“  Klintsevich wrote on Facebook, referring to Putin’s revelations.

He went on to note that he believes the Russian President’s pronouncement of the practice was for good reason, claiming that although such practices has been well-known, it has taken on a “shameless” scale recently.

“The President’s warning is very timely. Relevant agencies in the West should know that we are aware of their interest,” he said.

Putin himself, however, reassured the Human Rights Council there’s nothing to be afraid of.

“Let them do what they want, and we must do what we must,” he stated emphatically.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Putin: Someone Is Harvesting Russian Bio Samples for Obscure Purposes

New Israeli Police Unit Tasked with Tightening Grip on Aqsa Mosque

November 1st, 2017 by The Palestinian Information Center

Israel’s Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan is expected to announce the establishment of a new police unit to prop up control on holy al-Aqsa Mosque—the third holiest site in Islam.

According to Hebrew-speaking news outlets, the new unit, currently being assembled, will be under the authority of the Israel Police Jerusalem District, and its sole purpose will be to ensure the safety of Israeli settlers at al-Aqsa Mosque.

The new unit is to include more than 100 police officers who will allegedly work to “ensure security and public order” at and around the site.

The new unit will reportedly employ the most advanced intelligence and technological tools currently available.

Israel’s Channel 2 quoted Erdan as claiming that the move makes part of a futuristic vision that will make Occupied Jerusalem one of the world’s safest areas in no more than a couple of years.

Featured image is from PIC.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on New Israeli Police Unit Tasked with Tightening Grip on Aqsa Mosque

Recently on Samos we have been experiencing one of those periodic spasms of anti-refugee sentiment. These spasms feel orchestrated and even if not coordinated involve a diverse range of actors. This particular spasm has been sparked by both the high number of new arrivals especially in September and the lack of any preparation to meet the autumn weather. All the refugee authorities use these moments to demand additional resources and powers; local business interests demand VAT reductions and other economic interventions because as ‘we all know’ the refugees have been devastating for tourism, the Mayor calls for meetings with government ministers and on it goes. And at the same time beyond Samos, we see the head of UNCHR warning of the calamity unfolding on the frontier islands as winter approaches as well as other reports highlighting the agony of the refugees on the islands. Add to this mix, Samos SOS, an anti-refugee group which has been intermittently active for many years and which relishes moments such as these as a means of mobilizing support.

Over the past few months Samos SOS has been taking its message of cleaning the island of refugees because of the threat they pose to the essential way of life on Samos out to the villages and small towns and not just simply staying in Samos town. It is necessary to understand that the refugees on Samos are located in just one small part of the island around the main town. Leave the town and it is rare to see any refugee. In the overwhelming part of Samos the refugees have no presence at all. Sadly it seems, Samos SOS have had some success in whipping up anti-refugee sentiment in places with no contact or awareness of the refugees.

Even so a major problem remains for Samos SOS namely that there is simply no evidence to support their hysterical claims such that Samos is in danger of being ‘islamicized’ or on the brink of widespread social unrest. It is a joke. Even in those villages where Samos SOS succeeded in gaining support it would be highly unlikely that any felt that their way of life was under threat or that they were about to become Muslim. Moreover, walk any day around Samos town and you will see refugees and locals go about their business in utter peace. The refugees don’t walk around as though they are in imminent danger neither does anyone else. You can even eat felafel in the main square now!

Samos SOS never acknowledges that the ‘refugee business’ is now probably the biggest single economic activity on the island sustaining in Samos town a diverse collection of hotels, bars, eating places, local mini markets, hire car companies, apartment rentals and so forth. Unlike tourism which lasts for 5 months in the year refugee monies flow throughout the year.

But this has not stopped Samos SOS which recently held a high profile public meeting in the central square of Samos town on Sunday October 22nd. From the photographs published a fair number of refugees were also present. Like Samos SOS they would love to leave the island at the earliest opportunity.

Samos SOS Meeting 22.10.2017 photo from My Samos Blog

One consequence of the meeting has been the publication of anAppeal to the islanders by a group of 23 ex mayors, prefects and councilors from across the island. This Appeal was published by My Samos Blog on October 29, 2017. Samos SOS delights in claiming that it speaks for the silent majority and that its truth is what is real. Appeals like this suggest otherwise.

We have translated it from the Greek as best we can. 

An Appeal for Calmness and Soberness in Dealing with the Refugee-Immigrant Problem

Our public intervention is happening today, because we find that in the local community of Samos with the excuse of the refugee crisis, some by their actions or by their omissions are driving things to uncontrollable situations, which trouble us and in addition will discredit and tarnish our island.

The refugee-migration issue is a major international problem that, if its causes are not addressed at world and international level (wars, poverty, exploitation, authoritarian regimes, climate change) it will not stop. Greece and especially the islands of the east Aegean, places in the passage from the East to the West will always be under pressure from migratory flows, as was the case in every other century.

The Joint Statement European Union -Turkey (March 2016) to address the refugee and immigration crisis, unfortunately has not been adequately met by Turkey (which is obliged to take any necessary measures to prevent illegal immigration from its territories to the EU), but neither by most EU countries who closed their borders and failed to meet the obligations they had assumed for proportionate participation in the management of the refugees.

So the islands of the Eastern Aegean were turned into a peculiar warehouse-zone on the border of Europe which sends the message that no refugee and migrant will go to the “Promised Land”, central and northern Europe, consolidating the image of an EU of xenophobia, extreme right radicalization and racist attitudes

Within this negative climate the Greek state with its services was called upon to face unprecedented situations and showed its inability to manage the refugee migratory wave in an effective manner, both with regard to identification and asylum procedures and to infrastructure hospitality and organized temporary residence with human and dignified conditions. All this has resulted in the presence of a large number of immigrant refugees on the islands as well as their particularly troublesome and miserable living conditions inside and outside of hotspots.

In the small communities of our islands this long-term stay of such a large number of refugees
-immigrants has logically created disruption and concern, despite the high degree of understanding and solidarity, which the islanders inexorably maintain and offer.

Here in Samos, from the great lessons in solidarity and humanity that Samos men and women gave in the summer of 2015 with the supporting of more than 120 thousand refugees-immigrants who were hosted for a while on our island, we passed last autumn with a small number of arrivals but also with numerous worrying SOS voices (‘Samos clean from refugees’).

However in the last period we have an overt attempt to create another, particularly negative and, in our opinion, worrying, climate. Samos SOS exploits the ineffective management by the EU, the government and the UN, of the refugee-immigrant with the encroaching on our island of several thousand uprooted people and the general economic hardship and fears about the Islamization of Samos, with mosques and plans with controlled “Turkish” minorities when none of the refugees in question are either Turks or want to stay in Samos.

Unfortunately, Samos SOS, operating systematically by exaggeration, misinterpret intentionally or unintentionally the real problems, they construct imaginative scenarios and spread conspiracy about Islamization of the islands and their gradual occupation by foreigners and heathens, resulting in creating and enhancing a climate of insecurity for citizens of an imminent gradual loss of national territories, with our race and religion at risk. In addition to their tours and gatherings in the capital and in villages with inflammatory reasons based largely on their political delirium they create conditions of polarization and social confrontation, which sometimes go beyond the limits and become insults, abuse and even assaults against every fellow citizen who dares to express a different or opposing view.

They are the ones who consciously or unconsciously rushed to choose “partners” in the ceaseless war, which regrettably rages for a long time between the two ranks of self-government of our country. In this civil war, beyond any wisdom and rationality, instead of reconciliation, they preferred polarization, and on the pretext of the “salvation” of our island, they prepare the ground and the connections for the next elections, with the support of dishonest means and the willingness of the system. Their wages are worthy.

Instead of putting the real problems facing the society of Samos, they are targeting the hapless refugee, as the one who brings all the suffering to the island and with stale arguments cause division of our fellow citizens and tarnish the image of a place where every home has experienced and has memories of refugees and immigration.

Fellow citizens

We appeal to all of you and especially to the citizens of the capital who raise the full burden of the crisis to calmly address the situation with the humanity, the logic, the measured sense and the solidarity that characterize us over time.

The real cause of poverty and our problems is not the refugee-immigrant, who crosses Samos with a destination in Europe, but the respective government policies, imposed by the European Union and the powerful of the earth.

We call on the government and personally the Prime Minister, Mr. Alexis Tsipras

For the immediate and continuous evacuation on a permanent basis of supernumerary refugees-immigrants from the islands of the eastern Aegean, under the responsibility of the competent services of the country, moving them to mainland Greece and with a final destination in accordance with European and international treaties.

For immediate and complete staffing of all necessary support structures and asylum services to ensure the dignified and healthy living of refugees-migrants (for as long as they stay on our island) and fast processing of identification and asylum requests, so as to move as soon as possible to the mainland.

For the immediate activation of a permanent inter-party committee of the Parliament, including MEPs, for management planning of the refugee-immigration issue under European and international law and UN principles, to monitor developments at local and supra-regional levels taking the necessary initiatives to further improve the existing agreements and the positive overall enlargement of the relevant institutional framework as well as for political and economic control of all bodies, public and private (NGOs etc), where they are involved in any way in this problem and its treatment.

For the freedom of our country and from war and for cooperation with all the peoples of the earth for world peace, solidarity and democracy.”

The text is signed by Apostolos Dimitrios, former president City Council of Pythagorio and 22 others.

Post Script

Coincidentally on the same day (29th October) Ekathimerini published an interview with Frans Timmermans one of the key figures in the EU Turkey Pact in which he praises the people of the frontier islands for their heroic efforts in helping refugees and yet condemns them and the refugees to remaining trapped on what are in effect prison islands.

“Migrants, he said, must stay on the islands, despite the difficulties, because their transfer to the mainland would send a wrong message and create a new wave of arrivals.”

This article was originally published by Samos Chronicles.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Responding to Hysteria: Anti-Refugee Sentiment on Greece’s Samos Island

Russia will not demand Venezuela repay its owed debt in the amount of $ 1 billion for 2017 alone, said the head of Russia’s Minister of Finance Anton Siluanov.

Thus, Moscow continues to support Caracas and the Maduro led government. At the same time, there is no coherent reason to demand a return of the money from Venezuela, due to the severe economic and social crisis in the country, accompanied by a currency deficit, would not allow it to be payed off.

“Venezuela turned to us for debt restructuring. The terms of this restructuring were discussed. We have worked out the conditions with the Ministry of Finance in general. If the Venezuelan side can quickly initial these agreements, there is every reason to agree and sign the terms of the restructuring before the end of this year,” the minister said.

At present, the conditions under which the debt will be restructured have already been prepared, the agreement must be approved by the Venezuelan authorities.

This is the second restructuring of Venezuelan debt on the part of Russia over the past two years. Earlier, in September 2016, the debt was of $ 2.84 billion. This money Caracas should begin to return only in March 2019 in equal installments within three years.

Under the new restructuring, the conditions are likely to be similar, so payments will begin no earlier than 2020.

In total, over the past 11 years, Russia has invested $ 17 billion into Venezuela, including loans from Rosneft for $ 6 billion as an advance payment for the supply of Venezuelan oil.

Due to the fact that Russia will not receive funds from Venezuela, the Russian budget will be 54 billion rubles less than it could have been. The Commerce Chamber predicts that in the future, the amount of lost revenues will be greater, since it is “almost useless” to await the return of these funds from Caracas: according to the IMF, Venezuela annually requires up to $ 30 billion only to save the economy from collapse.

The economic situation remains very dire in Venezuela, inflation is expected to accelerate to 1660%, as well as the continued devaluation of the national currency and the growth of public debt. Venezuela currently has a 95% of economic collapse.

Translated by Inessa Sinchougova

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Don’t Mention It! Russia Pardons $1 Billion of Venezuela’s Debt for 2017

It may walk and quack like a regime-change-promoting duck, but Ottawa’s unilateral sanctions and support for Venezuela’s opposition is actually just a cuddly Canadian beaver, says Chrystia Freeland.

Canada has never been an imperialist power. It’s even almost funny to say that phrase: we’ve been the colony,” said the journalist turned politician after a Toronto meeting of foreign ministers opposed to the Venezuelan government.

The above declaration was part of the Canadian foreign minister’s response to a question about Chavismo’s continued popularity, which was prefaced by a mention of protesters denouncing Ottawa’s interference in Venezuela’s internal affairs. Freeland added that “one of the strengths Canada brings to its international affairs” is that it doesn’t engage in “regime change”.

Notwithstanding her government’s violation of the UN and Organization of American States charters’ in Venezuela, Freeland’s claim that Ottawa doesn’t engage in “regime change” is laughable. Is she unaware that a Canadian General commanded the NATO force, which included Canadian fighter jets, naval vessels and special forces, that killed Muammar Gaddafi in Libya six years ago?

Sticking to contexts more directly applicable to the situation in Venezuela, Ottawa has repeatedly endorsed US-backed military coups against progressive elected leaders. Canada passively supported the ouster of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953, Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz in 1954, Ugandan President Milton Obote (by Idi Amin) in 1971 and Chilean President Salvador Allende in 1973.

In a more substantial contribution to undermining electoral democracy, Ottawa backed the Honduran military’s removal of elected president Manuel Zelaya. Before his 2009 ouster Canadian officials criticized Zelaya and afterwards condemned his attempts to return to the country. Failing to suspend its military training program, Canada was also the only major donor to Honduras — the largest recipient of Canadian assistance in Central America — that failed to sever any aid to the military government. Six months after the coup Ottawa endorsed an electoral farce and immediately recognized the new right-wing government.

In the 1960s Ottawa played a more substantial role in the ouster of pan-Africanist independence leaders Kwame Nkrumah and Patrice Lumumba. In 1966 Ghana’s Canadian-trained army overthrew Nkrumah. In an internal memo to External Affairs just after Nkrumah was ousted, Canadian high commissioner in Accra, C.E. McGaughey wrote “a wonderful thing has happened for the West in Ghana and Canada has played a worthy part.” Soon after the coup, Ottawa informed the military junta that Canada intended to carry on normal relations and Canada sent $1.82 million ($15 million today) worth of flour to Ghana.

Ottawa had a strong hand in Patrice Lumumba’s demise. Canadian signals officers oversaw intelligence positions in the UN mission supposed to protect the territorial integrity of the newly independent Congo, but which Washington used to undermine the progressive independence leader. Canadian Colonel Jean Berthiaume assisted Lumumba’s political enemies by helping recapture him. The UN chief of staff, who was kept in place by Ottawa despite being labelled an “imperialist tool” by Lumumba’s advisers, tracked the deposed prime minister and informed army head Joseph Mobutu of Lumumba’s whereabouts. Soon after Lumumba was killed and Canadian officials celebrated the demise of an individual Prime Minister John Diefenbaker privately called a “major threat to Western interests”.

It’s in the Western Hemisphere’s poorest nation where Canada was most aggressive in opposing a progressive government. On January 31 and February 1, 2003, Jean Chrétien’s Liberal government organized an international gathering to discuss overthrowing Haiti’s elected government. No Haitian officials were invited to the “Ottawa Initiative on Haiti” where high-level US, Canadian and French officials decided that president Jean-Bertrand Aristide “must go”, the dreaded army should be recreated and that the country would be put under a Kosovo-like UN trusteeship.

Thirteen months after the “Ottawa Initiative on Haiti” meeting Aristide and most other elected officials were pushed out and a quasi UN trusteeship had begun. The Haitian National Police was also heavily militarized.

Canadian special forces “secured” the airport from which Aristide was bundled (“kidnapped” in his words) onto a plane by US Marines and deposited in the Central African Republic. Five hundred Canadian troops occupied Haiti for the next six months.

After cutting off aid to Haiti’s elected government, Ottawa provided tens of millions of dollars in foreign aid to the installed government, publicly supported coup officials and employed numerous officials within coup government ministries. Haiti’s deputy justice minister for the first 15 months of the foreign-installed government, Philippe Vixamarwas on the Canadian International Development Agency’s payroll and was later replaced by another CIDA employee (the minister was a USAID employee). Paul Martin made the first ever trip by a Canadian prime minister to Haiti to support the violent post-coup dictatorship.

Dismissing criticism of Ottawa’s regime change efforts in Venezuela by claiming Canada has been a benevolent international actor is wholly unconvincing. In fact, a serious look at this country’s foreign policy past gives every reason to believe that Ottawa is seeking to unseat an elected government that has angered many among the corporate set.

Anyone with their eyes open can tell the difference between a beaver and a duck.

Yves Engler is the author of A Propaganda System: How Canada’s Government, Corporations, Media and Academia Sell War and Canada in Africa: 300 years of aid and exploitationRead other articles by Yves.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Chrystia Freeland: Canada Doesn’t Engage in “Regime Change”

The All India Institutes of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) are a group of autonomous public medical colleges of higher education.

Not all the stories of courage have to do with the act of heroism. There is another kind of Courage, which is dour and silent. There are courageous poor patients outside AIIMS, who cannot afford private healthcare expenditure and pass months and years  on the roads, metro station and bus stand.

They come to India’s Premier medical institution AIIMS  with hope that it will put an end to their miseries and suffering but here begins the ordeal that left them alternating between hope and despair .“We are waiting for either a cure or a death”, said Roshana devi (57) from Ballia district of UP w ho is waiting for her Cancer to be treated in AIIMS from last one year. She is living on pavement outside AIIMS and passing her time with the hope that one day she will get operated in AIIMS that will end her ordeal.

“AIIMS is just like a Judicial Court, it gives Tarrikh one after the other sometimes after 1 month and sometimes after 15 days, those who put up with tribulation and attend the tarrikh, emerge victorious” said Vakil Ahmed (52) from Bareilly district of UP who is waiting for his next tarrikh, killing his time on metro station. These are just few stories to quote but there exist numerous stories of despair and courage. According to the 60th AIIMS Annual Report of the year 2015-2016, most of the outstation patients were from UP followed by Bihar, which reflects the dire state of health facilities in two of the most populous states of India. This also reflects the crippling and crumbling health facilities in state governments.

aiims1

AIIMS: Indias premier Hospital displays  grim state of health services in India

aiims2

Bus stops outside AIIMS turns into beacon of light for the poor patients

aiims3

Sheila kumari and Roshana devi waiting for their cancer to be treated, since last one year on the pavements

aiims4

Roshana devi, performing her daily chores on the pavement, praying to god to end her ordeal

aiims5a

Divider grill of road, where all patients hang their wet clothes

aiims6

Vakil Ahmed and his family says its as painful as getting through procedure of Judicial court where “Tarikh” comes up with endless pain and misery. We now accepted it as our destiny.

aiims7

All patients dependent on regular free food service provided by various NGOs and Temples 

aiims8

Serpentine queue of patients outside AIIMS for getting food and water.

aiims9

Rakesh Yadav, along with his only son suffering from Heart complications eating their food on road.

aiims10

Metro station is place where they take rests, eat and sleep. Thus it’s their shelter, but not one night shelter is opened up by the Govt so far.

aiims11

Around six and seven in evening all patients start occupying space outside metro station and bus stand, otherwise there will be no space left in night to sleep.

aiims12

Ultimately after day full of miseries they find peace and fall asleep on Bus stand and metro station.

Rajat Mishra is pursuing M.A. (convergent Journalism), AJK Mass Communication Research Centre, Jamia Milia Islamia. Email: [email protected].

All images in this article are from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Hope and Despair In Delhi: Impoverished Patients Living on the Pavements Outside AIIMS Public Health Clinics

The Trump-Russia collusion story was a joint invention of the Obama administration and the Clinton campaign. It enabled the Obama administration to make use of the nation’s security and intelligence services to spy on Trump and his associates and to use whatever information they thereby gleaned to try to get Hillary into the White House. The failure of the scheme didn’t stop either Obama or the Clintons.

Following the election debacle, an enraged Obama administration sought vengeance by disseminating the dossier as widely as possible with a view to undermining the incoming Trump administration and to ensuring that no rapprochement with Russia would be possible. In doing so, Obama and Clinton have thrown American politics into turmoil and have perhaps pushed the United States and Russia toward armed confrontation.

We have known the basic outlines of the Steele dossier story since January. The Steele dossier, we have been told, started off as a piece of opposition research prepared by Fusion GPS and financed by a Republican rival of Trump’s or perhaps a GOP NeverTrumper. Following Trump’s victory in the GOP primaries, the Democrats took over its funding. Fusion hired Christopher Steele, a former head of the Russia desk at MI6 who now ran his own corporate intelligence firm, Orbis Business Intelligence. Using the leads Steele had developed during his years at MI6, he reported back to his paymasters his shocking discovery: The Russians had been cultivating Trump for years in preparation for his run for the presidency. So shocked was Steele by this that he rushed to alert the FBI, MI6 and even select reporters.

Most of this story is pure fiction. Neither the GOP nor a primary rival of Trump’s had any involvement with the dossier. To be sure, in October 2015, the Washington Free Beacon, a neo-conservative Web site funded by hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, did hire Fusion to undertake opposition research on Trump. However, money for this undertaking dried up by May 2016.

The Steele-crafted Trump-Russia collusion story was from start to finish a Democratic Party operation. Its origins can be traced back to April 2016 and the leak of the Democratic National Committee e-mails. The DNC announced that it had been “hacked.” However, instead of reporting the matter to the proper authorities, the DNC turned to attorney Michael Sussmann, a partner at the Perkins Coie law firm. Sussmann got in touch with cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike Inc. Now, CrowdStrike is no geeky, techno-gee-whiz firm. Its founder is Russian-born Dmitri Alperovitch, a senior fellow at the NATO-funded, intensely Russophobic Atlantic Council. “Within a day, CrowdStrike confirmed that the intrusion had originated in Russia,” the New York Times wrote. On June 14, CrowdStrike announced that the DNC hack perpetrators were two separate hacker groups employed by the Russian government.

Even though no one other than CrowdStrike had examined the DNC servers, U.S. intelligence agencies immediately declared that they were in agreement and that they had “high confidence” that the “Russian government was behind the theft of emails and documents” from the DNC.

It was at this moment that the Clinton people made the strategic decision to tie Trump to Putin and to make the centerpiece of its campaign the idea that a vote for Trump was a vote for the Kremlin. Perkins Coie—yet again—got in touch with Fusion, which, in turn, got in touch with Christopher Steele. Steele had contacts at MI6 and, perhaps more important, contacts at the FBI. He had allegedly worked with the FBI in the takedown of FIFA.

Steele, who had many contacts at the FBI, understood what was required of him. On June 20, six days after CrowdStrike’s announcement, he filed his first report. It was exactly what the Clinton campaign was looking for: lurid, unsubstantiated but nonetheless juicy allegations. Russia had supposedly been “cultivating, supporting and assisting Trump for at least 5 years.” Trump had had hired prostitutes to “perform a ‘golden showers’ show in front of him” at Moscow’s Ritz Carlton Hotel. “Trump’s unorthodox behavior in Russia over the years had provided the authorities…with enough embarrassing material…to be able to blackmail him.”

Steele’s first memo enticed the Clinton people and they eagerly turned on the money spigots. Steele followed up with a memo revealing that the Russians were behind the DNC leak, that Putin “hated and feared” Hillary Clinton and that there existed a “well-developed conspiracy of co-operation” between Trump and the Russians. The recently-indicted Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign chairman at the time, managed this co-operation on behalf of Trump by using “foreign policy advisor” Carter Page as an intermediary. “In return the Trump team had agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue and to raise U.S./NATO defense commitments in the Baltics and eastern Europe to deflect attention away from Ukraine.”

Carter Page, whom no one had ever heard of and who had never even met Trump, featured prominently in the Steele memos and in subsequent U.S. media coverage of the campaign. A July 19 memo from Steele had Page holding a “secret meeting” with Igor Sechin, executive chairman of Rosneft, the Russian state oil company, in which the two men discussed future bilateral energy cooperation and “an associated move to lift Ukraine-related” sanctions against Russia.

The Clinton campaign theme was set. By July 23, 2016, Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mookwas telling ABC News on Sunday that

“experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke in to the DNC, took all these emails and now are leaking them out through these Web sites. . . . It’s troubling that some experts are now telling us that this was done by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump.”

A couple of days later, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who was to lead the post-election “Trump-Russia collusion” charge in Congress, declared:

Given Donald Trump’s well-known admiration for Putin and his belittling of NATO, the Russians have both the means and the motive to engage in a hack of the D.N.C. and the dump of its emails prior to the Democratic Convention. That foreign actors may be trying to influence our election—let alone a powerful adversary like Russia—should concern all Americans of any party.

In August, it was reported, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid wrote to FBI Director James Comey demanding disclosure of the contents of the dossier:

“In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government…The public has a right to know this information.”

And, of course, Hillary Clinton famously accused Trump of being “Putin’s puppet” during their third presidential debate.

The Steele dossier was now driving the Obama administration’s scrutiny of Trump’s people as well as media coverage of the campaign.

Steele, the BBC reported, “flew to Rome in August to talk to the FBI. Then in early October, he came to the US and was extensively debriefed by them, over a week. He gave the FBI the names of some of his informants, the so-called ‘key’ to the dossier.”

The FBI went to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court and obtained an order to “monitor the communications” of Carter Page, as “part of an investigation into possible links between Russia and the campaign.” According to the Guardian, the FISA court turned down its first application (an unusual event, if true), asking the agency to narrow its focus. Eventually, the FBI managed to convince the court that “there was probable cause to believe Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power.” What was the basis of this probable cause? CNN reported that the FBI based its application on the claims made in the Steele dossier. That’s very serious business. If the FBI was presenting the FISA court unverified material from the dossier as if it were verified then it was clearly deceiving the court in order to obtain a politically-motivated warrant.

By September 2016, U.S. media were reporting that Carter Page had become a person of interests for the U.S. government: “U.S. intelligence officials are seeking to determine whether an American businessman identified by Donald Trump as one of his foreign policy advisers has opened up private communications with senior Russian officials—including talks about the possible lifting of economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president.” Words straight from the dossier. The same media report had “U.S. intelligence agencies” receiving reports that Page met one Igor Diveykin, who “serves as deputy chief for internal policy and is believed by U.S. officials to have responsibility for intelligence collected by Russian agencies about the U.S. election.” This too is almost verbatim from Steele’s July 19 memo.

The U.S. government has actually made very little pretense that it didn’t make use of the dossier. FBI Director James Comey admitted to Congress that the dossier had been “one of the sources of information the bureau has used to bolster its investigation.” Then, on Jan. 11, 2017, following Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s meeting with Trump during which he and Comey presented the president-elect a summary of the dossier, Clapper issued a strange statement:

The intelligence community “has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions. However, part of our obligation is to ensure that policymakers are provided with the fullest possible picture of any matters that might affect national security.”

This was a classic non-denial denial. That he and his friends did not “rely” on the dossier doesn’t mean that they didn’t make full use of it.

Federal investigators also wiretapped Paul Manafort, both before and after the election and indeed right through to the last days of the Obama administration. According to CNN, the FBI launched an investigation of Manafort in 2014 shortly after the Feb. 22, 2014, coup d’etat in Ukraine. Manafort had worked as a political consultant work for former Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych’s Party of Regions. However, the “surveillance was discontinued at some point last year for lack of evidence.” In other words, by the time Manafort went to work for the Trump campaign in May 2016, he was no longer under FBI surveillance. The FBI resumed its surveillance at just about the time the first of Steele’s memos started arriving in Washington.

The wiretaps had nothing to do with the charges Special Counsel Robert Mueller has just brought against Manafort. Mueller’s charges involve activities that took place long before Manafort joined the Trump campaign. What the FBI was looking for was evidence that Manafort was a conduit between the Kremlin and Trump.

Former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn also featured prominently in the dossier. He too came under Obama administration surveillance. Indeed, Obama’s people used the wiretaps in order to get him ousted from his newly-appointed position. Obama administration holdover, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, listened in on a conversation Flynn had had with Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Sergei Kislyak, on Dec. 29, 2016, and decided that the incoming national security adviser was susceptible to blackmail from the Russians. She never really explained on what grounds the Russians could or would blackmail Flynn. Her argument seemed to be that because Flynn had discussed the possible lifting of sanctions—a policy that would run contrary to that of the Obama administration that was still in office at the time this conversation had supposedly taken place—he had violated the Logan Act, which prohibits private individuals conducting U.S. foreign policy. No one has been prosecuted under this statute for 200 years. Why the Russians would want to invoke an obscure statute to threaten Flynn, an official well-disposed toward them, with a prosecution that could never succeed and thereby to undermine the very policy they were seeking, namely, the lifting of sanctions, was never explained. Nonetheless, armed with this nonsense, Yates rushed over to the White House demanding dismissal of Flynn. He was susceptible to blackmail and was therefore a security risk. It seemed to be a joke, but for reasons that remain baffling, the White House meekly complied with Yates’s demand.

We now know that the Obama administration’s surveillance of Trump’s people reached pathological levels following the election. It is almost certain that the FBI did pay Steele to continue his work. The Washington Post reported that the bureau had “reached an agreement with [Steele] a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him to continue his work.” The Post claims that “Ultimately, the FBI did not pay Steele. Communications between the bureau and the former spy were interrupted as Steele’s now-famous dossier became the subject of news stories, congressional inquiries and presidential denials.” This seems highly unlikely. According to a number of news stories, the Clinton campaign stopped paying Steele sometime at the end of October. Yet Steele continued sending memos through December. Somebody had to have paid him. Steele is not the type to work pro bono.

Obama people such as Samantha Power, Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes went on an unmasking rampage during the election and after. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) has claimed that the Obama administration made “hundreds of requests during the 2016 presidential race to unmask the names of Americans in intelligence reports, including Trump transition officials.” The requests were made without specific justifications on why the information was needed. More sinister were the activities of the Obama people after the election. Trounced by Trump, they vented their fury doing everything possible to undermine the incoming administration. The New York Times reported that during the last days of the Obama administration “White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential…across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.”

A former deputy assistant secretary of defense in the Obama administration official, Evelyn Farkasrevealed that she was telling her former colleagues:

Get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration, because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior people that left….That the Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about their, the staff, the Trump staff’s dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence. So I became very worried, because not enough was coming out into the open, and I knew that there was more.

The full extent of the Obama administration’s campaign of surveillance, espionage and sabotage has yet to be revealed. The right-wing media have excitedly latched onto the Clinton revelations in order to put out a ridiculous story of their own. Americans are still innocent victims; Russians are still villains interfering with our gloriously pristine elections. The new victim-in-chief is Trump and the new Russian colluder-in-chief is Clinton. As ever, nothing changes in Washington.

George Szamuely, PhD, author of Bombs for Peace: NATO’s Humanitarian War on Yugoslavia, is Senior Research Fellow at the Global Policy Institute of London Metropolitan University.

This article was originally published by The Duran.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How Obama and Hillary Clinton Weaponized the Trump-Russia Collusion ‘Dossier’

Hamas: Balfour Declaration Crime of Century

November 1st, 2017 by The Palestinian Information Center

Hamas Movement on Tuesday described the Balfour Declaration as “the crime of the century”, saying that Britain must apologize for it and compensate Palestinians.

The Movement said in a statement that Britain must atone for the historical injustice caused to a people with existence, culture and history by apologizing to Palestinians and helping refugees to return to their lands from which they were forcibly displaced.

The statement noted that Britain, during its occupation of Palestine, worked by all means to implement the Balfour Declaration and appointed pro-Zionist British officials to pave the way for the establishment of a “national homeland for Jews in Palestine” ignoring the rights of the Palestinian population of this country.

The Balfour Declaration, Hamas added, has opened the door for regional wars, conflicts, suffering and bloodshed.

Hamas stressed that the Declaration, which was based on “granting a land without people to a people without land”, is a lie that contradicts the given reality on the ground, adding that “Palestinians have been entrenched in Palestine like olive trees”.

The Movement slammed Britain’s Prime Minister, Theresa May, who has stated that she will celebrate the centenary of the Balfour declaration with pride in continuation of her disregard for the suffering of the Palestinian people.

The statement underlined that the long years of occupation have unified the Palestinian people and reinforced their self-reliance.

Hamas warned that Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu‘s dream to celebrate the centenary of the Balfour Declaration will be short lived because the Palestinian fighters will restore the rights of the  Palestinian people in the near future.

The Balfour Declaration is the name given to a letter sent by Britain’s Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour, to Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild on 2nd November 1917 to announce Britain’s full support for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Featured image is from PIC.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Hamas: Balfour Declaration Crime of Century

Prof. Michel Chossudovsky will be presenting an overview of North Korea and the Threat of Nuclear War at the University of Quebec, Montreal.

A Peace Proposal will also be put forth.

Presentation in French, Q and A in French and English 

Date of Venue: November 2, 2017 18:00-21:00

UQAM, Pavillon Hubert Aquin,

400 Sainte Catherine Ouest,

Salle A-1715, UQAM, Montréal, Québec, Canada

Organisation: Observatoire de l’Asie de l’Est et MKLCC

“Fire and Fury” was not invented by Donald Trump. It is a concept deeply embedded in US military doctrine. It has characterized US military interventions since the end of World War II.  

We are at a dangerous crossroads. Foreign policy miscalculation could lead to the unthinkable. We recall the  circumstances of the Cuban Missile Crisis, fifty-five years ago in October 1962.” 

What distinguishes October 1962 to today’s realities is that the leaders on both sides, namely namely John F. Kennedy and Nikita S. Khrushchev were accutely aware of the dangers of nuclear annihilation. Moreover the nuclear doctrine was entirely different. Both Washington and Moscow understood the realities of mutually assured destruction.

In contrast, president Donald Trump is not only misinformed on the dangers of nuclear war, “We will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea” accusing Kim Jong Un, of being a “rocket man” on “a suicide mission.” (Michel Chossudovsky, October 29017)

 

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on North Korea and the Threat of Nuclear War, Michel Chossudovsky, Montreal, Nov 2

Trump Is Killing Record Numbers of Civilians

November 1st, 2017 by Prof. Marjorie Cohn

Featured image: A MQ-1 Predator over Tikrit, Iraq. (Photo: Terry Moore / Stocktrek Images)

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump advocated killing innocent families of suspected terrorists. “When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families,” he declared. Besides the immorality of killing innocents, the targeting of civilians violates the Geneva Conventions.

The George W. Bush administration unlawfully detained and tortured suspected terrorists. Determined not to send more suspects to Guantánamo, Barack Obama‘s administration illegally assassinated them with drones and other methods, killing many civilians in the process.

Now the Trump administration is killing record numbers of civilians and weakening the already-flimsy targeted killing rules Obama put in place.

In 2013, the Obama administration promulgated a set of requirements regarding targeted killings “outside areas of active hostilities” in a Presidential Policy Guidance (PPG).

The New York Times reported on September 21, 2017, that Trump’s national security advisers proposed watering down Obama’s PPG. These recommendations to Trump are called Principles, Standards and Procedures, or PSP. On October 29, the Times reported,

“Two government officials said Mr. Trump had recently signed his new rules for such kill-or-capture counterterrorism operations, without major changes” to the PSP.

Obama mounted both “personality strikes” — aimed at named suspected terrorists — and “signature strikes” — in which all military-age men in an area of suspicious activity could be killed. Signature strikes are often called “crowd killings” because those perpetrating the attacks don’t even know whom they are killing. Trump has presumably continued these two types of strikes.

The PPG required that the target pose a continuing, imminent threat to US persons. There is no indication that Trump’s new rules have changed this requirement. Moreover, even under Obama, a 2011 Department of Justice white paper said that a US citizen could be killed even when there was no “clear evidence that a specific attack on US persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.” Obama presumably set a lower bar for killing non-citizens.

Obama’s rules also mandated near certainty that an identified “high-value terrorist” or other lawful terrorist target is present before taking a strike. One official told the Times that the administration “reduced the required level of confidence that the intended target was present in a strike zone from ‘near certainty’ to ‘reasonable certainty.'” Signature strikes don’t target named individuals. Under the new Trump rules, targets would no longer be limited to high-value terrorists, but could also include foot soldiers with no leadership roles.

During the Obama administration, targeting decisions were made at the highest levels of government and the president reportedly had the final say about who would be assassinated. Under the PSP, however, these determinations would not require vetting by top administration officials, and could be made by commanders in the field.

Trump advisers recommended maintaining the PPG’s requirement of near certainty that civilians would not be injured or killed, and the administration agreed, according to the Times.

In spite of the PPG, the Obama administration killed many civilians. Obama’s Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) reported killing between 64 and 116 non-combatants “outside areas of active hostilities” from January 2009 to December 2015. That encompassed Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya. Civilian deaths in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria were not included. And even for the included countries, the ODNI figures could be low: The London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimated between 380 and 801 civilians killed outside areas of active hostilities during the same period.

Even before relaxing the rules, drone strikes and other targeted killings outside areas of active hostilities have already increased from one every 5.4 days during the Obama administration, to one every 1.25 days under Trump, Micah Zenko of the Council on Foreign Relations reported.

Trump granted increased authority to the CIA and the Pentagon to conduct drone strikes. He also loosened the targeted killing rules in large areas of Yemen and Somalia by designating them “areas of active hostilities.”

In March alone, the Trump administration killed 1,000 civilians in Iraq and Syria, according to Airwars, a non-governmental organization that monitors civilian casualties from airstrikes.

We can expect to see increasing numbers of civilian deaths as Trump continues the “war on terror” he inherited from his predecessors. Since Bush launched this war after 9/11, we have become more vulnerable to terrorism. Civilian killings heighten anger toward the United States and lead to stepped-up recruitment of those who would do us harm.

Copyright, Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and a member of the national advisory board of Veterans for Peace. The second, updated edition of her book, Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues, will be published in November. Visit her website: MarjorieCohn.com. Follow her on Twitter: @MarjorieCohn.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump Is Killing Record Numbers of Civilians

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Months of House and Senate investigations into alleged Russian interference in America’s electoral process laid an egg, discovering no incriminating evidence because none exists.

Claims otherwise are a colossal hoax. Brainwashed by fake mainstream news, most Americans were manipulated to believe otherwise – a Big Lie.

No Russian meddling occurred – NONE! Yet the charade goes on interminably, wasting time and money, Congress proving its a malevolent force.

Its leadership and at least most members are fully aware no Russian interference occurred in last year’s presidential election or any others.

Yet they pretend otherwise, part of longstanding Russia bashing, today at a fever pitch.

Both houses are a national disgrace, infested with bipartisan extremists, serving monied interests exclusively, betraying the public trust.

It’s longstanding congressional practice through legislation and notorious investigations.

Notable examples were Teapot Dome during the Harding administration, House Un-American Activities Committee investigations beginning in the late 1930s, the infamous Hollywood blacklist in the 1940s and 50s, Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954, Watergate ones in the early 1970s, and Iran-Contra in the 1980s, among others.

Yesterday was the latest example. Facebook, Google and Twitter testified before Senate Judiciary subcommittee members on the first day of two-day hearings on alleged Russian US election influence and meddling.

As expected, testimony failed to produce what Congress seeks. Google’s information security and law enforcement director Richard Salgado said no evidence revealed manipulation or violations of its YouTube platform by RT or any other Russian media.

Ahead of Tuesday’s hearing, Google issued a statement, saying:

“Some have raised questions about the use of YouTube by RT, a media service funded by the Russian government.”

“Our investigation found no evidence of manipulation of our platform or policy violations; RT – and all other state-sponsored media outlets – remains subject to our standard rules.”

Commenting on Google’s statement, RT’s editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan quoted Sergey Lavrov, saying “accusations against Russia were put forward so that Google would either confirm or deny the information, and the company denied it.”

Google found no troll bots linked to the Kremlin, no advertising by RT, Sputnik or other Russian media aimed at influencing or manipulating America’s political process.

Further Google, Facebook and Twitter testimony will be heard on Wednesday. More witch-hunt hearings are scheduled before other House and Senate committees.

Before banning RT advertising on its platform, Twitter sought its ad money, using a “multi-million dollar US election pitch,” RT published in full on its web site, saying:

“After RT published excerpts from Twitter’s ‘limited offer’ to spend millions on US election marketing, the company abruptly banned all advertising from the news network. This makes full disclosure and transparency imperative…”

“(I)n order to set the record straight, we are publishing Twitter’s presentation and details of the offer in full..”

During Tuesday’s congressional testimony, the sound heard round the world was clear proof of no Russian interference in America’s political process.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Congressional Testimonies About Russian Media Much Ado About Nothing

The tensions over the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration are accelerating to the long-expected fever pitch, outside Israel-Palestine and nowhere more so than in Britain.  

Already there has been a row over the decision to ban from the London Underground  a series of Palestinian advertisements about the impact of Balfour, although the same ads are now being shown on London’s taxis.

Rival events will parade diametrically opposed narratives of those historic 67 words. The Balfour Project, which aims to secure justice and fairness for all sides, held an event in London on Tuesday that is reported elsewhere in Arab News. On Nov. 4, a march through central London in support of Palestinian rights will culminate in a rally in Parliament Square. Perhaps most bizarrely, a celebration organized by the Balfour 100 group at the Royal Albert Hall on Nov. 7 will try to portray the declaration as some kind of symbol of Jewish-Christian partnership.

What stands out, however, is that the British government is absent from any event critical of Balfour, but very much a fixture at the Israeli Zionist and anti-Palestinian ones. The British government, most notably in the person of Prime Minister Theresa May, has adopted almost solely the Israeli Zionist narrative. Even last year she was proclaiming that the declaration was “one of the most important letters in history. It demonstrates Britain’s vital role in creating a homeland for the Jewish people. And it is an anniversary we will be marking with pride.” Other British cabinet members have mouthed the same mantra.

In her public statements, May has shown not even a scintilla of feeble interest in the impact of the Balfour Declaration on the non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine. On Nov. 2 she will attend a dinner in London for the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, hosted by the current Lords Balfour and Rothschild — descendants of the author and recipient of the declaration. A small silver lining, but cold comfort for Palestinians, is that the leader of the opposition Labour party, Jeremy Corbyn, has refused to attend. That said, having Hamas tweet support for his stand may not quite be what Corbyn needed; anti-Palestinian groups jump on every opportunity to demonize him as a Hamas-supporting, anti-Israel fanatic.

Down at the other end of the political food chain, the deputy UK representative at the UN, Jonathan Allen, did at least say:

“Let us remember, there are two halves of Balfour. There is unfinished business.”

And a junior minister acknowledged last year that the declaration should have guaranteed political rights for Palestinians, not just civil and religious rights.

If senior British ministers had over the past year adopted more of this line, perhaps they would not have found themselves in quite such bad odor with their Palestinian counterparts.

For the truth is, it is hard to recall a lower point in British-Palestinian relations. For sure, British politicians were never going to issue the sort of apology that would have satisfied Palestinian demands, let alone agree to compensation.  The Palestinian leadership’s threat to sue the British government was the epitome of empty, futile gesture politics.

Rather than enjoy a celebratory dinner with Benjamin Netanyahu, the British prime minister should accept responsibility for the injustice the UK initiated a century ago. – Chris Doyle

All of this follows Palestinian anger at the failure of the British government to recognize the state of Palestine, or even back this at the UN. The major success of securing the passage of UN Security Council 2334 in December 2016, which Britain did support, was short-lived as Britain quickly shifted in January to adopt positions more welcome in the Trump White House. May’s government refused to send any high-level representation to the Paris peace conference in January. Activists are also outraged that their efforts to protest at Israel’s illegal actions through the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement receive far more opprobrium from the British authorities than the actual war crimes and violations of international law perpetrated every day in the occupied territories.

However, given the appalling consequences of the Balfour declaration, an imperial, colonial act that led to 70 percent of their people becoming refugees, hundreds of their villages destroyed, over four and half million under occupation today and a million as fourth-class citizens in Israel, Palestinians had reasonable grounds to expect something just a little more respectful than what they have been served up so far.

If one thing unites Palestinians it is that Britain was the author and genesis of this conflict.  Arthur Balfour made clear in 1919 that “in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country.” This summarized the entire approach of the British mandate that did everything to ensure that no democratic institutions came into existence.

It is a sad reality that even in 2017 the Palestinian right to self-determination is still denied and that Britain does so little to remedy this. When Palestinians voted for a Hamas government, the British government refused to respect this. When Palestinians sought legal redress by pressing for their case at the International Criminal Court, once again Britain was in opposition. When Palestinians sought their own state, Britain stood in their way. It is time for Britain to start treating Palestinians with respect, and sooner rather than later to celebrate the establishment of a viable state of Palestine with pride.

Chris Doyle is director of the London-based Council for Arab-British Understanding (CAABU). He has worked with the council since 1993 after graduating with a first class honors degree in Arabic and Islamic Studies at Exeter University. Twitter: @Doylech

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Balfour Declaration: A Country in Denial over 100 Years of Betrayal

Racism, Propaganda and Wars

November 1st, 2017 by Margaret Flowers

This week, the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, which promoted giving Palestine to the Jewish people, will be celebrated in London. Around the world, there will be protests against it calling for Britain to apologize for the damage it inflicted. Students from the West Bank and Gaza will send letters to the British government describing the negative impacts that the Balfour Declaration, and the Nakba in 1948, continue to have on their lives today.

As Dan Freeman-Maloy describes, the Balfour Declaration is also relevant today because of the propaganda co-existing with it that justified white supremacy, racism and empire. British imperialists believed that democracy only applied to “civilized and conquering peoples,” and that “Africans, Asians, Indigenous peoples the world over – all were … ‘subject races,’ unfit for self-government.” That same racism was directed at Jewish people as well. Lord Balfour preferred to have Jewish people living in Palestine, away from Britain, where they might serve as useful British allies.

In the same time period, Bill Moyers reminds us in his interview with author James Whitman, the  laws in the United States were viewed as “a model for everybody in the early 20th century who was interested in creating a race-based order or race state. America was the leader in a whole variety of realms in racist law in the first part of that century.” This includes immigration laws designed to keep “undesirables” out of the US, laws creating second class citizenship for African-Americans and other people and bans on interracial marriage. Whitman has a new book documenting how Hitler used US laws as a basis for the Nazi state.

1bds

Injustice is legal

The US government and its laws continue to perpetuate injustice today. For example, contractors who apply for state funds to repair damage from Hurricane Harvey in Dickinson, Texas, are required to declare that they do not participate in the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment, Sanction (BDS) movement. And Maryland Governor Hogan signed an executive order this week banning any state contractors from participating in the BDS movement, after local activists defeated similar legislation for the past three years.

Participation in boycotts should be protected under the First Amendment, as the right to protest Israeli apartheid should be. But, that right may also be taken away. This week, Kenneth Marcus was made the top civil rights enforcer at the Department of Education. He runs a group called the Brandeis Center for Human Rights, which actually works to attack individuals and groups that organize against Israeli apartheid on campuses. Nora Barrows-Friedman writes that Marcus, who has been filing complaints against pro-Palestinian student groups, will now be in charge of investigating those cases.

Dima Khalidi, the head of Palestinian Legal, which works to protect pro-Palestinian activists, explains that in the United States,

“talking about Palestinian rights, and challenging Israel’s actions and narrative, [open] people up to a huge amount of risk, attacks, and harassment – much of it legal in nature, or with legal implications.”

These attacks are happening because the BDS movement is having an impact.

This is just one obvious area of injustice. Of course there are others such as immigration policies and travel bans. And there are racist systems in the United States that are not based in law, but are enshrined in practices such as racially biased policingslave-wage employment of prisoners and the placement of toxic industries in minority communities. The Marshall Project has a new report on racial bias in plea bargains.

In considering why “the public is quiet” about the United States’ unending wars, the New York Times (10/23/17) fails to examine the failure of leading media outlets to actually oppose these wars.

In considering why “the public is quiet” about the United States’ unending wars, the New York Times (10/23/17) fails to examine the failure of leading media outlets to actually oppose these wars.

War propaganda

The media, as it did in the early twentieth century, continues to manipulate public opinion to support military aggression. The NY Times and other mass, corporate media have promoted wars throughout the history of US empire. From the ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ in Iraq to the Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam and all the way back to ‘Remember the Maine’ in the Spanish-American War, which began the modern US Empire, the corporate media have always played a large role in leading the US into war.

Adam Johnson of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) writes about a recent New York Times Op Ed:

“Corporate media have a long history of lamenting wars they themselves helped sell the American public, but it’s rare so many wars and so much hypocrisy are distilled into one editorial.”

Johnson points out that the New York Times never questions whether wars are right or wrong, just whether they have Congressional support or not. And it promotes the “no boots on the ground” view that it is fine to bomb other countries as long as US troops are not harmed.

FAIR also points out the media’s false accusation that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Meanwhile there is silence about the secret Israeli nuclear weapons program. Iran has been compliant with the International Atomic Energy Agency, while Israel has refused inspections. Eric Margolis raises the critical question of whether the Trump administration put the interests of Israel, which opposes Iran, before the interests of the US when he refused to certify the nuclear agreement with Iran.

North Korea is a country that is heavily propagandized in the US media. Eva Bartlett, a journalist who has traveled to and reported extensively about Syria, recently visited North Korea. She presents a view of the people and photographs that won’t be found in commercial media, which give a more positive perspective on the country.

Sadly, North Korea is considered to be a critical factor in the US effort to prevent China from becoming the dominant world power. Ramzy Baroud writes about the importance of a diplomatic solution to the conflict between the US and North Korea because otherwise it will be a long and bloody war. Baroud states that the US would quickly run out of missiles and then use “crude gravity bombs,” killing millions.

The recent re-election of Shinzo Abe heightens conflict in that region. Abe wants to build up Japan’s small military and alter its current pacifist Constitution so that Japan can attack other countries. No doubt, the Asian Pivot and concerns about tension between the US and other countries are fueling support for Abe and more militarization in Japan.

3206776-1509029172

US aggression in Africa

The US military presence in Africa came into the spotlight this week with the death of US soldiers in Niger. Although it was heartless, perhaps we can be grateful that Trump’s gaffe with the newly-widowed Myeshia Johnson at least had the impact of raising national awareness about this secretive mission creep. We can thank outlets such as Black Agenda Report that have been reporting regularly on AFRICOM, the US Africa Command.

It was a surprise to many people, including members of Congress, that the US has 6,000 troops scattered in 53 out of 54 African countries. US involvement in Africa has existed since World War II, largely for oil, gas, minerals, land and labor. When Gaddafi, in Libya, interfered with the US’ ability to dominate African countries by providing oil money to them, thereby freeing them from the need to be indebted to the US, and led the effort to unite African countries, he was murdered and Libya was destroyed. China also plays a role in competing with the US for African investment, doing so through economic investment rather than militarization. No longer able to control Africa economically, the US turned to greater militarization.

AFRICOM was launched under President George W. Bush, who appointed a black general to lead AFRICOM, but it was President Obama who succeeded in growing the US military presence. Under Obama, the drone program grew in Africa. There are more than 60 drone bases that are used for missions in African countries such as Somalia. The US base in Dijbouti is used for bombing missions in Yemen and Syria. US military contractors are also raking in huge profits in Africa.

Nick Turse reports that US military conduct an average of ten operations in Africa daily. He describes how US weapons and military training have upset the balance of power in African countries, leading to coup attempts and the rise of terrorist groups.

In this interview, Abayomi Azikiwe, the editor of the Pan-African News Wire, speaks about the long and brutal US history in Africa. He concludes:

“Washington must close down its bases, drone stations, airstrips, joint military operations, consulting projects and training programs with all African Union member-states. None of these efforts have brought peace and stability to the continent. What has happened is quite the opposite. Since the advent of AFRICOM, the situation has been far more unstable in the region.”

Building a global peace movement

The insatiable war machine has infiltrated all aspects of our lives. Militarism is a prominent part of US culture. It is a large part of the US economy. It cannot be stopped unless we work together to stop it. And, while we in the US, as the largest empire in the history of the world, have a major responsibility to act against war, we will be most effective if we can connect with people and organizations in other countries to hear their stories, support their work and learn about their visions for a peaceful world.

Fortunately, there are many efforts to revive the anti-war movement in the United States, and many of the groups have international ties. The United National Anti-War CoalitionWorld Beyond War, the Black Alliance for Peace and the Coalition Against US Foreign Military Bases are groups launched in the past seven years.

There are also opportunities for action. Veterans for Peace is organizing peace actions on November 11, Armistice Day. CODEPINK recently began the Divest From the War Machine Campaign targeting the five top weapons-makers in the US. Listen to our interview with lead organizer Haley Pederson on Clearing the FOG. And there will be a conference on closing foreign military bases this January in Baltimore.

Let’s recognize that just as wars are waged in order to dominate regions for their resources so that a few may profit, they are also rooted in white supremacist and racist ideology that believes only certain people deserve to control their destinies. By linking hands with our brothers and sisters around the planet and working for peace, we can bring about a multi-polar world in which all people have peace, self-determination and live in dignity.

Margaret Flowers and Kevin Zeese co-direct, Popular Resistance.

This article was originally published by PopularResistance.Org.

All images are from the authors.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Racism, Propaganda and Wars

US Masses Ships and Aircraft Outside North Korea

November 1st, 2017 by Peter Symonds

Featured image: USS Michigan (SSBN-727) (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

US Defence Secretary James Mattis has again warned North Korea that the United States military is ready and able to obliterate the country of 25 million people unless it abandons its nuclear arsenal. The threat, backed by an unprecedented US military build-up in North East Asia, places the region and the world on the brink of a catastrophic war.

“I cannot imagine a condition under which the US would accept North Korea as a nuclear power,” he told reporters in Seoul on Saturday. “Make no mistake any attack on the United States or our allies will be defeated, and any use of nuclear weapons by the North will be met with a massive military response that is effective and overwhelming.”

US war plans are offensive, not defensive, in character. Asked about the possibility of a pre-emptive US attack on North Korea to prevent a hypothetical attack on Seoul, Mattis confirmed, “yes, we do have those options”. Under OPLAN 5015, US and South Korean forces are primed for massive offensive strikes against North Korean nuclear, military and industrial facilities as well as “decapitation raids” by special forces to kill its top leaders.

While Mattis insisted that “our goal is not war”, US President Trump has effectively ruled out any other option, short of North Korea’s total capitulation to Washington’s demands. Trump publicly rebuked Secretary of State Rex Tillerson earlier this month for “wasting his time” in putting out diplomatic feelers for talks with North Korea.

Trump is about to begin his first official trip to Asia this week, including to Japan, South Korea and China. Having threatened in the UN to “totally destroy” North Korea, he will undoubtedly use this incendiary threat not only to menace the Pyongyang regime but the entire region, particularly China which the US regards as its chief obstacle to global hegemony.

Trump’s trip will take place amid a massive show of US military force near the Korean Peninsula, including:

* Three US nuclear-powered aircraft carriers—the USS Ronald Reagan, the USS Nimitz and USS Theodore Roosevelt—which are in the region and preparing for joint exercises along with their associated strike groups. Each carrier is accompanied by between six to 10 warships, including cruisers, destroyers and nuclear submarines, and has an air wing of dozens of fighter jets and other military aircraft.

* The USS Michigan, a nuclear-powered submarine armed with more than 150 Tomahawk missiles, which docked in South Korea on October 17 ahead of joint exercises with the USS Ronald Reagan. The submarine also carries Navy SEALs, which in an earlier port call in April reportedly included the notorious SEAL Team Six that murdered Osama bin Laden.

* All US military bases throughout the region, particularly in South Korea, Japan, Guam and Australia are without doubt on a high state of alert. The Pentagon has 28,500 military personnel in South Korea, around 54,000 in Japan and about 4,000 in Guam, along with a large number of naval vessels and warplanes. Australia acts as a de facto rear base for US Marines, warships and aircraft as well as housing key spy and communications bases. Two Australian frigates are due to arrive this week in South Korea for joint drills.

* The Pentagon is set to deploy, for the first time, a squadron of F-35A Joint Strike Fighter jets and 300 personnel to the US base on the Japanese island of Okinawa. The advanced fifth-generation stealth fighters could well be used as part of a first wave to destroy North Korean air defences, opening the way for a massive air assault.

* The US Air Force has carried out one military provocation after another—flying B-52 and B1-B strategic bombers close to North Korea. Yesterday, US Strategic Command, in charge of the nuclear arsenal, reported that it had flown a B-2 stealth bomber from the US to the Pacific to “familiarise aircrew” and to ensure “a high state of readiness and proficiency.” Unlike the B1-B, the state-of-the-art B-2 is nuclear capable.

The flight underscores the ominous comments of US Vice President Mike Pence during a visit last Friday to Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota, which houses 26 nuclear-capable B-52 bombers and 150 nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) sites. Referring to North Korea, Pence declared:

“Now more than ever your commander in chief [Trump] is depending on you to be ready. Stay sharp, mind your mission.”

The Trump administration is preparing a war not just with conventional weapons, but with nuclear bombs—directed against North Korea and any other powers such as China and Russia that join the conflict. Last week, the Air Force announced that it was preparing to put its B-52 nuclear bombers back on 24-hour alert. At the same time, as reported by the Guardian yesterday, the Trump administration is drawing up a new Nuclear Posture Review, which will open the door for a range of new nuclear weapons and change the rules governing their use.

The only conclusion that the North Korean regime can reach is that the country confronts the imminent threat of a US military onslaught, using conventional and/or nuclear weapons. The South Korean-based NKNews reported over the weekend that North Korea has been carrying out mass evacuation drills in cities and towns along the east coast.

The world may be closer to the brink of nuclear war than at any time in history. During the extremely tense stand-off between the United States and Russia during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, both the American and Russian leaders worked to prevent a nuclear exchange that would have devastated the world.

Trump, however, driven by the irresolvable contradictions of American and global capitalism, is proceeding with an unprecedented degree of recklessness to deliberately inflame flash points in Asia, as well as the Middle East and Eastern Europe. Embroiled in one political crisis after another at home, and facing mounting public hostility to his agenda of austerity and war, Trump is being propelled towards launching war as a means of diverting acute social tensions outwards against a foreign enemy.

These same tensions are driving workers and youth in the United States and around the world into struggle to defend their living conditions, basic democratic rights and to prevent a conflict that would plunge the world into barbarism. That movement must find conscious expression in the program of socialist internationalism fought for by the International Committee of the Fourth International to put an end to the bankrupt capitalist system that engenders war and social misery.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Masses Ships and Aircraft Outside North Korea

Terror or False Flag in Manhattan?

November 1st, 2017 by Stephen Lendman

Featured image: Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov (Source: thetruth24.net)

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

It’s too soon to know. It’s wise to be suspicious of official reports, nearly always suppressing important information.

Numerous earlier false flags in America and Europe suggest incidents like the Tuesday Manhattan one may have been another.

Suspect Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov, aged-29, a Muslim Uzbek immigrant, reportedly drove a rented truck along a bike path in lower Manhattan’s Tribeca neighborhood.

Pedestrians and bicyclists were struck, eight killed, around a dozen others injured before a school bus was rammed, injuring another four people.

Fleeing the scene, Saipov was shot and wounded by police, currently hospitalized at New York’s Bellevue hospital.

A note reportedly found in his vehicle, claiming affiliation with ISIS, along with a photo of its flag, may have been legitimate or planted. It sounds suspiciously like passports found at the scene of earlier incidents – all false flags!

According to the New York Post, Kobiljon Matkarov, a friend of the suspect, said

“(h)e is a very good guy. He is very friendly. He is like a brother…like a big brother..”

“My kids like him, too. He is always playing with them. He is playing all the time.”

The FBI swiftly took over the investigation to assure control of information released – even though it’s a New York city incident, not a federal crime.

The same thing happened straightaway after the October 1 Last Vegas shootings, evidence strongly indicating a false flag. The FBI took over, controlled the information flow, suppressed vital facts, assured only sanitized reports got out.

Tuesday’s Manhattan incident is being handled the same way, raising obvious red flags. Why would the Agency take over the investigation if it didn’t want information suppressed?

Local police are capable of handling things, able to get any relevant information needed from the FBI without its direct involvement in the investigation.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo turned truth on its head, claiming “New York is an international symbol of freedom and democracy,” adding:

“That also makes us a target from those people who oppose those concepts.”

Reality is polar opposite what he tried portraying.

Trump reacted as expected, tweeting:

“I have just ordered Homeland Security to step up our already Extreme Vetting Program. Being politically correct is fine, but not for this!”

Reportedly, Saipov refused to comment or answer questions so far. Surprising he’s alive, unsurprisingly a Muslim.

He has a wife and two young children, a reason to live and be free, not possibly die, sure to be imprisoned, likely on death row awaiting eventual execution.

US intelligence officials indicated no knowledge of ISIS or other terror groups involved in what happened.

Saipov is being called a “lone wolf.” Nothing in his background suggests a motive for Tuesday’s incident. Media reports said he yelled allah akbar (God is great) before leaving the scene.

Knee-jerk reaction from NYC Mayor De Blasio was expected, calling what happened a “cowardly act of terror.”

Maybe so. Maybe not. Given numerous earlier false flags in US cities, it’s wise to be suspicious.

Accept nothing official as reported. Facts may later surface refuting what’s now claimed.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Terror or False Flag in Manhattan?

“Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or to think sanely under the influence of a great fear.” ― Bertrand Russell, Unpopular Essays (1950) [1]

The North Korean crisis presents people on the left to liberal spectrum with one of the greatest challenges we have ever faced. Now, more than ever, we have to put aside our natural fears and prejudices that surround the issue of nuclear weapons and ask hard questions that demand clear answers. It is time to step back and consider who the bully is on the Korean Peninsula, who poses a dire threat to international peace and even to the survival of the human species. It is far past time that we had a probing debate on Washington’s problem in North Korea and its military machine. Here is some food for thought on issues that are being swept under the carpet by knee jerk reactions—reactions that are natural for generations of Americans who have been kept in the dark about basic historical facts. Mainstream journalists and even many outside the mainstream at liberal and progressive news sources, uncritically regurgitate Washington’s deceptions, stigmatize North Koreans, and portray our current predicament as a fight in which all parties are equally culpable.

First of all, we have to face the unpalatable fact that we Americans, and our government above all, are the main problem. Like most people from the West, I know almost nothing about North Koreans, so I can say very little about them. All we can talk about with any confidence is Kim Jong-un’s regime. Restricting the discussion to that, we can say that his threats are not credible. Why? One simple reason:

Because of the disparity of power between the military capability of the U.S., including its current military allies, and North Korea. The difference is so vast it barely merits discussion, but here are the main elements:

U.S. bases: Washington has at least 15 military bases scattered throughout South Korea, many of them close to the border with North Korea. There are also bases scattered throughout Japan, from Okinawa in the far south all the way up north to Misawa Air Force Base.[2] The bases in South Korea have weapons with more destructive capacity than even the nuclear weapons that Washington kept in South Korea for the 30 years from 1958 to 1991.[3] Bases in Japan have Osprey aircraft that can ferry the equivalent volume of two city buses full of troops and equipment across to Korea on each trip.

Aircraft carriers: There are no less than three aircraft carriers in waters around the Korean Peninsula and their battle group of destroyers.[4] Most countries do not have even one aircraft carrier.

THAAD: In April of this year Washington deployed the THAAD (“terminal high area altitude defense”) system in spite of intense opposition from South Korean citizens.[5] It is only supposed to intercept North Korean incoming ballistic missiles on their downward descent, but Chinese officials in Beijing worry that the real purpose of THAAD is to “track missiles launched from China” since THAAD has surveillance capabilities.[6] Therefore, THAAD threatens North Korea indirectly also, by threatening its ally.

The South Korean military: This is one of the largest standing armed forces in the world, complete with a full-blown air force and conventional weapons more than sufficient to meet the threat of an invasion from North Korea.[7] The South Korean military is well-trained and well-integrated with the US military since they regularly engage in exercises such as the annual “massive sea, land and air exercises” called “Ulchi Freedom Guardian” involving tens of thousands of troops.[8] Not wasting an opportunity to intimidate Pyongyang, these were carried out at the end of August 2017 in spite of the rising tension.

Japanese military: The euphemistically named “Self-Defense Forces” of Japan are equipped with some of the most high-tech, offensive military equipment in the world, such as AWACS airplanes and Ospreys.[9] With Japan’s peace constitution, these weapons are “offensive” in more than one sense of the word.

Submarines with nuclear missiles: The US has submarines near the Korean Peninsula equipped with nuclear missiles that have “hard-target kill capability” thanks to a new “super-fuze” device that is being used to upgrade old thermonuclear warheads. This is now probably deployed on all US ballistic missile submarines.[10] “Hard-target kill capability” refers to their ability to destroy hardened targets such as Russian ICBM silos (i.e., underground nuclear missiles). These were previously very difficult to destroy. This indirectly threatens North Korea since Russia is one of the countries that could come to their aid in the event of a U.S. first strike.

As U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis said, a war with North Korea would be “catastrophic.”[11] That is true—catastrophic primarily for Koreans, north and south, and possibly for other countries in the region, but not for the U.S.A. And it is also true that “backed up to the wall,” North Korean generals “will fight,” as Professor Bruce Cumings, the preeminent historian of Korea at the University of Chicago, emphasizes.[12]  The U.S. would “totally destroy” the government in North Korea’s capital Pyongyang, and probably even all of North Korea, as U.S. President Trump threatened.[13] North Korea, in turn, would do some serious damage to Seoul, one of the world’s densest cities, cause millions of casualties in South Korea and tens of thousands in Japan. As the historian Paul Atwood writes, since we know that the “northern regime has nuclear weapons which will be launched at American bases [in South Korea] and Japan, we ought to be screaming from the rooftops that an American attack will unleash those nukes, potentially on all sides, and the ensuing desolation may rapidly devolve into a nightmarish day of reckoning for the entire human species.”[14]

No country in the world can threaten the US. Period. David Stockman, a former two-term Congressman from Michigan writes,

“No matter how you slice it, there just are no real big industrialized, high tech countries in the world which can threaten the American homeland or even have the slightest intention of doing so.”[15]

He asks rhetorically,

“Do you think [Putin] would be rash or suicidal enough to threaten the US with nuclear weapons?”

That’s someone with 1,500 “deployable nuclear warheads.”

Siegfried Hecker, director emeritus of the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the last known U.S. official to inspect North Korea’s nuclear facilities, has calculated the size of North Korea’s arsenal at no more than 20 to 25 bombs.”[16] If it would be suicidal for Putin to start a war with the U.S., then that would be even truer for Kim Jong-un of North Korea, a country with one-tenth the population of the U.S. and little wealth.

The U.S. level of military preparedness goes way above and beyond what is necessary to protect South Korea. It directly threatens North Korea, China, and Russia. As Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. once stated, the U.S. is the “greatest purveyor of violence in the world.” That was true in his time and it is every bit as true now.

In the case of North Korea, the importance of its governments’ focus on violence is given recognition with the term “garrison state,”[17]how Cumings categorizes it. This term recognizes the undeniable fact that the people of North Korea spend a lot of their time preparing for war. No one calls North Korea the “greatest purveyor of violence” though.

Who has their finger on the button?

A leading American psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton recently emphasized “the potential unraveling of Donald Trump.”[18] He explains that Trump

“sees the world through his own sense of self, what he needs and what he feels. And he couldn’t be more erratic or scattered or dangerous.”

During his election campaign Trump not only argued for the nuclearization of Japan and South Korea, but expressed a horrifying interest in actually using such weapons. That Donald Trump, a man thought to be mentally unstable, has at his disposal weapons capable of annihilating the planet many times over represents a truly terrifying threat, i.e., a credible threat.

From this perspective, the so called “threat” of North Korea comes to look rather like the proverbial storm in a teacup.

If you feel afraid of Kim Jong-un, think how terrified North Koreans must be. The possibility of Trump letting an unstoppable nuclear genie out of the bottle surely ought to be a wake up call to all people anywhere on the political spectrum to wake up and act before it is too late.

If our fear of Kim Jong-un striking us first is irrational, and if the idea of his being on a “suicide mission” right now is unfounded—since he, his generals, and his government officials are the beneficiaries of a dynasty that gives them significant power and privileges—then what is the source of our irrationality, i.e., the irrationality of people in the U.S.? What is all the hype about? I would like to argue that one source of this kind of thinking, the kind of thinking we see all the time at the domestic level, is actually racism.  This form of prejudice, like other kinds of mass propaganda, is actively encouraged by a government that underpins a foreign policy guided by the greed of the 1% rather than the needs of the 99%.

The “open door” fantasy

The core of our foreign policy can be summed up with the regrettably still extant  propaganda slogan known as the “Open Door Policy,” as explained recently by Atwood.[19] You might remember this old phrase from a high school history class. Atwood’s brief survey of the history of the Open Door Policy shows us why it can be a real eye opener, providing the key to understanding what has been happening lately with North Korea-Washington relations. Atwood writes that

“the U.S. and Japan had been on a collision course since the 1920s and by 1940, in the midst of the global depression, were locked in a mortal struggle over who would ultimately benefit most from the markets and resources of Greater China and East Asia.”

If one had to explain what the cause of the Pacific War was, that one sentence would go a long way. Atwood continues,

“The real reason the U.S. opposed the Japanese in Asia is never discussed and is a forbidden subject in the establishment media as are the real motives of American foreign policy writ large.”

It is sometimes argued that the U.S. blocked Japan’s access to resources in East Asia, but the problem is portrayed in a one-sided way, as one of Japanese greed and will to dominate causing the conflict rather than that of Washington.

Atwood aptly explains,

“Japan’s Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was steadily closing the ‘Open Door’ to American penetration of and access to the profitable riches of Asia at the critical moment. As Japan took control of East Asia the U.S. moved the Pacific Fleet to Hawaii in striking distance of Japan, imposed economic sanctions, embargoed steel and oil and in August 1941 issued an overt ultimatum to quit China and Vietnam ‘or else.’ Seeing the latter as the threat it was, Japan undertook what to Tokyo was the pre-emptive strike at Hawaii.”

What many of us have been led to believe, that Japan just went berserk because it was controlled by an undemocratic and militaristic government, was in fact the old story of violence over who owns the world’s finite resources.

Indeed, the view of Cumings, who has spent a lifetime researching Korean history, especially as it relates to U.S.-Korea relations, fits well with Atwood’s:

“Ever since the publication of the ‘open door notes’ in 1900 amid an imperial scramble for Chinese real estate, Washington’s ultimate goal had always been unimpeded access to the East Asian region; it wanted native governments strong enough to maintain independence but not strong enough to throw off Western influence.”[20]

Atwood’s brief but powerful article gives one the big picture of the Open Door Policy, while through Cumings’ work, one can learn about the particulars of how it was implemented in Korea during the American occupation of the country after the Pacific War, through the not-free and not-fair election of the first South Korean dictator Syngman Rhee (1875–1965), and the civil war in Korea that followed. “Unimpeded access to the East Asian region” meant access to markets for the elite American business class, with successful domination of those markets an extra plus.

Syngman Rhee and Douglas MacArthur at the Ceremony inaugurating the government of the Republic of Korea. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

The problem was that anticolonial governments gained control in Korea, Vietnam, and China. These governments wanted to use their resources for independent development to benefit the population of their country, but that was, and still is, a red flag for the “bull” that is the American military-industrial complex. As a result of those movements for independence, Washington went for “second-best.” “American planners forged a second-best world that divided Asia for a generation.”[21] One collaborationist Pak Hung-sik said that “revolutionists and nationalists” were the problem, i.e., people who believed that Korean economic growth should benefit mainly Koreans, and who thought Korea should go back to being some kind of integrated whole (as it had been for at least 1,000 years).

“Yellow peril” racism

Since such radical thinking as independent “nationalism” has always had to be stamped out at any price, a major investment in costly wars would be necessary. (The public being the investors and corporations the stockholders!)  Such an investment would require the cooperation of millions of Americans. That is where the “Yellow Peril” ideology came in handy. The Yellow Peril is a mutant propaganda concept that has worked hand in glove with the Open Door Policy, in whatever form it is currently manifesting itself as.[22] The connections are vividly demonstrated in the extremely high-quality reproductions of Yellow Peril propaganda from around the time of the first Sino-Japanese War (1894–95) interspersed with an essay by the professor of history Peter C. Perdue and the Creative Director of Visualizing Cultures Ellen Sebring at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[23] As their essay explains,

the “reason expansionist foreign powers were intent on carving China into spheres of influence was, after all, their perception that untold profits would derive from this. This glittering sack of gold was, indeed, the other side of the ‘yellow peril’.”

One propaganda image is a stereotypical picture of a Chinese man, who he is actually sitting on bags of gold on the other side of the sea.

Western racism towards people of the East has been long demonstrated with the ugly racist word “gook.” Fortunately, that word has died out. Koreans did not appreciate being treated with racial slurs such as this,[24] no more than Filipinos or Vietnamese.[25] (In Vietnam there was an unofficial but frequently deployed “mere-gook rule” or “MGR,” that said that Vietnamese were mere animals who could be killed or abused at will). This term was used to refer to Koreans, too, both north and south. Cumings tells us that the “respected military editor” Hanson Baldwin during the Korean War compared Koreans to locusts, barbarians, and the hordes of Genghis Khan, and that he used words to describe them like “primitive.”[26]Washington’s ally Japan also allows racism against Koreans to thrive and only passed its first law against hate speech in 2016.[27]Unfortunately, it is a toothless law and only a first step.

The irrational fear of non-Christian spiritual beliefs, films about the diabolical Fu Manchu,[28] and racist media portrayal over the course of the 20th century all played a part in creating a culture in which George W. Bush could, with a straight face, designate North Korea one of the three “Axis of Evil” countries after 9/11.[29] Not only irresponsible and influential journalists at Fox News but other news networks and papers actually repeat this cartoonish label, using it as a “shorthand” for a certain U.S. policy.[30] The term “axis of hatred” was almost used, before being edited out of the original speech. But the fact that these terms are taken seriously is a mark of dishonor on “our” side, a mark of the evil and hatred in our own societies.

Trump’s racist attitudes toward people of color is so obvious it hardly requires documenting.

Postwar relations between the two Koreas and Japan

With this prejudice in the background—this prejudice that people in the U.S. harbor toward Koreans—it is no surprise that few Americans have stomped their feet and yelled, “enough is enough” regarding Washington’s postwar mistreatment of them. One of the first and most egregious ways in which Washington wronged Koreans after the Pacific War was during the International Military Tribunal for the Far East that convened in 1946: the sexual slavery system of the Japanese military (euphemistically called the “comfort women” system) was not prosecuted, making later military-spawned sex trafficking of any country, including the U.S., more likely to reoccur. As Gay J. McDougall of the U.N. wrote in 1998,

“…the lives of women continue to be undervalued. Sadly, this failure to address crimes of a sexual nature committed on a massive scale during the Second World War has added to the level of impunity with which similar crimes are committed today.”[31]

The sexual crimes against Korean women by U.S. troops of the past and today are linked with those by Japanese troops of the past.[32] The lives of women in general were undervalued, but the lives of Korean women in particular were undervalued as those of “gooks”—sexism plus racism.

The U.S. military’s lax attitude toward sexual violence was reflected in Japan in the way that Washington permitted American troops to prostitute Japanese women, victims of Japanese government-sponsored sex trafficking, called the “Recreation and Amusement Association,” which was openly made available for the pleasure of all allied troops.[33] In the case of Korea, it was discovered through the transcripts of South Korean parliamentary hearings that “in one exchange in 1960, two lawmakers urged the government to train a supply of prostitutes to meet what one called the ‘natural needs’ of allied soldiers and prevent them from spending their dollars in Japan instead of South Korea. The deputy home minister at the time, Lee Sung-woo, replied that the government had made some improvements in the ‘supply of prostitutes’ and the ‘recreational system’ for American troops.”[34]

Source: Japan Today

It must also not be forgotten that U.S. soldiers have raped Korean women outside of brothels. Japanese women, like Korean women, have been the target of sexual violence during the U.S. occupation there and near U.S. military bases—sexually trafficked women as well as women just walking down the street.[35] Victims in both countries still suffer from physical wounds and PTSD—both a result of occupation and military bases. It is a crime of our society that the “boys will be boys” attitude of the U.S. military culture continues. It should have been nipped in the bud at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East.

MacArthur’s relatively humane post-war liberalization of Japan had included moves towards democratization such as land reform, workers’ rights, and permitting the collective bargaining of labor unions; the purging of ultranationalist government officials; and the reigning in of the Zaibatsu (i.e., Pacific War-time business conglomerates, who profited from war) and organized crime syndicates; last but not least, a peace constitution unique in the world with its Article 9 “Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.” Obviously, much of this would be welcome to Koreans, especially excluding the ultranationalists from power and the peace constitution.

Unfortunately, such movements are never welcome to corporations or the military-industrial complex, so in early 1947 it was decided that Japanese industry would once again become the “workshop of East and Southeast Asia,” and that Japan and South Korea would receive support from Washington for economic recovery along the lines of the Marshall Plan in Europe.[36] One sentence in a note from Secretary of State George Marshall to Dean Acheson in January 1947 sums up the U.S. policy on Korea that would be in effect from that year until 1965: “organize a definite government of South Korea and connect up [sic] its economy with that of Japan.” Acheson succeeded Marshall as Secretary of State from 1949 to 1953. He “became the prime internal advocate of keeping southern Korea in the zone of American and Japanese influence, and single-handedly scripted the American intervention in the Korean War,” in Cumings’ words.

As a result, Japanese workers lost various rights and had less bargaining power, the euphemistically-named “Self-Defense Forces” were established, and the ultranationalists such as Prime Minister Abe’s grandfather Kishi Nobusuke (1896–1987) were allowed to return to government. The remilitarization of Japan continues today, threatening both Koreas as well as China and Russia.

The Pulitzer Prize-winning historian John Dower notes one tragic result that followed from the two peace treaties for Japan that came into effect on the day that Japan regained its sovereignty 28 April 1952:

“Japan was inhibited from moving effectively toward reconciliation and reintegration with its nearest Asian neighbors. Peace-making was delayed.”[37]

Washington blocked peace-making between Japan and the two main neighbors that it had colonized, Korea and China, by instituting a “separate peace” that excluded both Koreas as well as the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from the whole process. Washington twisted Japan’s arm to gain their cooperation by threatening to continue the occupation that had started with General Douglas MacArthur (Douglas MacArthur (1880–1964). Since Japan and South Korea did not normalize relations until June 1965, and a peace treaty between Japan and the PRC was not signed until 1978, there was a long delay, during which according to Dower,

“The wounds and bitter legacies of imperialism, invasion, and exploitation were left to fester—unaddressed and largely unacknowledged in Japan. And ostensibly independent Japan was propelled into a posture of looking east across the Pacific to America for security and, indeed, for its very identity as a nation.”

Thus Washington drove a wedge between Japanese on the one hand and Koreans and Chinese on the other, denying Japanese a chance to reflect on their wartime deeds, apologize, and rebuild friendly ties. Japanese discrimination against Koreans and Chinese is well-known, but only a tiny number of well-informed people understand that Washington is also to blame.

Don’t let the door close in East Asia

To return to Atwood’s point about the Open Door Policy, he succinctly and aptly defines this imperialistic doctrine thus: “American finance and corporations should have untrammeled right of entry into the marketplaces of all nations and territories and access to their resources and cheaper labor power on American terms, sometimes diplomatically, often by armed violence.”[38] He explains how this doctrine took shape. After our Civil War (1861-65), the U.S. Navy maintained a presence “throughout the Pacific Ocean especially in Japan, China, Korea and Vietnam where it undertook numerous armed interventions.” The Navy’s goal was “to ensure law and order and ensure economic access…while preventing European powers…from obtaining privileges that would exclude Americans.”

Beginning to sound familiar?

The Open Door Policy led to some wars of intervention, but the U.S. did not actually begin to actively attempt to thwart anticolonial movements in East Asia, according to Cumings, until the 1950 National Security Council report 48/2, which was two years in the making. It was entitled “Position of the United States with Respect to Asia” and it established a totally new plan that was “utterly unimagined at the end of World War II: it would prepare to intervene militarily against anticolonial movements in East Asia—first Korea, then Vietnam, with the Chinese Revolution as the towering backdrop.”[39] This NSC 48/2 expressed opposition to “general industrialization.” In other words, it would be OK for countries in East Asia to have niche markets, but we don’t want them developing full-scale industrialization as the US did, because then they will be able to compete with us in fields where we have a “comparative advantage.”[40] That is what NSC 48/2 termed “national pride and ambition,” which would “prevent the necessary degree of international cooperation.”

The de-unification of Korea

Before Japan’s annexation of Korea in 1910, the vast majority of Koreans had been “peasants, most of them tenants working land held by one of the world’s most tenacious aristocracies,” i.e., the yangbanaristocracy.[41] The word is composed of two Chinese characters, yang meaning “two” and ban meaning “group.” The aristocratic ruling class had been made up of two groups—the civil servants and the military officers. And slavery was not abolished in Korea until 1894.[42] The U.S. occupation and the new, unpopular South Korean government of Syngman Rhee that was established in August 1948 pursued policies of divide and conquer that, after 1,000 years of unity, pushed the Korean Peninsula into a full-on, civil war with divisions along class lines.

So what is the crime of the majority of Koreans for which they are now about to be punished? Their first crime is that they were born into an exploited economic class in a country sandwiched between two relatively rich and powerful countries, i.e., China and Japan. After suffering tremendously under Japanese colonialism for over 30 years, they enjoyed a brief feeling of liberation that started in the summer of 1945, but soon the U.S. took over from where the Empire of Japan had left off. Their second crime was resisting this second enslavement under Washington-backed Syngman Rhee, sparking the Korean War. And third, many of them aspired to a fairer distribution of the wealth of their country. These last two types of insurrection got them in trouble with Bully Number One, who as noted above, had secretly decided to not allow “general industrialization” in its NSC 48/2, consistent with its general geopolitical approach, severely punishing countries that aspire to independent economic development.

Perhaps partly due to the veneer of legitimacy that the new, weak, and U.S.-dominated U.N. bestowed on Syngman Rhee’s government, few intellectuals in the West have looked into the atrocities committed by the U.S. during its occupation of Korea, or even into the specific atrocities that that accompanied the establishment of Rhee’s government. Between 100,000 and 200,000 Koreans were killed by the South Korean government and the U.S. occupation forces before June 1950, when the “conventional war” began, according to Cumings’ research, and “300,000 people were detained and executed or simply disappeared by the South Korean government in the first few months after conventional war began.”[43] (My italics). So putting down the Korean resistance in its early stages entailed the slaughtering of around a half million human beings. This alone is evidence that huge numbers of Koreans in the south, not only the majority of Koreans in the north (millions of whom were slaughtered during the Korean War), did not welcome with open arms their new U.S.-backed dictators.

The start of the “conventional war,” by the way, is usually marked as 25 June 1950, when Koreans in the north “invaded” their own country, but war in Korea was already well underway by early 1949, so although there is a widely-held assumption that the War started in 1950, Cumings rejects that assumption.[44] For example, there was a major peasant war on Jeju Island in 1948-49 in which somewhere between 30,000 and 80,000 residents were killed, out of a population of 300,000, some of the them killed directly by Americans and many of them indirectly by Americans in the sense that Washington assisted with the state violence of Syngman Rhee.[45] In other words, it would be difficult to blame the Korean War on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), but easy to blame it on Washington and Syngman Rhee.

After all the suffering that the U.S. has caused Koreans, both north and south, it should not come as any surprise that the government of North Korea is anticolonial and anti-American, and that some Koreans in the North cooperate with Kim Jong-un’s government in helping the North prepare for war with the U.S., even when the government is undemocratic. (At least the clips we are shown over and over on mainstream TV, of soldiers marching indicate some level of cooperation). In Cumings’ words, “The DPRK is not a nice place, but it is an understandable place, an anticolonial and anti-imperial state growing out of a half-century of Japanese colonial rule and another half-century of continuous confrontation with a hegemonic United States and a more powerful South Korea, with all the predictable deformations (garrison state, total politics, utter recalcitrance to the outsider) and with extreme attention to infringements of its rights as a nation.”[46]

What now?

When Kim Jong-un issues verbal threats, they are hardly ever credible. When U.S. President Trump threatens North Korea, it is terrifying. A nuclear war started on the Korean Peninsula could “throw up enough soot and debris to threaten the global population,”[47] so he is actually threatening humankind’s very existence.

One only need check the so-called “Doomsday Clock” to see how urgent it is that we act now.[48] Many well-informed people have succumbed, by and large, to a narrative that  demonizes everyone in North Korea. Regardless of political beliefs, we must rethink and reframe the current debate regarding this U.S. crisis—Washington’s escalation of the tension. This will require seeing the looming “unthinkable,” not as an isolated event but as an inevitable result of the flow of the violent historical trends of imperialism and capitalism over time—not only “seeing,” but acting in consort to radically change our species propensity for violence.

Joseph Essertier is an associate professor at the Nagoya Institute of Technology in Japan.

Notes

[1] Bertrand Russell, Unpopular Essays (Simon And Schuster, 1950)

[2] “US Military Bases in Japan Military Bases

[3] Cumings, Korea’s Place in the Sun: A Modern History (W.W. Norton, 1988) p. 477.

Alex Ward, “South Korea Wants the US to Station Nuclear Weapons in the Country. That’s a Bad Idea.” Vox (5 September 2017).

[4] Alex Lockie, “US sends third aircraft carrier to the Pacific as massive armada looms near North Korea,” Business Insider (5 June 2017)

[5] Bridget Martin, “Moon Jae-In’s THAAD Conundrum: South Korea’s “Candlelight President” Faces Strong Citizen Opposition on Missile Defense,” Asia Pacific Journal: Japan Focus 15:18:1 (15 September 2017).

[6] Jane Perlez, “For China, a Missile Defense System in South Korea Spells a Failed Courtship,” New York Times (8 July 2016)

[7] Bruce Klingner, “South Korea: Taking the Right Steps to Defense Reform,” the Heritage Foundation (19 October 2011)

[8] Oliver Holmes, “US and South Korea to stage huge military exercise despite North Korea crisis,” The Guardian (11 August 2017)

[9] “Japan-Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) Mission Computing Upgrade (MCU),” Defense Security Cooperation Agency (26 September 2013)

[10] Hans M. Kristensen, Matthew McKinzie, and Theodore A. Postol, “How US Nuclear Force Modernization Is Undermining Strategic Stability: The Burst-Height Compensating Super-Fuze,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (March 2017)

One submarine was moved to the region in April 2017. See Barbara Starr, Zachary Cohen and Brad Lendon, “US Navy Guided-missile Sub Calls in South Korea,” CNN (25 April 2017).

There must be at least two in the region however. See “Trump tells Duterte of two U.S. nuclear subs in Korean waters: NYT,”  Reuters (24 May 2017)

[11] Dakshayani Shankar, “Mattis: War with North Korea would be ‘catastrophic’,” ABC News (10 Aug 2017)

[12] Bruce Cumings, “The Hermit Kingdom Bursts Upon Us,” LA Times (17 July 1997)

[13] David Nakamura and Anne Gearan, “In U.N. speech, Trump threatens to ‘totally destroy North Korea’ and calls Kim Jong Un ‘Rocket Man’,” Washington Post (19 September 2017)

[14] Paul Atwood, “Korea? It’s Always Really Been About China!,” CounterPunch (22 September 2017)

[15] David Stockman, “The Deep State’s Bogus ‘Iranian Threat’,” Antiwar.com (14 October 2017)

[16] Joby Warrick, Ellen Nakashima, and Anna Fifield “North Korea now making missile-ready nuclear weapons, U.S. analysts say,” Washington Post (8 August 2017)

[17] Bruce Cumings, North Korea: Another Country (The New Press, 2003) p. 1.

[18] Transcript of interview, “Psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton on Duty to Warn: Trump’s ‘Relation to Reality’ is Dangerous to Us All,” DemocracyNow! (13 October 2017)

[19] Atwood, “Korea? It’s Always Really Been About China!” CounterPunch.

[20] Cumings, The Korean War, Chapter 8, section entitled “A Military-Industrial Complex,” the 7th paragraph.

[21] Cumings, The Korean War, Chapter 8, section entitled “A Military-Industrial Complex,” the 7th paragraph.

[22] Aaron David Miller and Richard Sokolsky, “The ‘axis of evil’ is back,” CNN (26 April 2017)   l

[23] “The Boxer Uprising—I: The Gathering Storm in North China (1860-1900),” MIT Visualizing Cultures, Creative Commons license website:

[24] Cumings, The Korean War, Chapter 4, 3rd paragraph.

[25] Nick Turse tells the history of the ugly racism associated with this word in Kill Anything that Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam (Picador, 2013), Chapter 2.

[26] For the original symbolically violent article, see Hanson W. Baldwin, “The Lesson of Korea: Reds’ Skill, Power Call for Reappraisal of Defense Needs against Sudden Invasion,” New York Times (14 July 1950)

[27]  Tomohiro Osaki, “Diet passes Japan’s first law to curb hate speech,” Japan Times (24 May 2016)

[28] Julia Lovell, “The Yellow Peril: Dr Fu Manchu & the Rise of Chinaphobia by Christopher Frayling – review,” The Guardian (30 October 2014)

[29] Christine Hong, “War by Other Means: The Violence of North Korean Human Rights,” Asia Pacific Journal: Japan Focus 12:13:2 (30 March 2014)

[30] Lucas Tomlinson and The Associated Press, “‘Axis of Evil’ still alive as North Korea, Iran launch missiles, flout sanctions,” Fox News (29 July 2017)

Jaime Fuller, “The 4th best State of the Union address: ‘Axis of evil,’ Washington Post (25 January 2014)

[31] Caroline Norma, The Japanese Comfort Women and Sexual Slavery during the China and Pacific Wars (Bloomsbury, 2016), Conclusion, 4th paragraph.

[32] Tessa Morris-Suzuki, “You Don’t Want to Know About the Girls? The ‘Comfort Women’, the Japanese Military and Allied Forces in the Asia-Pacific War,” Asia Pacific Journal: Japan Focus 13:31:1 (3 August 2015).

[33] John W. Dower, Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II. (Norton, 1999)

[34] Katharine H.S. Moon, “Military Prostitution and the U.S. Military in Asia,” Asia Pacific Journal: Japan Focus Volume 7:3:6 (12 January 2009)

http://apjjf.org/-Katharine-H.S.-Moon/3019/article.html

[35] Norma, The Japanese Comfort Women and Sexual Slavery during the China and Pacific Wars, Chapter 6, the last paragraph of section entitled “Prostituted victims till the very end.”

[36] Cumings, The Korean War, Chapter 5, the second-to-the-last paragraph of the first section before the “Southwest of Korea during the Military Government.”

[37] John W. Dower, “The San Francisco System: Past, Present, Future in U.S.-Japan-China Relations,” Asia Pacific Journal: Japan Focus 12:8:2 (23 February 2014)

[38] Atwood, “Korea? It’s Always Really Been About China!” CounterPunch.

[39] Cumings, The Korean War, Chapter 8, section entitled “A Military-Industrial Complex,” the 6th paragraph.

[40] Cumings, The Korean War, Chapter 8, section entitled “A Military-Industrial Complex,” the 9th paragraph.

[41] Cumings, The Korean War, Chapter 1, the 3rd paragraph.

[42] Cumings, North Korea: Another Country, Chapter 4, 2nd paragraph.

[43] Cumings, “A Murderous History of Korea,” London Review of Books 39:10 (18 May 2017).

[44] Cumings, Korea’s Place in the Sun: A Modern History, p. 238.

[45] Cumings, The Korean War, Chapter 5, “The Jeju Insurgency.”

[46] Cumings, North Korea: Another Country, Chapter 2, “American Nuclear Threats” section, the last paragraph.

[47] Bruce Cumings, “A Murderous History of Korea,” London Review of Books (18 May 2017). This is Cumings’ best brief-but-thorough, concise article on Korean history as it relates to the present crisis.

[48] Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Featured image is from  frankieleon | CC by 2.0.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on America’s “Open Door Policy” May Have Led Us to the Brink of Nuclear Annihilation

Blaming the Afghan War Failure on — Russia

November 1st, 2017 by Jonathan Marshall

Featured image: Army CH-47 Chinook helicopter pilots fly near Jalalabad, Afghanistan, April 5, 2017.(Army photo by Capt. Brian Harris)

News flash: The United States is supplying spiffy new Humvees and Ford Ranger pickup trucks to the Taliban, who brazenly parade their troops in those vehicles “without fear of being targeted by Afghan or Coalition forces,” according to a senior fellow at the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

As Bill Poggio observed in the foundation’s Long War Journal,

“The Taliban displayed their military power in the contested district of Bakwa in a newly released video titled From the Fronts of Farah. The video which was released on the Taliban’s propaganda website, Voice of Jihad, ‘is dedicated to . . . showcasing the strength, control and advances of the Mujahideen of Islamic Emirate,’ according to an accompanying statement.”

Poggio concluded, more reasonably than I suggest in my opening sentence, that the trucks displayed in the Taliban video were “captured from Afghan Army and police units,” not ordered directly by the Afghan insurgents out of a Pentagon catalog.

But U.S. officials have not shown the same good sense in their continued, but unsupported, denunciations of Russia for supplying the Taliban with assault rifles and other small arms.

I demolished that canard in a May 29 article. I pointed out that, contrary to a raft of news stories based on Pentagon leaks about Russian backstabbing, the director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency admitted in a Senate hearing, “I have not seen real physical evidence of weapons or money being transferred” by Russia to the Taliban.

The chairman of NATO’s military committee restated that conclusion in almost the same words just a few days ago. He told reporters in Washington,

“I don’t have and I haven’t seen any hard evidence on the delivery of weapons from the Russians to the Taliban.”

Despite such authoritative denials, leading U.S. national security reporters — and government officials — have been keeping the story alive, as it fits the larger Washington narrative about Russia’s threat to U.S. security and Western values.

In late August, following President Trump’s address to the nation committing to a long-term battle in Afghanistan, Andrea Mitchell of NBC asked Secretary of State Rex Tillerson,

“why didn’t the President mention Russia’s rearming of the Taliban, which General [John] Nicholson has been talking about very openly? He seemed to be letting Russia off the hook in his speech.”

(Nicholson, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, has long complained of Russia’s “malign influence” in Afghanistan, and said in April that he was “not refuting” claims of Russian help to the Taliban.)

In response, Secretary Tillerson also chose not to refute such claims.

“To the extent Russia is supplying arms to the Taliban, that is a violation, obviously, of international norms and it’s a violation of UN Security Council norms,” he said. “We certainly would object to that and call Russia’s attention to that.”

Russia vigorously denies doing any such thing. Of course it may be lying — providing arms to bog down the United States in war, or to curry favor with the Taliban as it racks up military gains across the country.

Dated Weapons

But many of the Russian weapons in the hands of the Taliban date back to Russia’s own misadventure in Afghanistan in the 1980s, according to one small arms expert interviewed by an editor at The Atlantic. Other weapons in Taliban hands are Chinese or Pakistani knock-offs.

“Russian-made weapons of those calibers can be obtained in many places,” said Thomas Ruttig, co-director of the Afghanistan Analysts Network.

As I documented previously, Moscow has been shipping assault weapons and providing flight training to Afghan government forces, not the Taliban. The insurgents don’t need to buy their weapons from abroad when they can simply take them from the Afghan army or police. “It’s simple and cheaper,” one Taliban commander told an American reporter.

Seen through a night-vision device, U.S. Marines conduct a combat logistics patrol in Helmand province, Afghanistan, April 21, 2013. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Anthony L. Ortiz)

As a result, U.S. taxpayers are going to great expense to arm the very people who are killing U.S. soldiers and their allies in Afghanistan.

The Taliban don’t just use those captured Humvees and trucks for show. In a stunning operation in mid-October, insurgents drove explosives-laden vehicles “captured from security forces” into an Afghan Army base in the southern province of Kandahar, killing most of its 60 members and leaving only two unhurt.

A day or two earlier, Taliban forces used the same tactic in two southeastern provinces, killing more than 40 police officers by detonating explosives in “Humvees paid for by the United States military,” according to the New York Times.

After 16 years of failed war in Afghanistan, U.S. officials may find it convenient to look for scapegoats like Russia. But the fault, with apologies to the Bard, is not in Moscow but in ourselves.

Jonathan Marshall’s previous articles on Afghanistan include “Alleged Russia-Taliban Arms Link Disputed,”  “The Goal of ‘Not Losing’ in Afghanistan,” “Afghanistan: President Obama’s Vietnam,” and “Why Washington’s War on Drugs in Afghanistan Isn’t Working.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Blaming the Afghan War Failure on — Russia

Communiqué on the Situation in Catalonia

November 1st, 2017 by Anticapitalistas

Following the Catalan Parliament’s declaration of independence on October 27, Podemos leader Pablo Iglesias tweeted: “We are against repression and for a negotiated referendum [which the Madrid government refused to Catalonia] but the declaration of independence is illegitimate and favours the strategy of the PP [People’s Party, headed by Spanish premier Mariano Rajoy].”

However, the Anticapitalistas current in Podemos (spokepersons MEP Miguel Urban and Podemos Andalusia general secretary Teresa Rodriguez) issued the following statement recognizing the result of the October 1 referendum.

— Richard Fidler

***

1. On 27 October, in fulfillment of the mandate of the referendum of 1 October in which despite police repression more than two million people participated, the Catalan Parliament proclaimed the Catalan Republic. In a Spain with a monarchy that is a direct successor of the dictator Franco, a Republic that opens up a constituent process is without doubt a proposal that breaks with the 1978 regime, with its political consensus and with a constitutional order that serves the elites. This proclamation occurs in a context of constant threats to apply article 155 and impose an authoritarian outcome on a conflict that demands an eminently political and democratic solution. In fact, in recent days the application of 155 had come to be threatened no matter what happened. We call for the application of article 155 to be rejected and for democratic, peaceful and disobedient defence of the will of the Catalan people and of their right to decide.

2. In these times of exacerbation of patriotic passions it is important to correctly define those responsible for events. The People’s Party, spurred on by Citizens and with the support of the PSOE and under pressure from the state apparatus, had decided to apply article 155 of the Constitution. The goal of this measure was to prevent a dialogue between Catalunya and the rest of the State, criminalising the Catalan people, refusing to entertain the solution of a negotiated referendum and justifying the use of force to solve a political problem. An irresponsible operation, which seeks to reorganise the unity of the State along authoritarian lines.

3. We are aware that many unknowns and uncertainties now opening up. To dope the people with easy slogans is typical of a conception of politics that shies away from democratic debate and considers itself lead actor in a story that is actually the work of ordinary people. The new Catalan Republic faces internal challenges that cannot be ignored in a country where a significant section of the population does not feel represented by the pro-independence movement. The first challenge for the process is to work to overcome this division, integrating the popular sectors not supportive of independence into a project for the country, avoiding the social confrontation that only benefits the forces of reaction while at the same time organising a movement capable of resisting the repression of the State. The constituent process must be a instrument operating in that direction, integrating the demands of the popular classes that go beyond the national question, putting social issues in the centre and radically democratising Catalonia.

4. In the Spanish State, we are living through a complex wave of reaction. Many people, including people on the left, feel hurt and torn by events in Catalonia. While it is true that a good part of this feeling is channeled into a Catalanaphobic reaction, heir of the worst sentiments of the Franco regime, and also into the violent expressions of the extreme right on the street, a large section of the population is honestly concerned about what is happening in Catalonia and puts its trust in dialogue and negotiation, in a return to politics.

From our point of view, what is fundamentally at stake is the possibility of people deciding their future. If the Catalan people suffers defeat and is crushed by the PP and its accomplices, when a territory, a town council, a community or a social sector decide to commit itself to a position on any issue it will be crushed with the same logic with which today the PP and the state are seeking to crush Catalonia. This is the central issue, which goes beyond the national question and puts the issue of popular sovereignty front and centre: it is the people who have the right to decide – such is the basis of democracy—and the law must be at the service of democracy and not vice versa.

On the other hand, there are other solutions and forms of relationship between peoples that go beyond those traditionally imposed in the Spanish State. The strategy of opening constituent processes has as its central idea developing a project for society that is carried out by the working and popular classes, by women, by migrants, by all the people who do not have political and economic power but who are indispensable. But it can also be a method to solve the historical problems of the Spanish State on the national level: a way of re-articulating relations between the peoples on the basis of equality, where the goal – out of respect for the right to decide and its outcomes – is to build bridges that the current top-down and authoritarian relationship of the central state destroys, developing from below forms of cooperation and dialogue among the people in order to build an alternative society to that of political and economic elites. An opportunity to build a new framework of fraternal coexistence that allows us to aspire not only to recover but also to conquer new social and democratic rights for the popular classes.

5. We know that ours is a difficult position in a context like this. That is why it seems to us fundamental to debate, to maintain dialogue among different democratic positions, but also to oppose the authoritarian regression that the State plans with the excuse of the Catalan question (it could have been any other excuse). Defending the Catalan people who will suffer the brutal application of article 155 not only means defending pro-independence forces, but also standing with that 80% of the Catalan population that has been demanding a referendum and a democratic solution to its demands and the other 20% that is going to lose its self-government. This is the time to defend the possibility of a democratic solution to the diktats of the State. It is time to (re)start the patient construction of a project that goes beyond the 1978 regime and is capable of building fraternal relations between the different peoples of the Spanish State. The elites have proven incapable of solving the problems of the Spanish State; today more than ever, it is urgent to recover the leading role of politics for those below.

MEP Miguel Urban and Podemos Andalusia general secretary Teresa Rodriguez.

Text translated by Dick Nichols, published on his live blog from Barcelona.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Communiqué on the Situation in Catalonia

CFR’s Foreign Affairs Praises “Moderate” Al Qaeda

November 1st, 2017 by Whitney Webb

Last week, Foreign Affairs, self-described as the “leading magazine for analysis and debate of foreign policy,” published an article titled “The Moderate Face of Al Qaeda.” The piece takes note of the fact that al Qaeda’s branch in Syria, long known as Jabhat al-Nusra or al-Nusra Front, changed its names numerous times in order to present itself as “moderate” in comparison to other terror groups operating in Syria, particularly Daesh (so called Islamic State).

Most counter-terrorism and foreign policy analysts noted at the time that al Qaeda-affiliated rebels’ attempts at rebranding were intended to improve its chances of receiving funds from foreign governments and to protect itself from Syrian, Russian airstrikes by becoming part of the “moderate” opposition. Indeed, al Qaeda’s name changes led the group — allegedly responsible for the 9/11 attacks and the ostensible justification for the U.S.’ War on Terror — to be dropped from the U.S. and Canada’s terror watch list.

However, Colin P. Clarke, the author of the Foreign Affairs article, takes a different approach, arguing that the rebranding “just might have worked” to redefine the once-reviled terror group “as a legitimate, capable, and independent force in the ongoing Syrian civil war” that is “dedicated to helping Syrians prevail in their struggle.” He further argues that this “could spell a situation, at least in the long-term, in which al Qaeda begins to resemble the Lebanese group Hezbollah,” a legitimate political party with a long history of fighting actual terror groups like al Qaeda and Daesh.

Clarke goes on to praise al Qaeda’s “penchant for cooperation” and notes that “the group has even publicly announced that it will refrain from attacking the West” in order to focus “its finite resources on overthrowing the Assad regime” — which, according to Clarke, is the “top priority of Syria’s Sunnis.”

Though Clarke’s words paint a picture of a “moderate” al Qaeda franchise, the evidence from Syria makes it clear that the group is still as extreme and abhorrent as ever. The war crimes of al Qaeda-affiliated rebels in Syria are numerous and well-documented. They have massacred civilian communities, specifically targeting religious minorities such as the Druze and Shia Muslims. Those who were permitted to live under al Qaeda rule were subject to stonings, amputations, floggings and worse for violating legal codes adopted by the group. A recent massacre of civilians, conducted by al Nusra and other al Qaeda affiliates in Syria, targeted evacuation buses of Shia civilians, killing over 200 innocents. The dead included 116 children who were lured towards a bomb with the promise of food by terrorists affiliated with al Nusra.

Beyond this distorted depiction, Clarke’s further suggestion that Syrian Sunnis are now inclined to support the group lacks factual basis. The Syrian people have been shown – over the course of the entire war – to overwhelmingly support Assad, effectively debunking the assertion that Assad’s removal from power by Wahhabists is the “top priority” of all Sunnis.

In addition, the testimony of Syrian civilians, particularly in post-rebel occupied Aleppo, has revealed that Clarke’s assertion that al Qaeda-affiliated rebels are committed to “working with locals” and possess “the resources necessary to provide the trappings of governance” is equally farcical. During the time they ruled over Eastern Aleppo, al Nusra and other rebels linked to al Qaeda hoarded food and medicine, occupied hospitals and schools, and tried civilians in extremist Sharia courts, often sentencing them to solitary confinement, torture or execution. One young man was tortured for four hours and then executed because his mobile phone contained a picture of his friend holding a Syrian flag. The “moderate” al Qaeda, to which Clarke alludes, remains factually elusive.

Useful terrorists rechristened “moderate rebels”

Clarke is not just any political scientist. Indeed, Clarke is a political scientist working at the RAND Corporation, an “objective,” U.S. government-funded think tank that has long championed the goals of the U.S. military-industrial complex of which it is part. Over the course of the Syrian war, the RAND Corporation has backed regime change as well as the partitioning of Syria, a plan also promoted by the U.S. and Israeli governments.

The motivation behind this argument may be related to the collapse of regime-change efforts targeting the Syrian government. As Clarke notes:

Now that ISIS has lost its capital in Raqqa, al Qaeda may be the only group viewed as militarily capable of challenging the Assad regime’s grip on power. And unlike ISIS, al Qaeda is perceived as working with locals and possessing the resources necessary to provide the trappings of governance.”

Given that recent events have further exposed the true, extremist face of the so-called “moderate” rebels, the U.S. and its allies still bent on Syrian regime change are stuck in the unfortunate spot of attempting to legitimize what Clarke calls the only group “militarily capable of challenging the Assad regime’s grip on power.”

The timing of Clarke’s piece is also notable, as it preceded statements made by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. Tillerson told reporters last Thursday:

It is our view — and I have said this many times as well — that we do not believe that there is a future for the Assad regime and Assad family. The reign of the Assad family is coming to an end. The only issue is how that should be brought about.”

The only opposition force that stands to gain from regime change are the “moderate” al Qaeda-affiliated rebels, particularly since the Kurdish factions in control of the country’s north have embraced negotiations with Assad’s government.

Thus, the time has now come to once again rehabilitate what is ostensibly one of the world’s most notorious terror groups, even though it is this group’s presence in other nations – such as Yemen, Niger and others – that is used as the pretext for U.S. military intervention and bombing campaigns. However, in Syria, al Qaeda, like Daesh, is a useful tool — as well as the last resort – for certain foreign governments in furthering the regime-change campaign against Bashar al-Assad — a campaign that, for six long years, has yielded little but the destruction of swaths of Syria and its civilian population.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on CFR’s Foreign Affairs Praises “Moderate” Al Qaeda

Featured image: A dirt berm is maintained along the coast of Utqiaġvik, the northernmost city in Alaska, in an effort to slow seawater intrusion from increasingly severe Arctic storms. (Photo: Dahr Jamail)

As the summer Arctic sea ice melts and continues to recede further, the fragile coastline resting atop thawing permafrost is made more vulnerable to the warming waters of the Arctic Ocean, and the waves are given room to grow larger by the vanishing ice.

This past August, every time I walked to the shore in Utqiaġvik, the northernmost point in the US and only 1,300 miles from the North Pole, a large bulldozer was busy maintaining a large dirt barrier that perilously separated the northern edges of the village against the steadily encroaching, increasingly turbulent seas. It is a full-time job, because, as I would soon learn from the president of the Ukpeaġvik Iñupiat Corporation that owns and runs a large portion of the village, the berm requires rebuilding from storms past, ongoing maintenance, and then building back up in preparation for coming storms.

One evening I walked to the coast as large sets of waves, sent from a windstorm out at sea, rolled onto and up the beach. Many of them were large enough to crash against the flanks of the 25-foot berm. As they did, the water jetted up into the air, colored dark brown from the fresh soil that had just been dumped onto the berm. As the waves pulled back into the ocean, they carried with them large clumps of fresh dirt that rolled down the beach into the shallow waters of the Chuchki Sea.

Only rows of the very top portions of older canvas bags filled with soil remained atop portions of the beach, remnants of previous attempts to stop the sea’s relentless march towards the village. Soil from the newest iteration, the large berm, actively covered and rendered impotent the old barrier. In another place on the beach were the top corners of large metal tanks, rusting as they lay side by side in a row, protruding above the sand … for now.

Where I stood, the sea was already washing directly against the manmade barrier. The first row of houses in the village was barely 15 meters from the back of the berm. Not far behind them stood government buildings, the police station, tribal offices. One hundred meters south of me along the coast, larger homes stood atop a bluff that was about five meters tall. A dirt road separated the homes from the edge of the bluff. Waves were already splashing against the bottom of the bluff, as they rolled over the tops of mostly buried sandbags.

The motor of the front-loader rumbled as it scooped up shovelfuls of dark soil from a large pile that had been carried from a gravel pit a half a kilometer inland. Black exhaust smoke billowed from the top of the front-loader as it quickly carried another load of soil to the berm where it slowed and allowed its blade to tip down. Out tumbled another load of future seabed. Underneath it, unseen, methane was already bubbling up to further heat the atmosphere and render these efforts laughable.

Utqiaġvik is one of several Indigenous villages along Alaska’s north coast that have existed for thousands of years: Estimates vary, but people settled in them between 1,500 and 4,000 years ago. Now, anthropogenic climate disruption is threatening to demolish them.

Less than two months after I left Utqiaġvik, residents experienced coastal flooding in and around the town, as parts of the berm were breached by waves. This kind of erosion and where it will inevitably lead is a central problem for that village, among many others. In talking with a friend who is working with more than 30 other Native villages along rivers and coastlines of Alaska that are susceptible to thawing permafrost and increasingly severe Arctic storms, I learned that they will all have to be relocated. Until they relocate, the plight of these future US climate refugees will only intensify and worsen. In addition to the endangerment of residents’ homes and sustenance, their culture and religious practices, which are deeply connected to the land and seas where they currently live, are threatened. And there will be no funding from the Trump administration to assist them in their survival.

We can no longer simply speak about what is happening to the planet in the future tense. And keep in mind that currently, we are “only” at 1.1°C above pre-industrial baseline temperatures.

Growing numbers of scientists have concluded we are already in the midst of the Earth’s sixth mass extinction event. A recent report showed that plant and animal species, which in addition to their own intrinsic value are the very foundation of our own food supply, are as endangered as our rapidly disappearing wildlife.

“If there is one thing we cannot allow to become extinct, it is the species that provide the food that sustains each and every one of the seven billion people on our planet,” Ann Tutwiler, director general of Bioversity International, which published the report told the Guardian.

Meanwhile, 14 million people around the world are being made homeless due to floods and storms fueled by anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD), according to a recent report.

Although, no single weather event can be attributed solely to ACD, scientists are in agreement that ACD is contributing to the severity and frequency of these phenomena.

According to NASA, meanwhile, this August was the second-hottest August in the 137 years that records have been kept.

From the camp of scientists who aren’t convinced that we are already in a mass extinction event comes a study that shows the Earth might be close to the “threshold of catastrophe,” given that the amount of CO2 humans will emit by 2100 might be enough to trigger said mass extinction event.

Whether or not we have entered such an event yet, this month’s dispatch reveals a sobering future for all the Earth’s species, should ACD continue unabated.

Earth

As ACD progresses, evidence of dramatic impacts across the terrestrial sphere are becoming ever more obvious.

Likely the most devastating piece of recent news in this section concerns insects. A recent report showed that three-fourths of all flying insects in nature reserves across Germany have disappeared in just the last 25 years. According to shocked scientists, this has very serious implications for all life on Earth. Scientists involved in the study told the Guardian that the planet is now “on course for ecological Armageddon.”

This data has serious implications for all agricultural landscapes.

“Insects make up about two-thirds of all life on Earth [but] there has been some kind of horrific decline,” Sussex University’s Dave Goulson, who is part of the team that generated the new study, told the Guardian. “We appear to be making vast tracts of land inhospitable to most forms of life, and are currently on course for ecological Armageddon. If we lose the insects then everything is going to collapse.”

recently published study in the journal Science sounded the alarm on the fact that Earth’s tropical forests are now so degraded that they are emitting more carbon than all of the traffic in the United States. A healthy forest sequesters carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, whereas forests that are degraded by drought, wildfires and deforestation release previously sequestered carbon.

“When I look at these numbers and the map of where the changes are occurring, it’s shocking,” Alessandro Baccini, one of the lead authors of the research team from Woods Hole Research Center and Boston University, told the Guardian. “My child may not see many of the forests. At this rate of change, they will not be there.”

Adding insult to injury, NASA data collected in 2015 revealed that as the planet continues to warm, overall tropical forest CO2 emissions will skyrocket.

“Up to now, land ecosystems, mainly forests, have been mitigating part of the fossil fuel problem. They’ve been sucking CO2 out of air, about 25 percent of our fossil fuel emissions,” Colorado State University climate researcher Scott Denning told Inside Climate News. “The worry is that, as the climate warms, that will stop, and that’s exactly what we saw.”

Furthermore, another recently published 26-year study showed that warming soils are now releasing much more carbon into the atmosphere than previously thought. This means another disastrous feedback loop exists that will trigger giant carbon releases in a cycle that will be impossible to stop.

Climate Disruption Dispatches

Meanwhile, impacts abound.

Forests of ancient bristlecone pines are already being overwhelmed by the impacts of ACD. Temperature and climate changes have created a struggle for dominance between the older and younger trees. The younger, limber pines are moving rapidly (for trees, that is) uphill, consuming moisture, space and nutrients that the ancient bristlecone have always relied upon.

In the wake of Hurricane Maria, the destruction wrought across Puerto Rico has seen tens of thousands of storm victims fleeing the island for the mainland US. Experts note these victims could well be considered the latest iteration of US climate refugees. Other refugees will, before long, include former residents of southern Louisiana, which is melting into the sea, and residents of the shrinking islands in Alaska’s Bering Strait.

Lastly in this section, out of a colony of nearly 40,000 penguins in the Antarctic, all have starved to death except for two chicks. Changing conditions due to ACD are a primary cause of the collapse of the colony, which was located in one of the most remote regions on the planet.

Water

The watery realms continue to see massive changes.

In the Antarctic, the Pine Island glacier, which alone is capable of contributing nearly two feet to global sea level rise, recently lost a massive piece of itself, providing scientists with another sign of its ongoing retreat. This is the second time in as many years the glacier has shed such a large portion. The glacier is already losing 45 billion tons of ice to the ocean each year.

Another recent report on the Antarctic showed that sea ice there is literally being attacked by warmer temperatures from above and below. Warming atmospheric temperatures coupled with warmer ocean waters have combined to cause Antarctic sea ice to shrink by two million kilometers in just the last three years. This caused a recent swing from a record large maximum area of coverage to a record low area of coverage.

Meanwhile at the other pole, recently released data showed that the Arctic ice cap melted down to hundreds of thousands of square miles below its average this past summer. The ice minimum for this year was 610,000 square miles below the 1981-2010 average, in addition to its being the eighth-lowest year in the 38-year satellite record.

Across the globe, flooding is intensifying. Central India has seen violent floods triple since 1950, according to a recent report. Violent floods are those that cause death to humans and damage to property. This particular region of India, which is home to roughly half a billion people, is regularly hit with flash floods, landslides and torrential rains that kill thousands and displace millions, in addition to drowning livestock and crops.

Extreme flooding has taken place in Mexico, Guatemala, the Congo, Poland, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia and Oklahoma recently.

Meanwhile, eroding coastlines along with increasing shortages of food are becoming more common across the Pacific, according to another recent report. Lack of drinking water — along with vulnerability to rising seas and increasingly extreme storms — are also growing problems across this largest geographic area of the globe.

Fire

For those living in the US, wildfires in California have been in the headlines this month. At the time of this writing, the current death toll from the Northern California wildfires is 42, and the monetary total has reached more than $1 billion in lost and damaged property. Dozens of people remain missing, so the number of deaths is expected to increase. Entire neighborhoods, hotels and schools were burnt to the ground, as thousands had to evacuate. Nearly a quarter of a million acres burned in 13 major fires, and at least 6,700 homes, structures and wineries were destroyed.

California’s new normal, for now, is obviously longer and more intense wildfire seasons, ongoing droughts and ever-increasing warm temperatures. Like something out of a science fiction novel, California is en route to being one of several US states (including Florida, Alaska and Louisiana) that are poster children for ACD impacts.

In Europe, we may well be seeing another instance of how ACD is playing a role in destabilizing the government of a country — this time in Portugal. A minister in charge of emergency services there resigned after at least 106 people were killed in wildfires. The area burned by wildfires in Portugal was a stunning six times higher than the annual average for the last eight years, and was the largest area burned on record.

Air

A recently published study in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society showed, again, how the warming of the Arctic is actually making winters in the US colder, as exemplified by the extreme winter of 2014-2015. The following year, which brought an unusually warm winter to the mid-northerly latitudes, is another example of how the Polar Vortex, a large area of cold air and low pressure that surrounds Earth’s poles, is impacting the planet. The study showed that ACD is weakening the vortex, and this was linked to many of the coldest winters over the last four decades.

ACD-fueled warmer temperatures, both in the atmosphere and oceans, have been the primary driver behind this year’s horrific hurricane season and extreme weather.

Puerto Rico, home to 3.4 million US citizens, continues to languish from the impact of a massive hurricane with no end in sight. Brazil just experienced its hottest winter on record along with an extreme dry season, while in Spain, thunderstorms that formed in a far warmer-than-normal atmosphere released an apocalyptic half a meter of hail in some areas. Thirty-five liters of water per square meter fell in just half an hour, and temperatures plummeted so suddenly that several people required treatment for hypothermia.

One-hundred-year-old warm temperature records across much of the East Coast and Midwestern US were shattered in late September when a heat wave struck these regions. In the Midwest, the National Weather Service reported,

“There has never been a heat wave of this duration and magnitude this late in the season in Chicago.”

Buffalo, New York saw its latest-ever number of consecutive 90ºF days, while Burlington, Vermont saw the thermometer hit 92ºF on September 25th, which was the latest it had been that hot — 7 degrees higher than the previous hottest temperature. Records for the hottest day or series of hottest days this late in the year were being set, with room to spare, in Ottawa, Canada, northern Maine, Minneapolis, Minnesota and Green Bay, Wisconsin.

A recent study published in Nature Scientific Reports found,

“Summer in some regions of the world will become one long heatwave even if global average temperatures rise only 2°C [3.6ºF] above pre-industrial levels.”

In mid-October, Ireland was slammed by the remnants of Hurricane Ophelia, the strongest ever eastern Atlantic hurricane. The storm knocked out power to more than 120,000 people, and left at least one person dead.

Denial and Reality

The US isn’t the only country with an ACD-denialist sector of society, as one in five Australians believe, like Donald Trump, that ACD is a hoax.

Meanwhile in the US, the Trump administration is having federal agencies like FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security use the term “resiliency” instead of climate change, as though that will make it go away.

Scott Pruitt, the former fossil-fuel henchman who is now head of the EPA, announced plans to withdraw the Clean Power Plan that regulates greenhouse gas emissions, while no less than 52 environmental policies are on the way out as part of a Trump plan to ease burdens on the fossil fuel industry. Trump’s pick to run the White House Council on Environmental Quality, Kathleen Hartnett White, believes that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is good for humanity and calls it “the gas of life.” This should come as no surprise given that she is the senior fellow and director of the Armstrong Center for Energy and the Environment at the fossil-fuel-funded Texas Public Policy Foundation.

On the reality front, a recent report showed that more than half of US citizens want their local officials to take up the fight to mitigate ACD impacts, particularly given that Trump is stomping on the fossil fuel gas pedal. Moreover, more than half of the US population sees ACD as responsible for the severity of recent hurricanes, a universal shift from Hurricane Katrina, when 2/3 said it was just severe weather.

General Motors announced plans to, eventually, only produce electric vehicles. It will release two more electric vehicles next year and another 18 by 2023.

Paris announced plans to banish all but electric cars by 2030, and last year the Netherlands joined Norway in banning the sale of new cars powered by internal-combustion engines after 2025, in addition to stipulating that all vehicles must be zero-emission by 2030.

Forty Catholic institutions around the world are divesting from fossil fuels and have urged others to follow suit.

Although the White House may be closing its eyes to ACD’s impacts, the rest of the world is increasingly waking up — and not a moment too soon.

Copyright, Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Dahr Jamail, a Truthout staff reporter, is the author of The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan (Haymarket Books, 2009), and Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches From an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq (Haymarket Books, 2007). Jamail reported from Iraq for more than a year, as well as from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Turkey over the last 10 years, and has won the Martha Gellhorn Award for Investigative Journalism, among other awards.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Scientists Warn of “Ecological Armageddon” Amid Waves of Heat and Climate Refugees

The US has been threatening Iran for more than 20 years. Already during the Clinton administration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated “in war theater plans” to invade both Iraq and Iran.

This posting which includes selected articles from our archives was originally published by Global Research 12 years ago in May 2005. 

In the wake of the war on Iraq (2003), the Bush administration  officially identified Iran and Syria as the next stage of “the road map to war”.  

Bush’s National Security doctrine contained in the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was a continuation of Clinton’s  “strategy of containment of rogue states”. The PNAC’s declared objectives were:

  • defend the American homeland;
  • fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
  • perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
  • transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;”

The PNAC did not elaborate on America’s stated mandate to “spread democracy” through the conduct of humanitarian wars.  “Fight decisively and win” major theater wars was part of America’s “Long War”.

Below is my introductory note followed by a selection of 2005 articles and excerpts by prominent authors and analysts (including Scott Ritter, Uri Avery, John Stanton, Richard M. Bennett), which provide an insight on the history of US military aggression and war planning. Déjà Vu?

Michel Chossudovsky, November 1, 2017

Introductory Note

The Bush administration has officially identified Iran and Syria as the next stage of “the road map to war”.

Targeting Iran is a bipartisan project, which broadly serves the interests of the Anglo-American oil conglomerates, the Wall Street financial establishment and the military-industrial complex.

The broader Middle East-Central Asian region encompasses more than 70% of the World’s reserves of oil and natural gas. Iraq possesses 11% of the world’s oil and ranks only second to Saudi Arabia in the size of its reserves

The announcement to target Iran should come as no surprise. Already during the Clinton administration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated “in war theater plans” to invade both Iraq and Iran:

“The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President’s National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman’s National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command’s theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM’s theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States’ vital interest in the region – uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil.

(USCENTCOM, http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#USPolicy , emphasis  added)

The Project for a New American Century

Bush’s National Security doctrine contained in the PNAC is a continuation of Clinton’s  “strategy of containment of rogue states”.

The PNAC is a neo-conservative think tank linked to the Defense-Intelligence establishment, the Republican Party and the powerful Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) which plays a behind-the-scenes role in the formulation of US foreign policy.

The PNAC’s declared objectives are:

  • defend the American homeland;
  • fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
  • perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
  • transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;”

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney had commissioned the PNAC blueprint prior to the 2000 presidential elections.

The PNAC outlines a roadmap of conquest.

It calls for “the direct imposition of U.S. “forward bases” throughout Central Asia and the Middle East:

“with a view to ensuring economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential “rival” or any viable alternative to America’s vision of a ‘free market’ economy”

Distinct from theater wars, the so-called “constabulary functions” imply a form of global military policing using various instruments of military intervention including punitive bombings and the sending in of US Special Forces, etc. Constabulary functions are contemplated in the first phase of US actions against Iran.

With regard to Syria, already in October 2003, the bombing of presumed ‘terrorist bases’ in Syria by the Israeli Air Force was intended to provide a justification for subsequent pre-emptive military interventions. Ariel Sharon launched the attacks with the approval of Donald Rumsfeld.

The Pentagon views ‘territorial control’ over Syria, which constitutes a land bridge between Israel and occupied Iraq, as ‘strategic’ from a military and economic standpoint.

This planned extension of the war into Syria and Iran has serious implications. It means that Israel becomes a major military actor in the US-led war, as well as an ‘official’ member of the Anglo-American coalition. It also raises the broader issue of nuclear weapons and their use in the Middle East war theater.

The US, Britain and Israel already have a coordinated nuclear weapons policy. Meanwhile, Israeli nuclear warheads are pointed at major cities in the Middle East including Tehran and Damascus. The governments of all three countries have stated quite openly that they plan to use nuclear weapons “if they are attacked”.

The Pre-emptive War Doctrine

“Preemptive military action” against Iran, is presented as an act of “self-defense” against two categories of enemies, “rogue States” and “Islamic terrorists”:

The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration. …America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.

The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction- and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, (…). To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.” (National Security Strategy, White House, 2002, http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html )

To justify pre-emptive military actions, including the use of nuclear weapons in conventional war theaters (approved by the Senate in late 2003),  the National Security Doctrine requires the “fabrication” of a terrorist threat, –ie. “an outside enemy.” It also needs to link these terrorist threats to “State sponsorship” by the so-called “rogue states” including Iran and Syria.

Michel Chossudovsky, 10 February 2005. The original collection of essays was updated on 4 May 2005. 

I. TARGETING IRAN

Cheney: Iran at “top of the list” of Trouble Spots, “asks” Israel to carry out the Attack

US Vice President Dick Cheney  has confirmed that Iran is “right at the top of the list” of global trouble spots and worried that Israel might strike to shut down Tehran’s nuclear programs. “One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked,”

The US wants to “set Israel loose” to attack Iran by Uri Avnery

It is not very flattering to be paraded like a Rottweiler on a leash , whose master threatens to let him loose on his enemies. But this is our situation now. Vice President Dick Cheney threatened that if Iran continues to develop its nuclear capabilities, Israel might attack her.

Sleepwalking to Disaster in Iran by Scott Ritter

The American media today is sleepwalking towards an American war with Iran with all of the incompetence and lack of integrity that it displayed during a similar path trodden during the buildup to our current war with Iraq.

Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran   by Michel Chossudovsky

Iran is the next military target. The planned military operation, which is by no means limited to punitive strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, is part of a project of World domination, a military roadmap, launched at the end of the Cold War.

The planned attack on Iran must be understood in relation to the existing active war theaters in the Middle East, namely Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine.

Military action against Iran would directly involve Israel’s participation, which in turn is likely to trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East, not to mention an implosion in the Palestinian occupied territories. Turkey is closely associated with the proposed aerial attacks.

US threatens Iran with military strike at its nuclear sites

While US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is paying a visit to Israel, experts from the US Defense Department and Israel have drafted a plan to carry out a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. As the experts at the European Commission in Brussels, who revealed the information, explained this news is designed to press the EU negotiators to put the screws on Iran and force it to suspend all its activities related to uranium enrichment, threatening that the US and Israel would carry out a military strike if Iran fails to comply with the US-Israeli impositions.

Next Target: Iran by Richard M Bennett

It is now widely considered almost inevitable that the United States will target Iran next.

Whether this is in the form of a full scale invasion with the intention of regime change, in which case it will probably be delayed until some degree of stability has been enforced on Iraq or it could take the form of a short sharp air campaign designed to destroy as much as possible of Iran’s Nuclear, Missile and Command Control infrastructure.

This latter course, the neo-cons in Washington are apparently convincing themselves, would also seriously undermine the conservative anti-American element of Iran’s present leadership

Unfolding Middle-East Quagmire: America is Buying Time by Soula Avramidis

The US needs to control the region not solely for its oil reserves, but more importantly to uphold its global economic hegemony. Under this design, regional states have to be molded into weak sectarian sheikdoms with little or no sovereignty and, by implication, a dismal economic development agenda if any. Regional chaos thus favors a credo of Islamic fundamentalism, which in turn reinforces the process of US sponsored political and social disintegration

Targeting Tehran, by Galal Nassar

Where will the US strike next? The question has been splashed across the world’s media and is being asked of political and military analysts everywhere. Washington remains tight-lipped on the subject. But Israel, its closest ally, seems to have made up its mind.

Israeli officials are trying to persuade their friends in the US that Iran should be next on the hit list.

Bush Administration Readying for 2004 Invasion of Iran by John Stanton

Even though Syria is next on the chopping block according to the authors of A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm–chief among them Richard Perle and Douglas Feith–it is Iran that they covet. In their view, it’s payback time for the 1970’s overthrow of the Shah and subsequent takeover by Khomeni (then exiled in France), the occupation of the US Embassy, the ensuing hostage crisis, the botched rescue attempt that sullied America’s military reputation, and tit-for-tat terrorist actions over the years between the US and Iran (US Navy shoot down of Iranian airliner, Iranian backed terrorist attacks on US troops, etc).

Militarisation of the entire Middle East Region by Erich Marquardt

In removing the Saddam Hussein government, the U.S. will be projecting its power further into the Middle East. Following the ouster of Saddam, Washington will find it necessary to construct military bases in Iraq in order to handle U.S. military activity in the post-war phase. This will follow the model successfully implemented in Afghanistan. With Iraq as a new military launching point, the U.S. will find itself in an incredibly strategic location. Bordering six critical states, Iraq is located at the heart of the Middle East.

Once military bases are active in Iraq, Washington will be able to reshape the Middle East, a term that has been used by administration officials for the last decade. U.S. government officials have expressed their concern with the country of Syria, which is located on Iraq’s western border.

Target Iran: It’s a semi-secret joint US-Israel Operation, by Gordon Thomas

The US has now secretly cooperated more than ever with the Sharon regime in Israel to prepare for an attack which if successful will destroy Iranian facilities that could be used to produce nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. The justification model is of course Israel’s attack on Osirak near Baghdad 22 years ago. Possibly to take place at the same time the Americans are preparing to attack North Korean nuclear facilities.

This is the real military pressure that is now being ratcheted up on both countries to quite literally attempt to force them to change course. This was the reason senior European Foreign Ministers recently rushed to Tehran.

But after watching what the US has now done to Iraq — a country that in fact did succumb and change course only to find itself ‘regime changed’ and occupied by the Americans — this historic cat and mouse game may not work quite so easily as it has before for Washington.

Moreover there are other players much more intimately involved now — Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia… with China as well as Russia watching every so closely and a whole world more skeptical of the Americans, as well as the Israelis, than ever

Iran’s Reza Pahlavi: A Puppet of the USA and Israel? by John Stanton,
The omnipresent neo-conservative kingmakers are at it again, this time with the eloquent and dashing Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, eldest son of the former enigmatic Iranian King of Kings, Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi, who ruled Iran from 1941 until his exile in 1979. The rest, as the cliché goes, is a history well known to the world. That painful past for Americans, Iranians, and Iraqis includes the Ayatollah Khomeini’s authoritarian rule, former President Jimmy Carter’s debilitating US Embassy Hostage crisis, former President Ronald Reagan’s damaging Iran-Contra Affair, the horribly futile Iran-Iraq War in which the US supported Iraq, and, now, as history continues to weave its ugly tapestry, Iran finds itself a bona-fide member of current President George Bush II’s Axis-of-Evil.

Iran prepares for “Asymmetrical Warfare” Kurt Nimmo

Iran has begun publicly preparing for a possible US attack, announcing efforts to bolster and mobilize recruits in citizens’ militias and making plans to engage in the type of ‘asymmetrical’ warfare that has plagued American troops in neighboring Iraq”

The U.S. will be confronted with a large number of resistance fighters in Iraq, conceivably upward to a million or more, and not the paltry 200,000 or so it currently faces and finds overwhelming. On the day after the Pentagon stupidly bombs Iran’s illusory nuclear facilities there will be hell to pay in Iraq.

Clinton Administration’s “Dual Containment” of Iran and Iraq: The War on Iran has been part of the US military Agenda for at Least Ten Years

DoD News Briefing Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen Monday, April 28, 1997: “With respect to Iran, I think Iran continues to present a long term threat to the region. They are acquiring and have acquired weapons of mass destruction, substantial levels of chemicals and we believe biological weapons as well. They have made an effort to acquire nuclear capability. So I think that our policy of dual containment is the right one, and we are going to encourage our allies to support that one.”

II. BEYOND IRAN: AMERICA’S MILITARY ROADMAP

Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Is this the Roadmap that Bush and Blair keep talking about?

Provides selected references on the New American Century Road Map together with the letter addressed by the PNAC to George W Bush dated September 20, 2001.

Neo-Con Agenda:, Iran China, Russia, Latin America by Jim Lobe

An influential foreign-policy neo-conservative with longstanding ties to top hawks in the administration of President George W Bush has laid out what he calls ”a checklist of the work the world will demand of this president and his subordinates in a second term.”

The list, which begins with the destruction of Fallujah in Iraq and ends with the development of ”appropriate strategies” for dealing with threats posed by China, Russia and ”the emergence of a number of aggressively anti-American regimes in Latin America,” also calls for ”regime change” in Iran and North Korea.

The Coming Wars by Seymour Hersh

George W. Bush’s reelection was not his only victory last fall. The President and his national-security advisers have consolidated control over the military and intelligence communities’ strategic analyses and covert operations to a degree unmatched since the rise of the post-Second World War national-security state. Bush has an aggressive and ambitious agenda for using that control—against the mullahs in Iran and against targets in the ongoing war on terrorism—during his second term.

The Empire in the Year 2005 by James Petras

The Iraqi resistance and the US weakness means that it is unlikely that the US will launch a major land war in any major ‘enemy’ country in 2005 – (Iran, Syria, Venezuela). The declining fortunes of the US colonial war and the increased withdrawal of satellite forces (Hungary, Poland, Ukraine) will provoke a major debate in 2005. Several leading Democrats, including Hilary Clinton, Republicans and Zionists are calling for deepening the war and calling up more troops – up to 100,000. Most of the Congressional “liberal” critics of Rumsfeld are more bellicose, more militarist: 2005 will see greater US military involvement in Iraq, more casualties and increasing opposition from the families of veterans, returning soldiers and “average Americans.”

America’s War for Global Domination by Michel Chossudovsky

We are the juncture of the most serious crisis in modern history. The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.  The wars on Afghanistan and Iraq are part of a broader military agenda, which was launched at the end of the Cold War. The ongoing war agenda including the plans to attack Iran, is a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War and the NATO led wars on Yugoslavia (1991-2001).

The deployment of America’s war machine purports to enlarge America’s economic sphere of influence. The U.S. has established a permanent military presence not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has military bases in several of the former Soviet republics on China’s Western frontier. In turn, since 1999, there has been a military buildup in the South China Sea.

Bush’s Operation Clean Sweep: World War IV in 2004? by John Stanton

Simultaneously with invasion of Syria, Iran will be subjected to an extraordinary air and cruise missile assault led by American forces. This operation will include additional military elements from the Turkish and Afghani military who will have been promised a piece of Iran once it is defeated. A withering air assault will come from the Northwest through Turkey, from the West from US controlled Iraq, from the East from the air bases in Afghanistan, and from carrier groups and cruise missile launching submarines, to include an Israeli submarine, in the Persian Gulf. Within 60 business days, Iran will be defeated by US-led forces.

Bush’s State of the Union: Billions for Endless War and Empire by International Action Center

Using the now-familiar and discredited accusation of possessing weapons of mass destruction, Bush made it clear that the people of Iran, Syria, and North Korea will suffer the same fate as the people of Iraq if he has his way.

He swore that we must “confront regimes that continue to harbor terrorists and pursue weapons of mass murder.” This same justification, proven to be an outright lie, was used for the war against Iraq. In Bush language, this means the intent to attack any country, anywhere, if it serves the interests of U.S. corporate Empire.

The U.S. government, in the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., is “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world.” Its death squads are at work in Colombia. The city of Miami is a base for terrorist attacks against the people of Cuba. The U.S. maintains the world’s largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction: illegal chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.

III. THE THREAT OF NUCLEAR WAR

Israeli Weapons of Mass Destruction: a Threat to Peace, by John Steinbach

Israeli nuclear weapons are among the world’s most sophisticated, designed for “war fighting” in the Middle East,

With between 200 and 500 thermonuclear weapons and a sophisticated delivery system, Israel has quietly supplanted Britain as the World’s 5th Largest nuclear power, and may currently rival France and China in the size and sophistication of its nuclear arsenal. Although dwarfed by the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia, each possessing over 10,000 nuclear weapons, Israel nonetheless is a major nuclear power, and should be publically recognized as such.. Since the Gulf War in 1991, while much attention has been lavished on the threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the major culprit in the region, Israel, has been largely ignored. Possessing chemical and biological weapons, an extremely sophisticated nuclear arsenal, and an aggressive strategy for their actual use, Israel provides the major regional impetus for the development of weapons of mass destruction and represents an acute threat to peace and stability in the Middle East.

U.S. Works Up Plan for Using Nuclear Arms, Pentagon Secret Report. by Paul Richter

The Bush administration has directed the military to prepare contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries and to build smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations, according to a classified Pentagon report.

The secret report says the Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria. It says the weapons could be used in three types of situations: against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack; in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or “in the event of surprising military developments.”
Pentagon Shocker: US Threatens Nuclear First Strike, by Fred Goldstein

The Bush administration has dramatically escalated its campaign of global intimidation by going public with portions of the Pentagon’s latest classified plans for the use of nuclear weapons and its targeting of China, Russia, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya with these weapons.

Secret Plan Outlines the Unthinkable by William Arkin

A secret policy review of the nation’s nuclear policy puts forth chilling new contingencies for nuclear war. The Bush administration, in a secret policy review ordered the Pentagon to draft contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against at least seven countries, naming not only Russia and the “axis of evil”–Iraq, Iran, and North Korea–but also China, Libya and Syria.

In addition, the U.S. Defense Department has been told to prepare for the possibility that nuclear weapons may be required in some future Arab-Israeli crisis. And, it is to develop plans for using nuclear weapons to retaliate against chemical or biological attacks, as well as “surprising military developments” of an unspecified nature.

Nuclear Nightmare: Bush Nuclear Policy and War On Iraq by John Steinbach,

The primary purpose of nuclear weapons has never been about deterrence or mutually assured destruction (MAD), but rather to serve as a coercive foreign policy instrument designed and intended for actual war fighting.5 Nuclear weapons designed to back up military intervention and enforce geopolitical dictates are seen by Pentagon war planners as the backbone of war-fighting strategy, and in this capacity have been used at least 27 times between 1945 and 1998
The US Nuclear Option and the “War on Terrorism” by Michel Chossudovsky

We are the juncture of the most serious crisis in modern history. In the wake of the tragic events of September 11, 2001, in the largest display of military might since the Second World War, the Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.

The multilateral safeguards of the Cold War era with regard to the production and use of nuclear weapons have been scrapped.

While Al Qaeda is presented to public opinion as constituting a nuclear threat, the US Senate has provided a “green light” to the use of tactical nuclear weapons in conventional war theaters against “rogue states” and terrorist organizations.

According to the Pentagon, these weapons are “harmless to civilians”.

Israel’s Nuclear Option: Vanunu: The Terrible Secret by Uri Avnery

The danger of nuclear arms was the main pretext for the invasion of Iraq. Iran is threatened in order to compel it to stop its nuclear efforts. Libya has surrendered and is dismantling its nuclear installations.

So what about Israel? The Americans are full partners in the creation of Israel’s “nuclear option”.

How was this exposed? With the help of Mordecai Vanunu, of course.

IV. OIL AND PETRODOLLARS

The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target: The Emerging Euro-denominated International Oil Marker    by William Clarke

In 2005-2006, The Tehran government has a developed a plan to begin competing with New York’s NYMEX and London’s IPE with respect to international oil trades – using a euro-denominated international oil-trading mechanism. This means that without some form of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project for U.S. global domination, Tehran’s objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on U.S. dollar supremacy in the international oil market

The Anglo-American Military Axis by Michel Chossudovsky 

The clash between Great Powers (“Old Europe” versus and the Anglo-American military axis) broadly pertains to Defense and the military-industrial complex, Control over Oil and Gas Reserves, Money and currency systems: clash between the Euro and the Dollar.

V. WAR PROPAGANDA: INVENTING AN OUTSIDE ENEMY

The Role of Political Islam: Inventing the Enemy, by Dave Stratman
It used to be said during the Cold War that, “If the Communist threat did not exist, the US would have to invent it.” The threat of nuclear war and the notion of a Communist (or capitalist) under every bed provided American and Soviet ruling elites excellent means to frighten and control their own citizens, justify enormous arms expenditures, and legitimize power projection abroad in the name of saving the world from Communism (or capitalism).

Greasing the Skids for Mass Murdering Iranians, by Kurt Nimmo

The Bush administration and the US congress are busy at work on the “Iran Freedom and Support Act,” in other words a bill designed to get America ready to bomb Iran. “By supporting the people of Iran, and through greater outreach to pro-democracy groups, we will hopefully foster a peaceful transition to democracy in Iran,”  “The bill also notes the futility of working with the Iranian government.”

This E-Report is published as a service to our Global Research members. We  kindly request Readers of this Special Report to either become A Member of Global Research , or to make a modest contribution in the form of a donation.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Iran: Next Target of US Military Aggression in the Wake of the Invasion of Iraq. The 2005 “Military Roadmap”

Sorting Out the Russia Mess

November 1st, 2017 by Robert Parry

Featured image: Former Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos. (Source: Consortiumnews)

Russia-gate special prosecutor Robert Mueller has turned up the heat on President Trump with the indictment of Trump’s former campaign manager for unrelated financial crimes and the disclosure of a guilty plea from a low-level foreign policy adviser for lying to the FBI.

While longtime Republican fixer Paul Manafort, who helped guide Trump’s campaign to the GOP nomination in summer 2016, was the big name in the news on Monday, the mainstream media focused more on court documents related to George Papadopoulos, a 30-year-old campaign aide who claims to have heard about Russia possessing Hillary Clinton’s emails before they became public on the Internet, mostly via WikiLeaks.

While that would seem to bolster the Russia-gate narrative – that Russian intelligence “hacked” Democratic emails and President Vladimir Putin ordered the emails be made public to undermine Clinton’s campaign – the evidentiary thread that runs through Papadopoulos’s account remains tenuous.

That’s in part because his credibility has already been undermined by his guilty plea for lying to the FBI and by the fact that he now has a motive to provide something the prosecutors might want in exchange for leniency. Plus, there is the hearsay and contested quality of Papadopoulos’s supposed information, some of which already has turned out to be false.

According to the court documents, Papadopoulos got to know a professor of international relations who claimed to have “substantial connections with Russian government officials,” with the professor identified in press reports as Joseph Mifsud, a little-known academic associated with the University of Stirling in Scotland.

The first contact supposedly occurred in mid-March 2016 in Italy, with a second meeting in London on March 24 when the professor purportedly introduced Papadopoulos to a Russian woman whom the young campaign aide believed to be Putin’s niece, an assertion that Mueller’s investigators determined wasn’t true.

Trump, who then was under pressure for not having a foreign policy team, included Papadopoulos as part of a list drawn up to fill that gap, and Papadopoulos participated in a campaign meeting on March 31 in Washington at which he suggested a meeting between Trump and Putin, a prospect that other senior aides reportedly slapped down.

The ‘Email’ Breakfast

But Papadopoulos continued his outreach to Russia, according to the court documents, which depict the most explosive meeting as an April 26 breakfast in London with the professor (Mifsud) supposedly saying he had been in Moscow and “learned that the Russians had obtained ‘dirt’ on then-candidate Clinton” and possessed “thousands of emails.” Mainstream press accounts concluded that Mifsud must have been referring to the later-released emails.

However, Mifsud told The Washington Post in an email last August that he had “absolutely no contact with the Russian government” and described his ties to Russia as strictly in academic fields.

In an interview with the U.K. Daily Telegraph after Monday’s disclosures, Mifsud acknowledged meeting with Papadopoulos but disputed the contents of the conversations as cited in the court papers. Specifically, he denied knowing anything about emails containing “dirt” on Clinton and called the claim that he introduced Papadopoulos to a “female Russian national” as a “laughingstock.”

According to the Telegraph interview, Mifsud said he tried to put Papadopoulos in touch with experts on the European Union and introduced him to the director of a Russian think tank, the Russian International Affairs Council.

It was the latter contact that the court papers presumably referred to in saying that on May 4, the Russian contact with ties to the foreign ministry wrote to Papadopoulos and Mifsud, reporting that ministry officials were “open for cooperation,” a message that Papadopoulos forwarded to a senior campaign official, asking whether the contacts were “something we want to move forward with.”

However, even an article in The New York Times, which has aggressively pushed the Russia-gate “scandal” from the beginning, noted the evidentiary holes that followed from that point.

The Times’ Scott Shane wrote:

“A crucial detail is still missing: Whether and when Mr. Papadopoulos told senior Trump campaign officials about Russia’s possession of hacked emails. And it appears that the young aide’s quest for a deeper connection with Russian officials, while he aggressively pursued it, led nowhere.”

Shane added,

“the court documents describe in detail how Mr. Papadopoulos continued to report to senior campaign officials on his efforts to arrange meetings with Russian officials, … the documents do not say explicitly whether, and to whom, he passed on his most explosive discovery – that the Russians had what they considered compromising emails on Mr. Trump’s opponent.

“J.D. Gordon, a former Pentagon official who worked for the Trump campaign as a national security adviser and helped arrange the March 31 foreign policy meeting, said he had known nothing about Mr. Papadopoulos’ discovery that Russia had obtained Democratic emails or of his prolonged pursuit of meetings with Russians.”

Reasons to Doubt

If prosecutor Mueller had direct evidence that Papadopoulos had informed the Trump campaign about the Clinton emails, you would assume that the proof would have been included in Monday’s disclosures. Further, since Papadopoulos was flooding the campaign with news about his Russian outreach, you might have expected that he would say something about how helpful the Russians had been in publicizing the Democratic emails.

The absence of supporting evidence that Papadopoulos conveyed his hot news on the emails to campaign officials and Mifsud’s insistence that he knew nothing about the emails would normally raise serious questions about Papadopoulos’s credibility on this most crucial point.

At least for now, those gaps represent major holes in the storyline. But Official Washington has been so desperate for “proof” about the alleged Russian “election meddling” for so long, that professional skepticism has been unwelcome in most media outlets.

There is also another side of the story that rarely gets mentioned in the U.S. mainstream media: that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has repeatedly denied that he received the two batches of purloined Democratic emails – one about the Democratic National Committee and one about Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta – from the Russians. While it is surely possible that the Russians might have used cutouts to pass on the emails, Assange and associates have suggested that at least the DNC emails came from a disgruntled insider.

Also, former U.S. intelligence experts have questioned whether at least one batch of disclosed emails could have come from an overseas “hack” because the rapid download speed is more typical of copying files locally onto a memory stick or thumb drive.

What I was told by an intelligence source several months ago was that Russian intelligence did engage in hacking efforts to uncover sensitive information, much as U.S. and other nations’ intelligence services do, and that Democratic targets were included in the Russian effort.

But the source said the more perplexing question was whether the Kremlin then ordered release of the data, something that Russian intelligence is usually loath to do and something that in this case would have risked retaliation from the expected winner of the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton.

But such questions and doubts are clearly not welcome in the U.S. mainstream media, most of which has embraced Mueller’s acceptance of Papadopoulos’s story as the long-awaited “smoking gun” of Russia-gate.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Sorting Out the Russia Mess

Can We Get Rid of Nuclear Weapons and War Itself?

November 1st, 2017 by John Scales Avery

To:
Hon Mr Mr. Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Prime Minister
Hon Mr Anders Samuelsen, Minister of Foreign Affairs
Hon Mr Mr. Ib Petersen, Ambassador of Denmark to the United Nations
Hon Mr Carsten Staur, Ambassador of Denmark to the UN in Geneva

CC: Danish members of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament and other friends in the Danish Parliament

Dear friends,

The Non-Aligned Movement has submitted a draft resolution to the United Nations General Assembly laying out the general mandate and dates for the 2018 United Nations High-Level Conference for Nuclear Disarmament. The vote at the United Nations will take place between Oct 26 and Nov 2. I urge you to support the resolution.

Until now, Denmark has been slow to support the recently-adopted Treaty on the Prohibition of  Nuclear Weapons. I respectfully urge you to support the Treaty and the proposed 2018 nuclear summit meeting for the following reasons:

THE THREAT OF A NUCLEAR CATASTROPHE

As bad as conventional arms and conventional weapons may be, it is the possibility of a catastrophic nuclear war that poses the greatest threat to humanity. There are today roughly 16,000 nuclear warheads in the world. The total explosive power of the warheads that exist or that could be made on short notice is approximately equal to 500,000 Hiroshima bombs.

To multiply the tragedy of Hiroshima by a factor of half a million makes an enormous difference, not only quantitatively, but also qualitatively. Those who have studied the question believe that a nuclear catastrophe today would inflict irreversible damage on our civilization, genetic pool and environment.

Thermonuclear weapons consist of an inner core where the fission of uranium-235 or plutonium takes place. The fission reaction in the core is able to start a fusion reaction in the next layer, which contains isotopes of hydrogen. It is possible to add a casing of ordinary uranium outside the hydrogen layer, and under the extreme conditions produced by the fusion reaction, this ordinary uranium can undergo fission. In this way, a fission-fusion-fission bomb of almost limitless power can be produced.

For a victim of severe radiation exposure, the symptoms during the first week are nausea, vomiting, fever, apathy, delirium, diarrhoea, oropharyngeal lesions and leukopenia. Death occurs during the first or second week.

We can perhaps be helped to imagine what a nuclear catastrophe means in human terms by reading the words of a young university professor, who was 2,500 meters from the hypocenter at the time of the bombing of Hiroshima:

“Everything I saw made a deep impression: a park nearby covered with dead bodies… very badly injured people evacuated in my direction… Perhaps most impressive were girls, very young girls, not only with their clothes torn off, but their skin peeled off as well. … My immediate thought was that this was like the hell I had always read about. … I had never seen anything which resembled it before, but I thought that should there be a hell, this was it.”

One argument that has been used in favor of nuclear weapons is that no sane political leader would employ them. However, the concept of deterrence ignores the possibility of war by accident or miscalculation, a danger that has been increased by nuclear proliferation and by the use of computers with very quick reaction times to control weapons systems. The present North Korean crisis casts severe doubt on the assumption that political leaders always have good judgement, especially in a crisis situation when they are provoked by a war of words.

Recent nuclear power plant accidents remind us that accidents frequently happen through human and technical failure, even for systems which are considered to be very “safe.” We must also remember the time scale of the problem. To assure the future of humanity, nuclear catastrophe must be avoided year after year and decade after decade. In the long run, the safety of civilization cannot be achieved except by the abolition of nuclear weapons, and ultimately the abolition of the institution of war.

Here are links to some articles that I have written on flaws in the concept of nuclear deterrence, the advantages of a Nuclear Weapons Convention, and the need for Europe to be independent:

http://cadmusjournal.org/article/issue-4/flaws-concept-nuclear-deterrance

http://cadmusjournal.org/article/issue-6/arms-trade-treaty-opens-new-possibilities-un

http://www.countercurrents.org/avery090414.htm

http://lankanewsweb.net/featured/item/3059-the-danger-of-fascism-in-the-united-states-john-scales-avery

In 1985, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War received the Nobel Peace Prize. IPPNW had been founded in 1980 by six physicians, three from the Soviet Union and three from the United States. Today, the organization has wide membership among the world’s physicians.

Professor Bernard Lowen of the Harvard School of Public Health, one of the founders of IPPNW, said in a recent speech:

“…No public health hazard ever faced by humankind equals the threat of nuclear war. Never before has man possessed the destructive resources to make this planet uninhabitable… Modern medicine has nothing to offer, not even a token benefit, in the event of nuclear war…

“We are but transient passengers on this planet Earth. It does not belong to us. We are not free to doom generations yet unborn. We are not at liberty to erase humanity’s past or dim its future. Social systems do not endure for eternity. Only life can lay claim to uninterrupted continuity. This continuity is sacred.”

The 2017 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), in recognition of the organization’s contributions to the adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons by a massive majority in the UN General Assembly.

The 2017 award to ICAN was also motivated by the fact the danger of  a nuclear catastrophe is higher today than it has been at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The danger of a catastrophic nuclear war casts a dark shadow over the future of our species. It also casts a very black shadow over the future of the global environment. The environmental consequences of a massive exchange of nuclear weapons have been treated in a number of studies by meteorologists and other experts from both East and West. They predict that a large-scale use of nuclear weapons would result in fire storms with very high winds and high temperatures, which would burn a large proportion of the wild land fuels in the affected nations. The resulting smoke and dust would block out sunlight for a period of many months, at first only in the northern hemisphere but later also in the southern hemisphere.

Temperatures in many places would fall far below freezing, and much of the earth’s plant life would be
killed. Animals and humans would then die of starvation. The nuclear winter effect was first discovered as a result of the Mariner 9 spacecraft exploration of Mars in 1971. The spacecraft arrived in the middle of an enormous dust-storm on Mars, and measured a large temperature drop at the surface of the planet, accompanied by a heating of the upper atmosphere. These measurements allowed scientists to check their theoretical models for predicting the effect of dust and other pollutants distributed in planetary atmospheres.

Using experience gained from the studies of Mars, R.P. Turco, O.B. Toon, T. Ackerman, J.B. Pollack and C. Sagan made a computer study of the climatic effects of the smoke and dust that would result from a large-scale nuclear war. This early research project is sometimes called the TTAPS Study, after the initials of the authors.

In April 1983, a special meeting was held in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where the results of the TTAPS Study and other independent studies of the nuclear winter effect were discussed by more than 100 experts. Their conclusions were presented at a forum in Washington, D.C., the following December, under the chairmanship of U.S. Senators Kennedy and Hatfield. The numerous independent studies of the nuclear winter effect all agreed of the following main predictions:

High-yield nuclear weapons exploded near the earth’s surface would put large amounts of dust into the upper atmosphere. Nuclear weapons exploded over cities, forests, oilfields and refineries would produce fire storms of the type experienced in Dresden and Hamburg after incendiary bombings during the Second World War. The combination of high-altitude dust and lower altitude soot would prevent sunlight from reaching the earth’s surface, and the degree of obscuration would be extremely high for a wide range of scenarios.

A baseline scenario used by the TTAPS study assumes a 5,000-megaton nuclear exchange, but the threshold for triggering the nuclear winter effect is believed to be much lower than that. After such an exchange, the screening effect of pollutants in the atmosphere might be so great that, in the northern and middle latitudes, the sunlight reaching the earth would be only 1$\%$ of ordinary sunlight on a clear day, and this effect would persist for many months. As a result, the upper layers in the atmosphere might rise in temperature by as much as 100 degrees C, while the surface temperatures would fall,
perhaps by as much a 50 degrees C.

The temperature inversion produced in this way would lead to superstability, a condition in which the normal mixing of atmospheric layers is suppressed. The hydrological cycle (which normally takes moist air from the oceans to a higher and cooler level, where the moisture condenses as rain) would be strongly suppressed. Severe droughts would thus take place over continental land masses. The normal cleansing action of rain would be absent in the atmosphere, an effect which would prolong the nuclear winter.

In the northern hemisphere, forests would die because of lack of sunlight, extreme cold, and drought. Although the temperature drop in the southern hemisphere would be less severe, it might still be sufficient to kill a large portion of the tropical forests, which normally help to renew the earth’s oxygen.

The oxygen content of the atmosphere would then fall dangerously, while the concentration of carbon dioxide and oxides of nitrogen produced by firestorms would remain high. The oxides of nitrogen would ultimately diffuse to the upper atmosphere, where they would destroy the ozone layer.

Thus, even when the sunlight returned after an absence of many months, it would be sunlight containing a large proportion of the ultraviolet frequencies which are normally absorbed by the ozone in the stratosphere, and therefore a type of light dangerous to life. Finally, after being so severely disturbed, there is no guarantee that the global climate would return to its normal equilibrium.

Even a nuclear war below the threshold of nuclear winter might have climatic effects very damaging to human life. Professor Paul Ehrlich, of Stanford University, has expressed this in the following words:

“…A smaller war, which set off fewer fires and put less dust into the atmosphere, could easily depress temperatures enough to essentially cancel grain production in the northern hemisphere. That in itself would be the greatest catastrophe ever delivered upon Homo Sapiens, just that one thing, not worrying about prompt effects. Thus even below the threshold, one cannot think of survival of a nuclear war as just being able to stand up after the bomb has gone off.”

War was always madness, always immoral, always the cause of unspeakable suffering, economic waste and widespread destruction, and always a source of poverty, hate, barbarism and endless cycles of revenge and counter-revenge. It has always been a crime for soldiers to kill people, just as it is a crime for murderers in civil society to kill people. No flag has ever been wide enough to cover up atrocities.

But today, the development of all-destroying modern weapons has put war completely beyond the bounds of sanity and elementary humanity.

Today, war is not only insane, but also a violation of international law. Both the United Nations Charter and the Nuremberg Principles make it a crime to launch an aggressive war. According to the Nuremberg Principles, every soldier is responsible for the crimes that he or she commits, even while acting under the orders of a superior officer.

Nuclear weapons are not only insane, immoral and potentially omnicidal, but also criminal under international law. In response to questions put to it by WHO and the UN General Assembly, the International Court of Justice ruled in 1996 that “the threat and use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and particularly the principles and rules of humanitarian law.” The only possible exception to this general rule might be “an extreme circumstance of self-defense, in which the very survival of a state would be at stake”. But the Court refused to say that even in this extreme circumstance the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be legal. It left the exceptional case undecided. In addition, the Court added unanimously that “there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.”

This is a moment of crisis for human civilization and the biosphere. Can we not rid ourselves of both nuclear weapons and the institution of war itself? We must act quickly and resolutely before everything that we love in our beautiful world is reduced to radioactive ashes.

Yours respectfully,

John Scales Avery, Ph.D.
Associate Professor Emeritus
University of Copenhagen
Chairman, Danish National Group
Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs

*

John Avery received a B.Sc. in theoretical physics from MIT and an M.Sc. from the University of Chicago. He later studied theoretical chemistry at the University of London, and was awarded a Ph.D. there in 1965. He is now Lektor Emeritus, Associate Professor, at the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen. Fellowships, memberships in societies: Since 1990 he has been the Contact Person in Denmark for Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs.  In 1995, this group received the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts. He was the Member of the Danish Peace Commission of 1998. Technical Advisor, World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe (1988- 1997). Chairman of the Danish Peace Academy, April 2004. http://www.fredsakademiet.dk/ordbog/aord/a220.htm.  He can be reached at [email protected]

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Can We Get Rid of Nuclear Weapons and War Itself?

L’impatto del Pentagono italiano

October 31st, 2017 by Manlio Dinucci

Gli abitanti del quartiere di Centocelle, a Roma, protestano a ragione per l’impatto del costruendo Pentagono italiano sul parco archeologico e la sua area verde (il manifesto, 29 ottobre).

C’è però un altro impatto, ben più grave, che passa sotto silenzio: quello sulla Costituzione italiana. Come abbiamo già documentato sul manifesto (7 marzo), il progetto di riunire i vertici di tutte le forze armate in un’unica struttura, copia in miniatura del Pentagono statunitense, è parte organica della «revisione del modello operativo delle Forze armate», istituzionalizzata dal «Libro Bianco per la sicurezza internazionale e la difesa» a firma della ministra Pinotti. Esso sovverte le basi costituzionali della Repubblica italiana, riconfigurandola quale potenza che interviene militarmente nelle aree prospicienti il Mediterraneo – Nordafrica, Medioriente, Balcani – a sostegno dei propri «interessi vitali» economici e strategici, e ovunque nel mondo – dal Baltico all’Afghanistan – siano in gioco gli interessi dell’Occidente rappresentati dalla Nato sotto comando Usa. Funzionale a tutto questo è la Legge quadro del 2016, che istituzionalizza le missioni militari all’estero (attualmente 30 in 20 paesi), finanziandole con un fondo del Ministero dell’economia e delle finanze.

Cresce così la spesa militare reale che, con queste e altre voci aggiuntive al bilancio della Difesa, è salita a una media di circa 70 milioni di euro al giorno, che dovranno arrivare a circa 100 milioni al giorno come richiesto dalla Nato.

La ministra Pinotti

La riconfigurazione delle Forze armate in funzione offensiva richiede sempre più costosi armamenti di nuova generazione. Ultimo acquisto il missile statunitense Agm-88E Aargm, versione . ammodernata (costo 18,2 milioni di dollari per 25 missili) rispetto a precedenti modelli acquistati dall’Italia: è un missile a medio raggio lanciato dai cacciabombardieri per distruggere i radar all’inizio dell’offensiva, accecando così le difese del paese sotto attacco.

L’industria produttrice, la Orbital Atk, precisa che «il nuovo missile è compatibile anche con l‘F-35», il caccia della statunitense Lockheed Martin alla cui produzione l’Italia partecipa con l’impianto Faco di Cameri gestito da Leonardo (già Finmeccanica), impegnandosi ad acquistarne 90.

Il primo F-35 è arrivato nella base di Amendola il 12 dicembre 2016, facendo dell’Italia il primo paese a ricevere, dopo gli Usa, il nuovo caccia di quinta generazione che sarà armato anche della nuova bomba nucleare B61-12.

L’Italia, però, non solo acquista ma produce armamenti. L’industria militare viene definita nel Libro Bianco «pilastro del Sistema Paese» poiché «contribuisce, attraverso le esportazioni, al riequilibrio della bilancia commerciale e alla promozione di prodotti dell’industria nazionale in settori ad alta remunerazione».

I risultati non mancano: Leonardo è salita al nono posto mondiale nella classifica delle 100 maggiori industrie belliche del mondo, con vendite annue di armamenti per circa 9 miliardi di dollari nel 2016. Agli inizi di ottobre Leonardo ha annunciato l’apertura di un altro impianto in Australia, dove produce armamenti e sistemi di comunicazione per la marina militare australiana. In compenso, per spostare sempre più la produzione sul settore militare, che fornisce oggi a Leonardo l’84% del fatturato, sono state vendute alla giapponese Hitachi due aziende Finmeccanica, Ansaldo Sts e Ansaldo Breda, leader mondiali nella produzione ferroviaria.

Su questo «pilastro del Sistema Paese» si edifica, con fondi stornati dal budget della Legge di stabilità, il Pentagono italiano, nuova sede del Ministero della Guerra.

Manlio Dinucci

Foto :  il ‘Pentagono italiano’.

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on L’impatto del Pentagono italiano

The Deep State’s JFK Triumph over Trump

October 31st, 2017 by Ray McGovern

It was summer 1963 when a senior official of CIA’s operations directorate treated our Junior Officer Trainee (JOT) class to an unbridled rant against President John F. Kennedy. He accused JFK, among other things, of rank cowardice in refusing to send U.S. armed forces to bail out Cuban rebels pinned down during the CIA-launched invasion at the Bay of Pigs, blowing the chance to drive Cuba’s Communist leader Fidel Castro from power.

It seemed beyond odd that a CIA official would voice such scathing criticism of a sitting President at a training course for those selected to be CIA’s future leaders. I remember thinking to myself, “This guy is unhinged; he would kill Kennedy, given the chance.”

Our special guest lecturer looked a lot like E. Howard Hunt, but more than a half-century later, I cannot be sure it was he. Our notes from such training/indoctrination were classified and kept under lock and key.

At the end of our JOT orientation, we budding Agency leaders had to make a basic choice between joining the directorate for substantive analysis or the operations directorate where case officers run spies and organize regime changes (in those days, we just called the process overthrowing governments).

I chose the analysis directorate and, once ensconced in the brand new headquarters building in Langley, Virginia, I found it strange that subway-style turnstiles prevented analysts from going to the “operations side of the house,” and vice versa. Truth be told, we were never one happy family.

President John F. Kennedy in the motorcade through Dallas shortly before his assassination on Nov. 22, 1963. (Photo credit: Walt Cisco, Dallas Morning News)

I cannot speak for my fellow analysts in the early 1960s, but it never entered my mind that operatives on the other side of the turnstiles might be capable of assassinating a President – the very President whose challenge to do something for our country had brought many of us to Washington in the first place. But, barring the emergence of a courageous whistleblower-patriot like Daniel Ellsberg, Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden, I do not expect to live long enough to learn precisely who orchestrated and carried out the assassination of JFK.

And yet, in a sense, those particulars seem less important than two main lessons learned:

(1) If a President can face down intense domestic pressure from the power elite and turn toward peace with perceived foreign enemies, then anything is possible. The darkness of Kennedy’s murder should not obscure the light of that basic truth; and

(2) There is ample evidence pointing to a state execution of a President willing to take huge risks for peace. While no post-Kennedy president can ignore that harsh reality, it remains possible that a future President with the vision and courage of JFK might beat the odds – particularly as the American Empire disintegrates and domestic discontent grows.

I do hope to be around next April after the 180-day extension for release of the remaining JFK documents. But – absent a gutsy whistleblower – I wouldn’t be surprised to see in April, a Washington Post banner headline much like the one that appeared Saturday: “JFK files: The promise of revelations derailed by CIA, FBI.”

The New Delay Is the Story

You might have thought that almost 54 years after Kennedy was murdered in the streets of Dallas – and after knowing for a quarter century the supposedly final deadline for releasing the JFK files – the CIA and FBI would not have needed a six-month extension to decide what secrets that they still must hide.

Journalist Caitlin Johnstone hits the nail on the head in pointing out that the biggest revelation from last week’s limited release of the JFK files is “the fact that the FBI and CIA still desperately need to keep secrets about something that happened 54 years ago.”

What was released on Oct. 26, was a tiny fraction of what had remained undisclosed in the National Archives. To find out why, one needs to have some appreciation of a 70-year-old American political tradition that might be called “fear of the spooks.”

That the CIA and FBI are still choosing what we should be allowed to see concerning who murdered John Kennedy may seem unusual, but there is hoary precedent for it. After JFK’s assassination on Nov. 22, 1963, the well-connected Allen Dulles, whom Kennedy had fired as CIA director after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, got himself appointed to the Warren Commission and took the lead in shaping the investigation of JFK’s murder.

Autopsy photo of President John F. Kennedy.

By becoming de facto head of the Commission, Dulles was perfectly placed to protect himself and his associates, if any commissioners or investigators were tempted to question whether Dulles and the CIA played any role in killing Kennedy. When a few independent-minded journalists did succumb to that temptation, they were immediately branded – you guessed it – “conspiracy theorists.”

And so, the big question remains: Did Allen Dulles and other “cloak-and-dagger” CIA operatives have a hand in John Kennedy’s assassination and subsequent cover-up? In my view and the view of many more knowledgeable investigators, the best dissection of the evidence on the murder appears in James Douglass’s 2008 book, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters.

After updating and arraying the abundant evidence, and conducting still more interviews, Douglass concludes that the answer to the big question is Yes. Reading Douglass’s book today may help explain why so many records are still withheld from release, even in redacted form, and why, indeed, we may never see them in their entirety.

Truman: CIA a Frankenstein?

When Kennedy was assassinated, it must have occurred to former President Harry Truman, as it did to many others, that the disgraced Allen Dulles and his associates might have conspired to get rid of a President they felt was soft on Communism – and dismissive of the Deep State of that time. Not to mention their vengeful desire to retaliate for Kennedy’s response to the Bay of Pigs fiasco. (Firing Allen Dulles and other CIA paragons of the Deep State for that fiasco simply was not done.)

Exactly one month after John Kennedy was killed, the Washington Post published an op-ed by Harry Truman titled “Limit CIA Role to Intelligence.” The first sentence read,

“I think it has become necessary to take another look at the purpose and operations of our Central Intelligence Agency.”

Strangely, the op-ed appeared only in the Post’s early edition on Dec. 22, 1963. It was excised from that day’s later editions and, despite being authored by the President who was responsible for setting up the CIA in 1947, the all-too-relevant op-ed was ignored in all other major media.

CIA Director Allen Dulles

Truman clearly believed that the spy agency had lurched off in what Truman thought were troubling directions. He began his op-ed by underscoring “the original reason why I thought it necessary to organize this Agency … and what I expected it to do.” It would be “charged with the collection of all intelligence reports from every available source, and to have those reports reach me as President without Department ‘treatment’ or interpretations.”

Truman then moved quickly to one of the main things clearly bothering him. He wrote

“the most important thing was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisions.”

It was not difficult to see this as a reference to how one of the agency’s early directors, Allen Dulles, tried to trick President Kennedy into sending U.S. forces to rescue the group of invaders who had landed on the beach at the Bay of Pigs in April 1961 with no chance of success, absent the speedy commitment of U.S. air and ground support. The planned mouse-trapping of the then-novice President Kennedy had been underpinned by a rosy “analysis” showing how this pin-prick on the beach would lead to a popular uprising against Fidel Castro.

Wallowing in the Bay of Pigs

Arch-Establishment figure Allen Dulles was offended when young President Kennedy, on entering office, had the temerity to question the CIA’s Bay of Pigs plans, which had been set in motion under President Dwight Eisenhower. When Kennedy made it clear he would not approve the use of U.S. combat forces, Dulles set out, with supreme confidence, to give the President no choice except to send U.S. troops to the rescue.

Coffee-stained notes handwritten by Allen Dulles were discovered after his death and reported by historian Lucien S. Vandenbroucke. In his notes, Dulles explained that, “when the chips were down,” Kennedy would be forced by “the realities of the situation” to give whatever military support was necessary “rather than permit the enterprise to fail.”

Cuban leader Fidel Castro with his trademark cigar.

The “enterprise” which Dulles said could not fail was, of course, the overthrow of Fidel Castro. After mounting several failed operations to assassinate Castro, this time Dulles meant to get his man, with little or no attention to how Castro’s patrons in Moscow might react eventually. (The next year, the Soviets agreed to install nuclear missiles in Cuba as a deterrent to future U.S. aggression, leading to the Cuban Missile Crisis).

In 1961, the reckless Joint Chiefs of Staff, whom then-Deputy Secretary of State George Ball later described as a “sewer of deceit,” relished any chance to confront the Soviet Union and give it, at least, a black eye. (One can still smell the odor from that sewer in many of the documents released last week.)

But Kennedy stuck to his guns, so to speak. A few months after the abortive invasion of Cuba — and his refusal to send the U.S. military to the rescue — Kennedy fired Dulles and his co-conspirators and told a friend that he wanted to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds.” Clearly, the outrage was mutual.

When JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters came out, the mainstream media had an allergic reaction and gave it almost no reviews. It is a safe bet, though, that Barack Obama was given a copy and that this might account in some degree for his continual deference – timorousness even – toward the CIA.

Could fear of the Deep State be largely why President Obama felt he had to leave the Cheney/Bush-anointed CIA torturers, kidnappers and black-prison wardens in place, instructing his first CIA chief, Leon Panetta, to become, in effect, the agency’s lawyer rather than take charge? Is this why Obama felt he could not fire his clumsily devious Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who had to apologize to Congress for giving “clearly erroneous” testimony under oath in March 2013? Does Obama’s fear account for his allowing then-National Security Agency Director Keith Alexander and counterparts in the FBI to continue to mislead the American people, even though the documents released by Edward Snowden showed them – as well as Clapper – to be lying about the government’s surveillance activities?

Is this why Obama fought tooth and nail to protect CIA Director John Brennan by trying to thwart publication of the comprehensive Senate Intelligence Committee investigation of CIA torture, which was based on original Agency cables, emails, and headquarters memos? [See here and here.]

The Deep State Today

Many Americans cling to a comforting conviction that the Deep State is a fiction, at least in a “democracy” like the United States. References to the enduring powers of the security agencies and other key bureaucracies have been essentially banned by the mainstream media, which many other suspicious Americans have come to see as just one more appendage of the Deep State.

Sen. Charles Schumer, (D-N.Y)

But occasionally the reality of how power works pokes through in some unguarded remark by a Washington insider, someone like Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, the Senate Minority Leader with 36 years of experience in Congress. As Senate Minority Leader, he also is an ex officio member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is supposed to oversee the intelligence agencies.

During a Jan. 3, 2017 interview with MSNBC’S Rachel Maddow, Schumer told Maddow nonchalantly about the dangers awaiting President-elect Donald Trump if he kept on “taking on the intelligence community.” She and Schumer were discussing Trump’s sharp tweeting regarding U.S. intelligence and evidence of “Russian hacking” (which both Schumer and Maddow treat as flat fact).

Schumer said:

“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.  So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he’s being really dumb to do this.”

Three days after that interview, President Obama’s intelligence chiefs released a nearly evidence-free “assessment” claiming that the Kremlin engaged in a covert operation to put Trump into office, fueling a “scandal” that has hobbled Trump’s presidency. On Monday, Russia-gate special prosecutor Robert Mueller indicted Trump’s one-time campaign manager Paul Manafort on unrelated money laundering, tax and foreign lobbying charges, apparently in the hope that Manafort will provide incriminating evidence against Trump.

So, President Trump has been in office long enough to have learned how the game is played and the “six ways from Sunday” that the intelligence community has for “getting back at you.” He appears to be as intimidated as was President Obama.

Trump’s awkward acquiescence in the Deep State’s last-minute foot-dragging regarding release of the JFK files is simply the most recent sign that he, too, is under the thumb of what the Soviets used to call “the organs of state security.”

Ray McGovern works with the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington.  During his 27-year career at CIA, he prepared the President’s Daily Brief for Nixon, Ford, and Reagan, and conducted the one-on-one morning briefings from 1981 to 1985.  He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Deep State’s JFK Triumph over Trump

The Assertion of Identity

October 31st, 2017 by Dr. Chandra Muzaffar

News reports about communities and regions asserting their identity are capturing media headlines everywhere. While the media gives a lot of coverage to an event or action connected with the phenomenon — a referendum in Iraqi Kurdistan or a vote in the Catalonian parliament — the reasons that explain the assertion of identity are seldom analysed in depth.

The unique characteristics of the assertion of identity in a specific instance and why it is different from another similar episode elsewhere are hardly discussed in the popular media. The implications of identity assertion for the nation-state at this juncture and how it will shape the globalised world of the future are issues that are not on the radar screen of both the conventional and alternative media.

In covering the quest for identity in different parts of the world the media should as a general proposition pay serious attention to their varying histories and how they have evolved over time. The public will then begin to understand why the quest for identity of the Muslims of Mindanao is different from that of the Tamils of Sri Lanka. Both would be different — though there are some similarities — with the identity struggle of the Irish of Northern Ireland.

A historical-cum-evolutionary perspective will also enable us to appreciate why communities and states that have been annexed or were conquered assert their identity in a different manner from those who were forced to assimilate into a dominant culture. In the former category would be the Malays of the Pattani kingdom in relation to their Siamese Rulers or the Rohingyas of Arakan (now Rakhine) in relation to their Burmese Rulers in contrast to the African slave population vis-à-vis the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) wielders of power in the United States of America.

Power and politics are also significant in shaping identity. Power elites play a decisive role in influencing identity consciousness, for better or for worse, in most societies through laws, policies or simply through their rhetoric. It is largely because of the arrogance of Israeli occupation and usurpation of Palestinian and other Arab lands that its victims have sought to re-assert their identity through nationalism and religion.

Indeed, religious consciousness has become a major factor in the formation of identity consciousness in many Muslim majority societies. It has in some instances given birth to Islamic states. In other cases, it has intensified the clamour for Islamic law, Islamic institutions and an Islamic way of life often expressed through form rather than substance.

Religion’s impact upon identity consciousness is not just among Muslims. It is happening in almost every religion. In the United States of America, the Christian Right which received a boost with the election of Donald Trump as the US President has become a powerful force in domestic politics and public life pursuing an agenda which repudiates justice for the many. In Israel, the Judaic Right with its belligerent stance towards non-Jews commands more clout today than 15 years ago. Likewise, in India, the Hindutva movement which in a sense reached its pinnacle with the massive electoral triumph of the BJP and Narendra Modi in 2014 is seeking to recast Indian identity in superficial Hindu terms. Buddhist monks in Myanmar are also actively projecting a distorted version of Buddhism which privileges the majority Burman community.

While politics and religion are fundamental in identity conflicts, economics should also be considered. Sometimes disparities in economic power — as in the case of Serbs, Croats and Bosnians in the demised Yugoslavia — impact upon the expression of identity in conflict situations. Economic differences also shaped to some extent the Hutu-Tutsi conflict in Rwanda in 1994.

Then there is the territorial dimension to identity. It not only strengthens the identity consciousness of the community in question but also strains the cohesiveness of the larger entity to which that community belongs. Witness the break-up of Pakistan and the emergence of Bangladesh in 1971. It is partly because of an ethnicity-territory nexus that Timor- Leste could assert its independence from Indonesia in May 2002.

Majority — minority issues also shape identity. A majoritarian psychology within segments of the majority could persuade them to emphasise symbols and practices that privilege majority identity to the detriment of the minority.  As we have hinted, this has been happening in Myanmar. At the same time, a well-heeled minority may have no empathy for the majority and pursue a self-serving identity agenda. This was perhaps true of the Indians of the Fijis or the Indians in East Africa in the past.

There are also moments when identity assertiveness goes beyond the nation-state. The significance of the regional dimension in the Kurdish push for an independent state with its consequences for at least four nation-states in West Asia is only too obvious. Has the idea of a transnational Muslim identity grown partly because of Islamophobia?   Has the rise of China as a global power bolstered the notion of a global Chinese identity?

From our analysis it is apparent that the assertion of identity is a complex phenomenon. It is partly because of its complexity that there are no easy solutions to the many identity-based conflicts that confront us today. What we should do is to avoid resolving conflicts of this sort through violence and war. However difficult it may be we should strive to find solutions through negotiations and dialogues. A peaceful resolution of each and every conflict caused by the assertion of identity is what the world would like to see.

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).

Featured image is by Xavi | CC BY 2.0.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Assertion of Identity

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

In Monday testimony before Senate Foreign Relations Committee members, they urged congressional authorization for unlimited warmaking anywhere worldwide – a shocking indictment of a rogue state threatening humanity’s survival, risking eventual catastrophic nuclear war.

Fact: Security Council members alone may authorize one nation attacking others – only in self-defense, never preemptively.

The September 14, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) flagrantly breached international law. Neither Congress or presidents can legally wage war without SC authorization.

Throughout its post-WW II history, America raped and destroyed one nation after another preemptively and illegally without just cause.

It remains unaccountable for high crimes of war, against humanity and genocide. The Trump administration is conspiring with Congress to continue waging naked US aggression against any designated adversary – extrajudicially.

Tillerson lied saying the AUMF authorizes US force against the Taliban, al-Qaeda, ISIS and “associated forces,” citing their so-called terrorist threat when none exists.

In the 1980s, America created Afghanistan’s mujahideen fighters, today’s Taliban. It created and supports al-Qaeda, ISIS and other terrorist groups, using them as imperial foot soldiers, mostly as pretexts to wage endless wars of aggression against sovereign nations threatening no one.

Tillerson: the Trump administration “should not be time constrained” and “must not be geographically restricted.” Any congressional limitations on warmaking “embolden(s) our enemies” – invented ones because real ones don’t exist, he failed to explain.

No new AUMF is needed, he said, unjustifiably claiming “the President has the power under Article II of the Constitution to use military force in certain circumstances to advance important US national interests, including to defend the United States against terrorist attacks.”

Mattis expressed support for the same endless aggression policy, saying “we must recognize that we are in an era of frequent skirmishing, and we are more likely to end this fight sooner if we don’t tell our adversary the day we intend to stop fighting.”

“Any new congressional expression of unity, whether or not an AUMF, would present a strong statement to the world of America’s determination” – to wage endless wars of aggression, he failed to explain.

The so-called global war on terror is the greatest hoax in modern times – created by Washington to wage endless wars of aggression against sovereign independent nations, wanting pro-Western governance ruling them, their resources looted, their people exploited as serfs.

That’s what America’s geopolitical agenda is all about, the 9/11 mother of all state-sponsored false flags launching war on humanity, enlisting other rogue states as partners to wage it, using ISIS and other terrorist groups to do its fighting and dying.

America’s phony war on terror is being waged covertly worldwide, US special forces infesting most countries, nearly all African ones, Niger the tip of the continent’s iceberg.

Nothing is reported except when incidents like the killing of four US special forces in Niger are revealed. Even then, covert missions abroad aren’t explained, Congress and likely Trump kept uninformed.

Straightaway in office, he was co-opted by America’s military/industrial complex, becoming the latest in a long line of US warrior presidents.

He’s continuing Bush/Cheney/Obama wars, escalating them, threatening new conflicts.

North Korea and Iran are prime targets, perhaps Russia and China later on, eliminating their sovereign independence key to unchallenged US global dominance.

It’s the end goal Washington seeks, no matter the human toll or threat to humanity’s survival.

Despite credible information easily accessed online from reliable sources, the vast majority of Americans are ignorant and/or dismissive about what’s going on – unaware of the grave danger posed by Washington’s permanent war agenda.

If not curbed, the chickens will surely come home to roost, perhaps when one or more US cities are immolated by thermonuclear detonations – when it’s too late to matter.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Dangerous Crossroads: Tillerson and Mattis Try Justifying Endless US Wars of Aggression