Global Research

Thailand’s English newspaper, The Nation, in a recent article titled, “Students stage protest to free ‘Pai Daodin’” included a short video of the protest showing a handful of students blocking a particularly busy elevated walkway in central Bangkok as they read their message in English.

One “activist” exclaimed:

We will never stop until we are free!

She repeatedly demanded “freedom” and condemned what she repeatedly called a “dictatorship” apparently oblivious of the paradoxical fact that she and her fellow protesters were clearly “free” to disrupt hundreds of people attempting to use the walkway and go about their business during the brief political protest.

They were not arrested despite violating laws regarding political gatherings and despite the fact that they represent a political opposition (often referred to as “red shirts”) that has, since 2006, resorted to extreme violence including mass murder, terrorism, citywide arson, assassinations, two attempts at armed insurrection in 2009 and again in 2010, the brutalization and murder of nearly 30 protesters between 2013-2014 who opposed a government led by their political allies, as well as censorship and intimidation of their critics.

More recently, a man radicalized by the very sort of propaganda repeated by these “student activists” was arrested after carrying out a string of bombings around Bangkok that left scores of innocent people maimed.

One of his targets included a hospital.

Despite this, and the Western media characterizing Thailand’s current government as a “dictatorship” in need of change, agitators like those featured in the above video have been repeatedly allowed to carry on with their antics despite the dangerous nature of the opposition they represent – with any arrest being followed only by a brief detainment before promptly being allowed to return back to agitating.

This process has led many agitators to resort to increasingly criminal behavior in order to be detained longer and thus portray themselves as “political prisoners” eagerly defended by Western governments and their collections of foreign-funded fronts posing as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).

The “Dao Din” group is one of several foreign-funded fronts attempting to replicate in Thailand the US and European-funded sedition that has divided and destroyed nations like Libya, Syria, and Ukraine.

Likely in Libya, Syria, and Ukraine, agitators identical in hypocrisy and irony were tolerated by each nation’s respective governments until critical mass was reached and foreign-backed armed insurrection overthrew or attempted to overthrow each in turn.

Documenting this process in Thailand where successful armed insurrection is much more unlikely, helps geopolitical analysts understand how the US set the stage – and is setting the stage – elsewhere in pursuit of regime change and the construction of obedient client states.

All images in article are from the author except the featured image which is from PopularResistance.org.

The current crisis surrounding Qatar represents the most severe conflict among Gulf Arab states since the end of the Cold War. While these oil-rich, autocratic OPEC members have historically been at the most allies of convenience united by common fears (USSR, Saddam Hussein, Iran, etc.), their mutual mistrust has arguably never escalated to the point of demanding to what amounts to a complete surrender by one of its members. Several interesting features of this crisis immediately jump out.

First of all, the breaking off of diplomatic relations by Saudi Arabia and several other major regional powers including Egypt, and depriving Qatar of the ability to use land and air transport routes through or over the territory of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, including Egypt came suddenly and without any warning. There was no ongoing visible dispute between Qatar and any of its neighbors, no major recent provocative policy moves. This suggests it was a premeditated and planned move by Saudi Arabia and its partners.

While the US role in the crisis is still ambiguous, it is unlikely in the extreme that Saudi Arabia would have undertaken something so drastic without coordination with the US, particularly since this action comes literally on the heels of President Trump’s high-profile visit to Saudi Arabia. While initially silent, President Trump ultimately took to Twitter to back Saudi Arabia against Qatar, even as the US still maintains major military presence in that country.

The nature of the accusations leveled at Qatar is nothing short of extreme. Both US and Saudi leaders accused Qatar of about the worst offense currently available, namely supporting violent Islamic extremism. Trump went so far as to say that Qatar’s change of policies would be a major step toward resolving the problem of terrorism.

The nature of the crisis suggests it represents tensions that long bubbled under the surface but now have finally burst into the open. The Qatari-Saudi falling out, and the make-up of the pro-Saudi faction, suggests that several factors at work here.

Not the least trivial of them is the drop in energy prices in recent years. Saudi Arabia’s costly wars in Syria and Yemen only make that problem worse. Since Qatar’s main line of business is natural gas whose production is outside OPEC’s purview, it may be that Saudi Arabia is attempting to force Qatar, whose per-capita GDP is the highest in the world, to share some of its wealth with the failing Saudi monarchy

This drastic step would likely have not been needed had the Saudi and Qatari ambitions in Syria been realized by now. The objective was, after all, the laying of pipelines through the territory of Syria and also seizing Syria’s oil fields using ISIS as a proxy, all very much with the tacit approval of the Obama Administration. While the outcome of the war in Syria is still uncertain, it is all too clear the Saudi and Qatari efforts to expand their wealth at Syria’s expense have failed.

The Saudis are also attempting to establish their political dominance within the region, as part of the “Sunni NATO” concept. Qatar’s independent foreign policy which often ignored or even undermined Saudi aims in Syria and Libya, was naturally an obstacle in reaching that objective. Moreover, Qatar’s freelancing also appears to be the reason why countries like Egypt and Israel have backed Saudi moves. Qatar is a major sponsor the Muslim Brotherhood and of Hamas which are major irritants for these two countries, respectively.

The other major show of Qatari independence has been its Iran policy, where it is also sharply at odds with the hard-line Saudi approach. Since the “Sunni NATO” is aimed squarely at Iran and should Saudi Arabia succeed in crushing Qatar’s independence, it will establish itself as the unquestionably dominant political power within the Arabian Peninsula. The harsh disciplining and humiliation of Qatar would also serve as a long-term warning for any other minor Gulf power which might attempt to pursue a foreign policy independently of Saudi Arabia. The importance of Iran to the Saudi-Qatar conflict has been starkly demonstrated by Iran’s willingness to supply Qatar with food to overcome Saudi blockade, and the terrorist attack in Tehran that was attributed to Saudi Arabia by Iranian authorities. Tehran also opened its airspace for Qatar Airways aircraft and expanded unofficial efforts to draw Doha into own sphere of influence.

President Donald Trump and King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia sign a Joint Strategic Vision Statement for the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, during ceremonies, Saturday, May 20, 2017, at the Royal Court Palace in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. (Official White House Photo Shealah Craighead)

With that in mind, Trump’s recent visit to Saudi Arabia which culminated with the rather bizarre “glowing orb” ceremony, acquires a new meaning. While we do not yet know just how much leeway Washington is giving Riyadh in its dealings with Doha and how much coordination and communication there are between the two powers, Trump’s behavior while in Saudi Arabia was likely intended to send a message that Saudi Arabia has the full faith and confidence of the United States, though evidently Qatar had failed to heed the warning. If the Saudi action does result in Qatari abandonment of Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, it will help the US restore some of its political standing in the region by drawing both Israel and, especially, Egypt, closer toward the US. Qatar’s emasculation furthermore promises to bring the wars in not only Syria but also Libya to a closer conclusion by eliminating a significant player pursuing an independent objective. Last but not least, Qatar also enjoys rather better relations with both Russia and Turkey than Saudi Arabia, which no doubt raised additional fears in Washington that Russia is about to take the US’ place as the most influential external power in the Middle East. The emergence of a Russia-Iran-Turkey-Qatar constellation as a result of Russian diplomacy and Turkey’s own regional ambitions is a nightmare scenario for both Riyadh and Washington.

It is not yet clear whether the Trump Administration compelled Saudi Arabia to undertake this course or whether Trump had no choice but to endorse and acquiesce in the Saudi course of action, with some accommodations made to respect US interests outlined above.  On the one hand, Trump could have easily used the same “support for terrorism” cudgel on the Saudis that in the end he used on the Qataris. On the other hand, the power of the Saudi lobby in Washington and the absence of a proxy power capable of doing to Saudi Arabia what Saudi Arabia is doing to Qatar means that the Saudis are not simply following Washington’s orders.

However, in light of Trump’s upcoming visit to Poland and the participation in the so-called Three Seas Initiative summit, one must also entertain the possibility that the US saw in Qatar an unwelcome competitor for the liquid natural gas (LNG) market. It is becoming apparent that the US will continue to expand its role as hydrocarbon exporter in the future, which will naturally bring it into conflict with not only Russia, but also Qatar, and even Saudi Arabia. It is also becoming apparent that at least some of that expansion will take place in Europe, or the market which Qatar had hoped to access by sponsoring jihadists in Syria who would ultimately pave the way for its gas pipelines into Europe.

The falling out between the US and Qatar appears to have had a sobering impact on Qatar’s leaders who, evidently fearing that any show of weakness might lead to their overthrow and even death, have dug in their heels and began to seek support from unorthodox sources. That process, in turn had shown both the extent of anti-Saudi sentiment in the region and the limits of US influence. Turkey’s President Erdogan came out strongly in support of Qatar, and went so far as to reaffirm the Turkey-Qatar military alliance and send troops to Qatar. Pakistan similarly decided to send a military force to Qatar, and collectively these actions are likely sufficient to dissuade any Saudi military adventurism, possibly with cooperation with dissatisfied factions of Qatari military. At this stage, it would take a direct US military intervention to bring down the Qatari government, but the US clearly prefers to do its dirty work through proxies. Moreover, there is no sign of an effort to interdict or block Qatar’s LNG tanker traffic. Even though Egypt had joined the anti-Qatar coalition, it has not blocked LNG tankers carrying Qatari gas from passing the Suez Canal.

Even so, Qatari leaders were concerned enough to send their Foreign Minister to Moscow for consultations. Nevertheless, considering that Saudi Arabia responded to Turkey’s support of Qatar by expressing its own support for the Kurdish cause–so far only verbal–it does appear that Russia, Turkey, and many other countries in the region do not wish to see Qatar brought to heel. Russian military spokesmen also noted that in the meantime the war in Syria had greatly diminished in its intensity as the Qatar- and Saudi Arabia-backed militants now find themselves in a very confused situation where it’s not clear who is supposed to be their enemy, Syrian forces or other rebel groupings. However the situation evolves in the future, it is unlikely in the extreme Qatar will be close collaborator in any Saudi schemes. Instead it is more than likely Qatar will gradually drift further away from Saudi policies and bolster its ties with Turkey, and therefore indirectly also with Russia and Iran.

As a final note, one cannot but help reflect on the fact this is a severe and potentially very dangerous confrontation between, after all, two important US allies. Considering that both Qatar and Saudi Arabia are members of the “Free World” (sic) of which the US is the undisputed leader, the fact that a few policy disagreements among these members can no longer be managed by means short of blockade and threats of war does not speak highly of the US ability to continue to maintain its empire. While the Saudi-Qatari conflict is unprecedented in its intensity, it is far from being the only internal “Free World” conflict which the US is apparently powerless to resolve. We have already seen Brexit, the looming “two-speeds EU”, the Turkey-EU and Turkey-NATO spats, the failure of TTIP and TPP multilateral US-centric trade deals, and other signs of US weakness. The use of Saudi Arabia against Qatar suggests the US might be moving toward a different model of imperial governance, namely “divide and rule” among its own client states. In the short term this may well be successful. However, it is US client states’ awareness that is driving them to seek help from Moscow, which in turn gives us narratives of “Russian meddling”, including now in the case of Qatar.

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: credits to the owner

To become enmeshed in a war of incalculable variables; to be at bloody bruised loggerheads – this is the Syrian nightmare, where there are more punters than odds. Savagely, Syria as a state is being ravaged and mauled to the point of non-recognition. It is now a mere terrain for heavily armed bullies, a smoky crusted ruin of dust and cosmic ruin, its populace fleeing when it can, shielding itself when it must, and hoping for the best.

The great power play never assumes that small states matter. They supply the necessary show for the big game, the theatre set for the show down in which the small scatter whilst the big boys level the punches. In history, the bully is insentient, and normally stumbles into mistake and catastrophe.

In the latest showdown, a Syrian Su-22 jet was shot down by US forces, as was an Iranian-made drone that was said to have “dirty wings”, a term used to suggest it was armed. A US-led coalition statement claimed that it would not “tolerate any hostile intent and action of pro-regime forces.”[1]

One coalition had slighted another, though it was hardly the first time. Last September, 62 Syrian government troops were killed in a US strike. The reaction these latest engagements was theatrical, with Moscow being furiously remonstrative. An important ally needed shouldering; promises and reassurances needed to be made.

To that end, the use of the US-Russian hotline used to avoid collisions in Syrian airspace was suspended. A promise more with bark than bite also suggested that aircraft flown by the coalition west of the Euphrates would be targeted. None of this suggests a remarkable shift: the danger in such a conflict remain the cooks pondering a spoiling broth.

General Joseph F. Dunford Jr. (Source: matzav.com)

“This,” as General Joseph F. Dunford Jr., chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, “is a delicate couple of hours.” But demonstrating how any dish coming out of this dispute is bound to be inedible and constipating in nature, Dunford suggested that the US would work on the military and diplomatic front “to re-establish de-confliction.”

De-confliction has become the mangled word of Pentagon speak since a zone of sorts was agreed to between Washington and Moscow. This designation, designed to avoid conflict, has simply refined it.

This has led to sharp military encounters, with US-led coalition aircraft striking pro-Assad forces in an effort to prevent an advance from the Al-Tanf garrison in south-eastern Syria. By all means do well against Islamic State forces, but do in moderation. Such attacks have naturally been given the justifying coating of self-defence, because it seems that no force in Syria is ever provocative or aggressive.

More of these incidents are bound to take place in the wake of ISIL retreats in its efforts to focus on defending Deir Az Zor and Raqqa. Vacuums left are rapidly filled. Syrian government gains have been looked at with some worry by US-allied forces who see the removal of Assad as key. As a statement from the Syrian news agency SANA claimed earlier this month, “army units in cooperation with allies managed to arrive at the border… with Iraq” for the first time since 2015.

As if this wasn’t enough, US and Russian military authorities have been bandying about accounts of an encounter between an American RC-135 reconnaissance plane and a Sukhoi Su-27 that took place 25 miles north-west of Kaliningrad.

The Russian version saw the reconnaissance plane moving dangerously in the direction of the Russian jet. The US account was predictably different: the Russian aircraft had flown “erratically” in its approach, coming within mere feet of the RC-135.

For those with anxious historical minds, the sense of a global conflict stemming from the small is clear. In 1914, it was a political assassination pinned on Serbia, the noted scapegoat in a European lust for self-destruction. In the Syrian scenario, the lust is less pronounced but present. None of the powers genuinely wants to shed the blood of the other, but the necessity for doing so, through pretext, through design, and, finally, through incompetence, is there.

For such reasons, states fearing  have decided to embrace caution and scrap recklessness, even if the measure is more sham than substance. Australia, a previous if below-the-radar participant in the bombing coalition against Islamic State, suspended operations over Syria earlier this week as “a precautionary measure to allow the coalition to assess the operational risk.”

But true to form, the stance on suspension was revised in an announcement made two days later. Australian officials had evidently understood the Russian warnings to be manageable. The military show, in other words, must go on.

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

Note

[1] http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/06/shoots-iranian-drone-syria-170621053255580.html

Featured image: South Front

For the last several decades, the US government has openly funded, supported, and armed various terrorist networks throughout the world to forward an agenda of destabilization and proxy war. It is not a secret, nor a conspiracy theory, America arms bad guys.

Given the insidious history of the American empire and its creation and fostering of terrorist regimes across the globe, it should come as no surprise that the overwhelming majority of politicians would refuse to sign on to a law that requires them to ‘Stop Arming Terrorists.’ And, that is exactly what’s happened.

H.R.608 – Stop Arming Terrorists Act was introduced by Rep. Gabbard, Tulsi [D-HI] on January 23 of this year. The bill doesn’t have any crazy strings attached and its original cosponsors are a mix of Republicans and Democrats — highlighting that it transcends party lines.

“For years, our government has been providing both direct and indirect support to these armed militant groups, who are working directly with or under the command of terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, all in their effort and fight to overthrow the Syrian government,” Gabbard said in an interview earlier this year.

The text of the bill is simple. It merely states that it prohibits the use of federal agency funds to provide covered assistance to:

(1) Al Qaeda, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), or any individual or group that is affiliated with, associated with, cooperating with, or adherents to such groups; or

(2) the government of any country that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) determines has, within the most recent 12 months, provided covered assistance to such a group or individual.

The only thing this bill does is prohibit the US government from giving money and weapons to people who want to murder Americans and who do murder innocent men, women, and children across the globe. It is quite possibly the simplest and most rational bill ever proposed by Congress. Given its rational and humanitarian nature, one would think that representatives would be lining up to show their support. However, one would be wrong.

After nearly 5 months since its introduction, only 13 of the 535 members of Congress have signed on as co-sponsors. What this lack of support for the bill shows is that the federal government is addicted to funding terror and has no intention of ever stopping it.

To add insult to treason and murder, Senator Rand Paul [R-KY] introduced this same legislation in the Senate. He currently has zero cosponsors.

Given the overwhelming lack of support for a bill that simply asks the government to stop giving money to people who behead children and video it, it should come as no surprise that Donald Trump signed hundreds of billions of dollars in weapons deals with other countries who also fund these people.

As Americans bicker over Trump’s bogus and non-existent Russian scandal, he’s signing a deal worth hundreds of billions of dollars with the largest state sponsor of terror in the world — ensuring decades of future wars and the continuation of the cycle of terrorism.

What’s more is the fact that less than one week after publicly reprimanding Qatar for terrorism, President Trump signed off on the sale of $12 billion in weapons to the country he referred to as a “funder of terrorism.” This move, in Trump’s own stance, makes him a de facto funder of terrorism now.

What this lack of support for the bills and the recent moves to arm the terrorist regimes illustrates is the fact that the US has no intention of ever stopping terrorism. Trump, just like Obama and Bush before him, will continue to foster the growth of terrorism to enrich those who profit from war.

Terrorism is necessary for the state. War, is the health of the state.

Without the constant fear mongering about an enemy who ‘hates our freedom’, Americans begin questioning things. They challenge the status quo and inevitably desire more freedom. However, when they are told that boogeymen want to kill them, they become immediately complacent and blinded by their fear.

While these boogeymen were once mostly mythical, since 9/11, they have been funded and supported by the US to the point that they now pose a very real threat to innocent people everywhere. As the recent attacks in the UK illustrate, ISIS is organizing and spreading. Even the terrorists in the UK had ties to the British government who allowed them to freely travel and train with ISIS-linked groups because those groups were in opposition to Muammar Gaddafi, who the West wanted to snub out.

It’s a vicious cycle of creating terrorists, killing innocence, and stoking war. And, unless something radical happens, it shows no signs of ever reversing.

The radical change that is necessary to shift this paradigm back to peace is for people to wake up to the reality that no matter which puppet is in the White House, the status quo remains unchanged.

Trump is proving that he can lie to get into power and his supporters ignore it. If you doubt this fact, look at what Trump did by calling out Saudi Arabia for their role in 9/11 and their support for terror worldwide prior to getting elected. He now supports these terrorists and his constituency couldn’t care less.

This madness has to stop. Humanity has to stop being fooled by rhetoric read from teleprompters by puppets doing the bidding of their masters.

Please share this article with your friends and family to show them how their supposed ‘leaders’ — except for a few good ones — are content with funding the enemy, laying waste to rights, and condone the murder of innocence.

Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project. Follow @MattAgorist on Twitter, Steemit, and now on Facebook.

Featured image: TheFreeThoughtProject.com

Introduction by Felicity Arbuthnot:

Who ever destroyed yet another religious and historic Mesopotamian jewel, the US and UK, Bush and Blair are totally responsible. Iraq’s wonders have survived through turbulent history, but not through the illegal invasion. Amr Moussa, former Egyptian Foreign Minister and then Secretary General of the the Arab League, warned at the time that if Iraq was invaded “the gates of Hell will open” but the two about to become war criminals knew better.

US troops allowed the looting of the Iraq Museum, the National Library, they near destroyed Babylon, damaged ancient, haunting Ur, believed birthplace of Abraham, Father of Islam, Christianity and Judaism. In Mosul Jonah’s Tomb and Mosque, the Museum and the city’s Libraries, which between them had works dating back to 5,000 BCE are destroyed. The list is without end as Iraq’s history, homes, families are decimated in order to “liberate” it.

Since ISIS get their funding and weaponry from the US and it’s proxies in the region, whether it is the “allies” or ISIS erasing the wonders bequeathed by the genius of those millennia ago, the responsibility lies squarely at the feet of the American and British regimes.

It is past time for war crimes trial for all responsible, from 2003 to now, with Bush and Blair first in a very long list.

*      *      *

Iraq on Wednesday blamed the Islamic State group for the destruction of the Grand al-Nuri Mosque of Mosul and its famous leaning al-Hadba minaret, an act described by the prime minister as a “declaration of defeat”.

However, IS swiftly issued a statement via its Amaq propaganda agency blaming a US strike, but the US-led coalition condemned the destruction as a crime against “the people of Mosul and all of Iraq”.

Iraq’s prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, called the destruction of the mosque an “official declaration of defeat” by IS.

“The Daesh (Islamic State) terror gangs committed another historic crime by blowing up the al-Nuri mosque and its historic al-Hadba minaret,” the Iraqi military statement said.

The explosions happened as Iraq’s elite Counter Terrorism Service units, which have been battling their way through Mosul’s Old City, got within 50 metres of the mosque, the statement said.

Moment #ISIS blew up "Great Mosul Mosque of al-Nuri". A symbolic place for #ISIS, where #Baghdadi made 1st speech pic.twitter.com/xaZfu61lUK

— Kevin W. (@kwilli1046) June 22, 2017

Iraqi forces earlier on Wednesday said they had started a push towards the mosque. A US-led coalition is providing air and ground support to the Mosul offensive which began in October 2016.

On Tuesday, the forces had encircled the militant group’s stronghold in the Old City, the last district under their control in Mosul.

Al-Baghdadi proclaimed himself “caliph,” or ruler of all Muslims, from the pulpit of the mosque on 4 July 2014, after the group’s fighters overran parts of Iraq and Syria. His black flag had been flying over its leaning minaret since June 2014.

A video still from a speech given by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIL, on July 5, 2014, in his first public appearance as the leader of the militant group, at a mosque in Mosul, Iraq. (Source: Zenith Magazine)

Iraqi officials had privately expressed the hope that the mosque could be captured in time for Eid al-Fitr, the festival marking the end of Ramadan, the Muslim fasting month. The first day of the Eid falls this year on 25 or 26 June.

The fall of Mosul would, in effect, mark the end of the Iraqi half of the “caliphate” which was the largest they had control of in both Iraq and Syria, but IS would continue to control territory west and south of the city.

The mosque’s destruction came during the holiest period of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, its final 10 days.

The night of Laylat al-Qadr falls during this period, marking when Muslims believe the Quran was revealed to prophet Muhammad.

Baghdadi has left the fighting in Mosul to local commanders and is believed to be hiding in the border area between Iraq and Syria, according to US and Iraqi military sources.

IS has destroyed several key heritage sites in Mosul, including the main museum and shrines to Jonah and Seth.

“The minaret of al-Hadba has been here forever, it is part of the history of Mosul, it is the symbol of the city,” Ahmed Thilij Hamed, a 49-year-old resident near the Old City, told AFP on Monday.

It had become clear to most in Mosul that IS would not give up its last redoubt in the city without destroying landmarks whose capture by the Iraqi forces would have dealt them a massive symbolic blow.

“When the minaret is destroyed, it will be the final blow to Mosul’s heritage because all the other landmarks are gone,” Hamed said. “I will be very sorry, I cannot imagine such a moment.”

Staff Lieutenant General Abdulwahab al-Saadi, one of the top commanders of the Counter Terrorism Service, said he thought the Nuri mosque and nearby “al-Hadba” would almost inevitably be destroyed.

“The mosque has some symbolism for the terrorist gangs, being the mosque where Baghdadi gave his first sermon” as IS leader, he told AFP on Monday from his command post on the edge of Mosul.

“Daesh might blow up these heritage landmarks for psychological reasons,” he said.

“Perhaps they won’t want to leave this place that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi took to the security forces and maybe they’ll send a message accusing Iraqi units of of destroying them,” he predicted.

The first image of the Al-Nuri Grand Mosque, completely destroyed. pic.twitter.com/qsObiVFoTb

— Mosul Eye عين الموصل (@MosulEye) June 21, 2017

The mosque was named after Nuruddin al-Zanki, a noble who fought the early crusaders from a fiefdom that covered territory in modern-day Turkey, Syria and Iraq.

It was built in 1172-73, shortly before his death, and housed an Islamic school.

By the time renowned medieval traveller and scholar Ibn Battuta visited two centuries later, the minaret was leaning. The tilt gave the landmark its popular name: the hunchback.

It was built with seven bands of decorative brickwork in complex geometric patterns also found in Persia and Central Asia.

Nabeel Nouriddin, a historian and archaeologist specialising in Mosul and its Nineveh region, said the minaret had not been renovated since 1970, making it particularly vulnerable to blasts even if it was not directly hit.

Featured image: Al Siasi

The looming mega merger of agribusiness giants Bayer and Monsanto is only the latest example of highly disturbing economic concentration on the global seeds and pesticides markets. A new study published by Corporate Europe Observatory reveals since 1990, the EU Commission has approved nine out of every ten mergers without any conditions.

In ‘Too Big to Control?’, competition experts Angela Wigger (Radboud University, NL) and Hubert Buch-Hansen (Copenhagen Business School, DK) analyse the politics of mergers in the EU for Corporate Europe Observatory, and explain the paradoxical and often harmful nature of the European Commission’s hands-off approach to the regulation of big mergers.

The Commission’s department for competition policy has practiced an overwhelmingly positive approach to mergers, including the recent green lighting for the fusion of agri-chemical companies Dow and Dupont, as well as ChemChina and Syngenta. According to the Commission’s own statistics, only 25 of the 6,493 mergers applications filed between 1990 and February 2017 were rejected – a mere 0.4%. Once withdrawn merger applications have been accounted for, the approval rate is still at a whopping 90%.

Apparently unconcerned by the market concentration resulting from ever more and ever bigger mergers, merger applications are currently not assessed for their wider economic or social impacts. But the study does not only warn of the side effects of creeping monopolisation in areas of vital public interest, such as in the EU agricultural sector.

Wigger and Buch-Hansen also highlight the paradoxical nature of the Commission’s weak track record on merger regulation. The supportive EU rules on company mergers clearly contrast the fierce prosecution of cartels by the Commission’s department for competition policy, as recent multi-million euro antitrust cases against tech multinationals Google, Microsoft and Intel illustrate.

Corporate Europe Observatory’s agribusiness researcher Nina Holland commented:

“The European Commission’s strong pro-concentration policy has already facilitated several mega mergers, and has thereby gained the support of some of the largest corporate lobby groups in Brussels, like BusinessEurope and AmCham EU.

“Bayer and Monsanto have yet to file a merger application in the EU. An eventual approval would foster further massive market concentration with no regard for the impacts on farmers, workers and consumers.”

Featured image: Sustainable Pulse

SEOUL, June 21 (Yonhap) — South Korea or its head of state Moon Jae-in does not need permission from the U.S. president or anyone else to engage North Korea in dialogue, Seoul’s presidential office Cheong Wa Dae said Wednesday.

“Resumption of dialogue with North Korea may need to be pursued in close cooperation and consultation with the United States, but South Korea does not need to be allowed by the U.S. to do so,” Kwun Hyuk-ki, a Cheong Wa Dae spokesman, told Yonhap News Agency.

The remarks came in reaction to a question by a U.S. journalist in a recent interview with South Korean President Moon Jae-in, in which the interviewer from U.S. broadcaster CBS stated it was not clear whether U.S. President Donald Trump would “agree to allow” his South Korean counterpart to negotiate with the North Koreans.

“But it’s not clear that, even under President Trump, that he will agree to allow you to negotiate with the North Koreans without any preconditions. And you want to do that. You want to start a dialogue without any concessions by the North Koreans. Aren’t you giving in to them?” asked the U.S. interviewer.

Another Cheong Wa Dae official insisted the word “allow” should be taken to have meant “let it happen,” claiming most Americans who watched the CBS report must have.

However, the U.S. interviewer also said,

“President Moon believes he is going to get the green light from President Trump to have these bilateral talks with North Korea, to begin this inter-Korean dialogue.”

Many South Koreans reacted with anger in online postings.

“The president must have been very offended when given the question. He still managed very well,” one Internet user said on a local internet bulletin board.

Without interpreting what the word “allow” may have intended to mean, the Cheong Wa Dae spokesman flatly dismissed the notion that the South Korean president would ask for U.S. permission to engage with North Korea.

Moon and Trump are scheduled to meet in Washington for bilateral talks next Thursday and Friday.

Featured image: Yonhap News Agency

In 1992 Fran and Dan Keller were convicted despite the absence of any evidence of raping a 3-year old, a crime that never occurred. Among the absurd charges was the transport of children to Mexico to be raped by military officials. The Kellers spent 21 years in prison before finally being exonerated by a conviction integrity unit that found no credible evidence for the conviction.

Fran and Dan Keller (Source: Youtube/credits to the owner)

This kind of ridiculous conviction plagued child care providers during the 1980s and into the 1990s. The Amirault family who operated the Fells Acres Day Care Center in Massachusetts were ruined. The Massachusetts supreme court judge who kept the Amiraults in prison despite the completely obvious fabricated case is today a Harvard University law professor. In Wenatchee, Washington, scores of people were ruined by insane allegations of a church practicing Satanic Sex Rituals on children. There was the Little Rascals Day Care case in North Carolina, the McMartin child care case in California, and many others. Few remember that President Bill Clinton’s attorney general, Janet Reno, rose to name recognition based on false convictions from child abuse witch hunts.

The insanity spread wider. Young women with emotional problems were told by “therapists” that they had been raped by their fathers, grandfathers, uncles, and brothers. Families everywhere were blown apart by wild charges.

“Child advocates” insisted that all male heterosexuals were suspect as child rapists. There was no such thing as a real trial, just a condemnation. Allegations alone destroyed people.

It spread into “wife rape.” States passed “wife rape” laws, and any wife could get rid of a husband by accusing him of rape. I investigated and wrote about the case of Wm. Strong. He was about to divorce his wife for her infidelity, but she struck first with a rape charge. Strong was the victim of wife rape law. His parole appeal is routinely turned down because of “the serious nature of your offense.” I myself have written to the Virginia Parole Board on several occasions pointing out that I covered the story and Strong was framed on false charges by his wife who outsmarted him. But the Virginia Parole Board has no interest in any evidence. The Parole Board exists for the purpose of protecting the system, not for admitting mistakes.

I wrote about many of the child care cases. Only in the Wenatchee case did facts that I helped to marshall result in the cases being overturned. During the entire process I was attacked by the local newspaper and radio station. Neither were interested in any facts. They knew the church was guilty. Period.

Evidence simply was not important. Juries were ramrodded by hysteria conjured up by “child advocates,” newspapers and TV reports.

Former Governor Don Siegelman (Source: Wikipedia)

Consider the case of Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. He was framed by Republican US attorneys and Republican federal judges. A normal everyday political contribution was turned into an influence-selling case. In Siegelman’s case, even the intervention of 113 former state attorney generals led by New York attorney general Robert Abrams, who called Siegelman’s frameup an “enormous scandal,” could not prevent Gov. Siegelman from being sent to prison by corrupt Republicans.

The Republican federal judge who presided over the atrocity was subsequently arrested for beating his wife bloody in an Atlanta hotel and got off. Of course.

In America only the innocent go to prison.

Americans do not understand this. They have been deceived by “law and order conservatives” that liberal judges always let the criminals off and that any criminals that somehow are sent to prison despite the liberal judges are rescued from jail by liberal parole boards.

The fact of the matter is that only 3% of felony cases go to trial, and in these cases prosecutors are able to bribe and to pay witnesses for false testimony against the accused and to withhold exculpatory evidence that would clear the defendant of the charges. In other words, conviction regardless of the evidence is almost always obtained.

In the other 97% of the cases, the defendant’s attorney negotiates with the prosecutor a fictitious charge to which the accused will plead guilty in exchange for dropping the more serious charge for which the accused was arrested. The attorney knows that to defend against even a false charge is unlikely to be successful and that the accused will draw a longer sentence from going to trial than from agreeing to a lesser charge in a plea bargain. Both prosecutor and judge are grateful, because it saves both from days, even weeks, of court time, thus keeping the judge’s case load lighter and permitting the prosecutor many more convictions with which to embellish his record. A week of plea bargains can produce many times the convictions of a week in court dealing with one case. The fewer cases the judge has to study and to apply his understanding of the law, the better for the judge.

As only 3% of cases go to trial, the police evidence is seldom tested. The police know this. One result is that it is much easier for the police to pickup someone who had committed a similar crime in the past and charge him, than to go to the trouble of solving the crime by investigating it. Indeed, the police are so out of touch with neighborhoods, compared to bygone days when police walked their beats and knew the population, and crimes appear so random, that many crimes simply can’t be investigated. Much easier to pick up someone with a record and charge them. This practice explains the high recidivism rates. Once convicted, they will convict you again. It is how crimes are “solved.”

Don Siegelman was probably the best governor Alabama ever had. He had to be good in order to be elected as a Democrat in a Republican state. The fact that President Obama, who had the support of 113 state attorneys general in behalf of Siegelman, did not lift a finger to have the Justice Department look into Siegelman’s frameup or use his pen to sign a pardon demonstrates that an ordinary citizen has no chance whatsoever. When a prominent governor can be framed, the fate of a single mom or a black man is sealed when they are arrested.

In the “American criminal justice system” justice is totally absent. There is no such thing as justice in America.

The criminalization of US citizens by the Injustice System is now one of America’s largest industries. Prisons have been privatized, and their inmates comprise cheap labor for Apple Computer and defense industries among many others. The United States of America not only has the highest percentage of its population in prison, it has the highest absolute number, substantially higher than “authoritarian China,” a country whose population is FOUR TIMES LARGER than the US but a country with fewer people in prison.

That should tell Americans something. But they are too brainwashed to see it. The morons rush to the defense of the police, and they praise prosecutors for their wrongful convictions. In America, to be accused is to be guilty. Not even President Trump is safe from being falsely convicted by false charges and driven from office.

Featured image: wisconsinacademy.org

Is Russia really America’s enemy?

Since 1945, the United States has justified numerous wars, interventions, and military buildups on the pretext of a Russian Red Menace, even after the Soviet Union collapsed at the end of 1991 and Russia stopped being Red.

In fact, the two biggest postwar American conflicts, the Korean and Vietnam wars, were not, as many people frequently claim, about stopping Soviet aggression or even influence, but rather about maintaining old colonial relationships.

Similarly, many lesser interventions and conflicts, such as those in Latin America, were also based upon an alleged Soviet threat, which was greatly overblown or nonexistent. And now, the specter of a Russian Menace has risen again in the wake of Donald Trump’s election.

The Plot to Scapegoat Russia examines the recent proliferation of stories, usually sourced from American state actors, when they’re sourced at all, blaming and manipulating the threat of Russia.

This book shows readers two key things: the ways in which the United States has needlessly provoked Russia, especially after the collapse of the USSR, thereby squandering hopes for peace and cooperation; and how Americans have lost out from this missed opportunity and from decades of conflicts based on false premises. These revelations, among others, make The Plot to Scapegoat Russia one of the timeliest reads of 2017.

Daniel Kovalik has been a labor and human rights lawyer since graduating from Columbia Law School in 1993. He has represented plaintiffs in ATS cases arising out of egregious human rights abuses in Colombia. He received the David W. Mills Mentoring Fellowship from Stanford Law School, has written extensively for the Huffington Post and Counterpunch, and has lectured throughout the world.

***

In relation to the book launch of Dan Kovalik‘s The Plot to Scapegoat Russia: How the CIA and the Deep State Conspired to Vilify Putin, Skyhorse Publishing has shared with Global Research the foreword of the book by Roger Keeran and Thomas Kenny.

Click on the banner below and simply put in the promo code to download a free copy of the foreword in PDF.

Featured image: Skyhorse Publishing

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017, Amnesty International, the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT), and the Hassan Diab Support Committee held a press conference on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, urging the Canadian government to intervene with the French authorities to release Canadian citizen Dr. Hassan Diab on bail without delay.

Alex Neve, the Secretary General of Amnesty International Canada stated that

“Canada cannot casually stand by while the rights of a Canadian citizen continue to be so blatantly violated over what has now become an agonizingly prolonged period of time – violated by an ally from whom we should expect and demand so much better. Two and a half years is far too long for anyone’s rights to be violated so cavalierly. When it involves a Canadian citizen, the Canadian government must act, and they must act now.”

Don Bayne, Hassan Diab’s Canadian lawyer said,

Dr. Hassan Diab (Source: Ottawa Citizen)

“There is overwhelming evidence that an innocent man is being detained for an extensive and arbitrary period of time. Hassan has always stated that he is fully innocent. French investigators now say the evidence confirms his innocence. He has become in effect a political prisoner of the terror trauma in France [and French authorities] who do not want to look soft on terror.”

Chantal Vallerand spoke on behalf of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, saying

“CAUT is the national voice of 70,000 academic and general staff at over 120 universities and colleges across Canada. We’ve been gravely concerned by the violations of Hassan Diab’s civil liberties and human rights. We are today urging the government of Canada to intervene with French authorities in order to secure Dr. Diab’s release on bail. The Canadian government has a duty to protect the rights of its citizens and to uphold international human rights.”

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) echoed similar calls for the Canadian government to bring Diab home.

In a significant development that solidifies Diab’s innocence, six independent witnesses testified that Diab was a student in Beirut in September and October 1980, and that he was studying for the exams and wrote and passed them at that time. This was confirmed by official documents from the university where Diab studied.

In a letter to Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland and Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, Amnesty Canada expressed alarm at the continued detention of Mr. Diab and concern at the “apparently arbitrary decisions to continue to block Mr. Diab’s release on bail”. It added that

“Mr. Diab’s continuing detention in these circumstances contravenes France’s obligations under European and international human rights norms. The French Section of Amnesty International has raised our concerns about Mr. Diab’s case directly with the French government. Amnesty International urges the Canadian government to intervene with French authorities as well. We specifically urge that the Canadian government advocate for Hassan Diab’s release on bail without any further delay.”

Diab was extradited from Canada to France in November 2014 in connection with a 1980 bombing outside a synagogue in Paris. He has been held in pre-trial detention in France for over 2 ½ years. French investigating judges have delivered so far 6 judicial orders that Diab be released on bail, stating that there is “consistent evidence” that Diab was not in France at the time of the 1980 Paris attack. However, each time the prosecutor appealed and the French Court of Appeal quashed the release orders because of the political climate in France.

Featured image: Amnesty International Facebook Page

Representatives from Cuba and Nicaragua have expressed their support for the Venezuelan people and the government of Nicolás Maduro at the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva. 

As members of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America, ALBA, both countries insisted that they will respect the sovereignty of Venezuela, and denounced constant attacks by the Secretary General of the Organization of States, OAS, Luis Almagro and the United States.

The Venezuelan ambassador to the Council Jorge Valero reiterated his government’s call for peace and the protection of human rights.

Valero said the support that Venezuela had provided to other countries for their development has today paid off, and added that the differences in Venezuela should be resolved at the ballot box.

#Ahora ? Embajador de Venezuela #ONU, Jorge Valero: "Apoyo que ha brindado Venezuela a países para su desarrollo hoy se ha visto retribuido"

— La Radio del Sur (@laradiodelsur) June 21, 2017

He thanked the 57 countries present who supported the declaration presented by Cuba and Nicaragua on behalf of the ALBA bloc.

“This overwhelming support shows that the government of President Nicolas Maduro is backed by a majority of governments and peoples in the world”, he said.

Featured image: UN Photo

In a 2015 interview with CNN, Trump said that invading Afghanistan in 2001 was a “terrible mistake,” however, he maintained that U.S. troops would need to stay because the Afghan government would collapse. He did say that “we made a terrible mistake getting involved there in the first place,” and that “it’s a mess, it’s a mess and at this point we probably have to (leave U.S. troops in Afghanistan) because that thing will collapse in about two seconds after they leave.” in 2013, Trump’s tone on the war in Afghanistan was different according to his 2013 twitter post:

“Do not allow our very stupid leaders to sign a deal that keeps us in Afghanistan through 2024-with all costs by U.S.A. MAKE AMERICA GREAT!”

U.S. President Donald Trump will continue what the Bush administration had started after the September 11th attacks in 2001 and where the Obama administration left off, and that is to continue America’s longest war in Afghanistan. Trump has authorized the Secretary of Defense James “Mad Dog” Mattis to decide what troop levels is needed to defeat the Taliban. Reuters‘ reported that

“The decision is similar to one announced in April that applied to U.S. troop levels in Iraq and Syria, and came as Mattis warned Congress the U.S.-backed Afghan forces were not beating the Taliban despite more than 15 years of war.”

Mattis went on to mention that

“We are not winning in Afghanistan right now,” Mattis said in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee last week. “And we will correct this as soon as possible.”

It’s obvious that the U.S. war machine is not winning the war, besides it only took Washington 15 years to realize that reality. Since 2001, more than 2,300 U.S. troops have been killed in action and more than 17,000 wounded. The Reuter’s report also mentioned the chairman of the Armed Forces Committee and war hawk, Senator John McCain, who questioned General Mattis on the volatile situation in Afghanistan during the hearing said that the United States needs “a change in strategy, and an increase in resources if we are to turn the situation around.” Mattis acknowledged McCain and said that “we recognize the need for urgency.” The New York Times reported that the

“Pentagon is moving ahead with plans to send 3,000 to 5,000 troops to try to stabilize the country.”

Former President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai with Former US President Barack Obama on Bilateral Security Agreement (Source: The Daily Afghanistan Express)

On September 30th, 2014, Washington and Kabul signed a Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) under which so. me 10,000 U.S. troops can remain in Afghanistan after the international combat mission ” that was supposed to end on December 31st (which of course it did not end under the Obama administration).  The BSA goes went into effect on January 1, 2015 and will remain until “the end of 2024 and beyond” unless it is terminated by either side with two years’ notice. The word “beyond” signifies that U.S. troops will stay in Afghanistan forever (or for as long as the U.S. remains an empire in search of natural resources which is the case since Afghanistan has lead, barites, coal, copper, talc, , sulfur, zinc, iron ore, salt, petroleum, precious and semiprecious stones, arable land, natural gas and of course plenty of opium for the growing U.S. market of heroin users. In a 2010 article published by The New York Times, senior U.S. officials discovered an abundance of mineral deposits and other natural resources of than can change the course of the war in Afghanistan meaning that U.S. troops would remain indefinitely or until the natural resources run dry:

The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.

The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe

Last April, The Associated Press published a report ‘Afghanistan Dangles Lithium Wealth to Win Trump support’ and said:

The Afghan government is trying to grab the attention of President Donald Trump and gain greater U.S. support by dangling its massive and untouched wealth of minerals, including lithium, the silvery metal used in mobile phone and computer batteries that is considered essential to modern life. But tapping into that wealth, which also includes coal, copper, rare earths and far more that estimates say could be worth from $1 trillion to $3 trillion, is likely a long way off.

Security has worsened in Afghanistan in the past year, with Taliban insurgents seizing territory and inflicting increasing casualties on Afghan forces. The regions with the greatest lithium deposits, for example, are too dangerous to enter

Trump sees a business opportunity at the expense of the Afghan people and U.S. military personnel. Washington might also see Afghanistan (which borders Iran) as a strategic location for the U.S. military which can launch a military attack against Iran in a future conflict. It’s not about Al Qaeda or the resurgent Taliban or even protecting the world from the threat of terrorism, it’s about the vast amount of natural resources that Afghanistan sits on:

As long as Washington remains a hungry empire, U.S. troops will stay in Afghanistan beyond 2024. Despite the fact that the U.S. lost the war in Afghanistan and with the threat of a resurgent Taliban, occupying Afghanistan to extract natural resources will remain extremely difficult and dangerous for U.S. and NATO forces for many years to come.

Featured image: credits to the owner

The US is escalating its war on the planet. In Venezuela the fascists have escalated their war on the country committing gruesome murders, and attempting to burn down government buildings.

In Syria the US continues to expand its invasion from the south and the north bombing Syrian forces and shooting down a Syrian jet as part of their campaign to steal as much Syrian territory as possible. In better news Brazil a victim of a soft coup last year that deposed the democratically elected president Dilma Rousseff the new puppet president Temer is on the verge of falling from power.

In the Philippines the US is doubtless behind a sudden uprising by ISIS. The middle east is in chaos with Saudi Arabia turning on its frequent ally and fellow terror sponsor Qatar. Obviously it is difficult to decide which of the two is worse although their current conflict is due to Qatar’s monarchs being slightly less insane then the megalomaniacal Saudi monarchs. Now Saudi Arabia has had its own soft coup elevating a war mongering prince Mohammed bin Salman aka the “Butcher of Yemen”  to the role of heir apparent Crown Prince to the senile current monarch. In Yemen the blood bath and starvation continue.

Iran suffered a major ISIS attack and the CIA have launched another attempt to topple the government. Across the planet World War 4 rages from Mexico to Colombia, to DR Congo, England, Afghanistan, a war without boundaries or borders bringing poverty, misery, death, and destruction, fear, sadness, tragedy and sheer horror. Billions of people struggle to survive in our doomed world. Wherever there is hope or heroism the empire of chaos moves in to try to destroy it. 

Hugo Chavez (credits to the owner of the photo)

Venezuela is a beacon of hope to the world. In 1989 Gorbachev was destroying the socialist world to the applause of the west who declared an end to history. The people of Venezuela, the people of the slums, the poor, the desperate rose up, demanding a better future. They were brutally massacred between 300-1500 people were killed. However in response to this horror and to the cries of the people that revolutionary genius Hugo Chavez began to make his plans and after a failed attempt to seize power  he would by 1999 be elected president of Venezuela. Hugo Chavez would set about transforming Venezuela forever. He gave hope not just to Venezuela but to all of Latin America, in fact to the whole world. He was killed by the CIA but his revolution would live on. Venezuela has been constantly targeted for destruction since Hugo Chavez came to power. For the empire of chaos it is criminal to dream of a better future and still worse to inspire others to dream.

Opposition protest in Caracas (credits to the owner of the photo)

Thus the war on Venezuela has been escalating. Spoiled rich kids have received paramilitary training so that they can wreak havoc on their country. Among their most memorable recent crimes was the murder of Orlando Figuera who was stabbed six times and burned alive for being a black man and hence a likely Chavista. I was reminded of the CIA’s war on black Libyans who were massacred by racist al Qaeda death squads incited by “human rights groups” like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International to carry out genocide against black Libyans and African guest workers with their “African Mercenaries” propaganda campaign. I was also of course reminded of the US itself where the police and even fascist hate groups still murder blacks with utter impunity. Ines Esparragozza Orlando‘s mother a maid was fired by her rich opposition supporting employer for daring to denounce the horrific murder of her son on national television. The murder of Orlando Figuera had been part of the oppositions Ukraine inspired tactics as earlier a Telesur journalist had been doused with gasoline and nearly set on fire. Arson is a favorite weapon of the Venezuelan fascists who had already tried to burn down a maternity ward full of premature babies. Since torching poor Orlando alive they have attempted to burn down the Venezuelan Supreme court for resisting their coup plots and the housing authority for the crime of building new homes for 1.5 million Venezuelans. To make matters worse Colombian death Squads are still operating in Venezuela murdering Chavistas. The CIA/Media which are practically inseparable have waged propaganda warfare on the country. Apparently Venezuela is guilty of trying to put a stop to this violent and murderous rampage which no state would tolerate. Venezuelans will never surrender to this attack on their country aiming to destroy all they have dreamed of and worked for in the 30 years since they first rose up.

Syria the most heroic nation on the planet has been a target for even longer. As Stephen Gowan explains in his excellent new book “Washington’s Long War on Syria” Syria has been a target of the american empire since at least the 1950’s. Syria’s crime was daring to dream  of true independence from the old colonial powers and their new american heirs. Syria attempted to achieve economic and political independence. Syria resisted the settler colonial state of Israel. Syria refused to throw it’s people into poverty so that western billionaires could get a little richer. As result Syria was targeted for destruction. An attempt was made to destroy the country using the Muslim brotherhood as proxies in the 1980’s funded by the CIA, Israel, the Saudis and Syria’s many other enemies. Thankfully this genocidal terror campaign was successfully crushed. Sadly the US would launch a far more ambitious war on Syria in our own times.

The suffering the Syrian people have undergone since 2011 is incalculable. The economic war using sanctions has been even more destructive then the terror campaign the west has unleashed. The two work together sanctions prevent Syria from importing vital medicines while the NATO death squads blow up pharmaceutical factories, destroy hospitals and murder doctors. Then when terrorists explode a bomb Syrian civilians die or suffer unnecessary amputations because there are no antibiotics to treat infections. A simple trip to the dentist becomes a nightmare because there is no anesthetic. Sanctions put people out of work while terrorist recruiters offer huge salaries. Children starve or die from easily preventable diseases. Millions have lost everything, millions are homeless. 300,000 people have died but millions have lost love ones, suffered traumas and tragedies most people cannot even imagine. Yet even amidst all this horror and suffering Syrians have refused to surrender. They have refused to give up their dignity their humanity. Syria’s civilians are the unsung heroes of this war every day is a struggle to survive. The criminal sanctions on Syria must be lifted.

A scene of destruction after an aerial bombing in Azaz, Syria, Aug. 16, 2012. (U.S. government photo)

Which is why it is so horrifying to see the empire of chaos doing everything in it’s power to prolong this war as long as possible. Syria has suffered more then enough. The tide of the war has shifted in Syria’s favor forcing the US to intervene directly in order to prop up their terrorist allies. First however I must deal with that heroic city Deir Ezzor. The US seems determined to enable an ISIS victory. Deir Ezzor was the victim of  repeated waves of huge ISIS attacks aimed at capturing the city leaving 100,000 Syrian civilians in ISIS merciless grip and massacring the cities heroic SAA defenders who have managed to resist ISIS for years despite being completely surrounded. The US has been deliberately trying to herd ISIS fighters out of Raqqah and towards Deir Ezzor and Palmyra which they hope to seize a third time. The SAA have been trying to close this gap in southern Raqqah which the americans kurdish mercenaries have deliberately left open. The latest attack on Deir Ezzor was enabled by these criminal schemes although of course ISIS would never have become one of the most powerful and well funded death squad armies without the support of the CIA. This fact was made blatantly obvious when ISIS popped on the other side of the world to destabilize the Philippines which is pursuing friendly relations with China against the empire’s wishes. Hence it is clear the US was also behind the massive ISIS offensive at Deir Ezzor which they hope will give them an excuse to seize Deir Ezzor using their Marines and kurdish proxies in the north of Syria and their terrorist forces in the south of Syria. ISIS managed to make some dangerous advances seizing vital strategic parts of the city and the fate of Deir Ezzor was in doubt for a few days. Thankfully the heroic SAA defenders were able to stage a counter attack and Deir Ezzor was saved. Deir Ezzor has become an important symbol to Syria and the world as a symbol of Syria’s determination to liberate their country. Deir Ezzor surrounded by enemies  a symbol of Syria’s  heroic resistance against the US-Israel-NATO-GCC Axis of Chaos. We can only hope that the cities brave defenders can hold out against ISIS long enough for the siege to be lifted and the cities people to be saved. The US has launched a horrific white phosphorous bombing in the area that killed 30 civilians.

The liberation of Deir Ezzor has long been a goal of the SAA but recently a new battle to preserve Syria’s sovereignty has begun in the south where the US invaded a couple months ago in support of their terrorist allies and set up a base at al Tanf. When Syria and it’s allies sent a force aimed at ejecting the invaders the US bombed them repeatedly. The US then set up yet another base in southern Syria. They are moving kurdish mercenaries to reinforce al Tanf. They have recently sent an advanced rocket launching system to defend this stolen territory. Luckily Syria and it’s Iraqis allies were able to outflank these bases opening a border crossing between Iraq and Syria. Syria is doing everything in it’s power to contain this invading force without giving the Americans an excuse to further escalate their attacks. Unfortunately America needs no excuses since it is run by pathological liars. In Northern Syria the SAA are trying to cut off the ISIS escape routes and trying to prevent the Americans from stealing more Syrian territory for their kurdish puppets. In support of this mission a Syrian jet was bombing ISIS near Rasafa when the US shot it down aiming to halt Syrian advances in the North which are also aimed at setting the stage for the liberation of Deir Ezzor. The US lied and claimed the plane had been bombing their kurdish puppets. The US may have gone too far this time as the patience of Russia has finally run out and it is threatening to target any NATO or Israeli planes flying into Syrian airspace. Only the future will show whether they carry through on these threats.

Thus unfortunately after suffering years of tragic war it may be years before the war in Syria ends because the vindictive empire cannot stand to be humiliated at the hands of the heroic Syrians. It is all just a board game to the imperial planners in Washington no matter how many millions they kill they seem completely immune to any remorse. If Syria had been destroyed and millions were slaughtered they would have celebrated. They dream of a world without heroism a world without hope where we have forgotten how to dream and would never dare to resist. A world where greed is the only value, lies are held to be sacred truths, and where mass murder and slavery are viewed as liberation.

Opposing them are the millions of Venezuelans who have taught the world to dream, to hope again. Opposing them are the heroic people of Syria who have reminded the world that however powerful the empire it can be defeated so long as we resist.

Sources

I read two great books recently which I highly recommend “The Plot to Scapegoat Russia: How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify Russia” By Dan Kovalik (I’ve often relied on his work on Latin America) attempts to expose the horrifying crimes of the american empire as well as explain why Russia has been targeted by this insane propaganda campaign. I also recommend “Washington’s Long War on Syria” By Stephen Gowans which explains Syria’s modern history as well as analyzing the current war on Syria and debunking much of the propaganda surrounding this war. Both Books are must reads.

An Analysis of the current situation in Syria

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/06/syria-summary-us-attack-fails-to-disrupt-push-to-deir-ezzor.html

Fascists in Venezuela continue their rampage

https://libya360.wordpress.com/2017/06/13/venezuelan-supreme-court-torched-as-jailed-opposition-leader-urges-coup/

Comparing the Fascist Tactics used in Ukraine and Venezuela

https://libya360.wordpress.com/2017/06/12/plaza-altamira-venezuela-plaza-maidan-ukraine/

Another Side of Venezuela

https://libya360.wordpress.com/2017/06/15/venezuela-stories-from-the-peoples-struggle/

The Murder of Orlando Figuera

https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/13170

Featured image: credits to the owner

It seems that the United Nations Secretary General Mr. Guterres does not watch the news. He has not noticed that the forces behind the President of the United States, symbol par excellence of a deeply sick world – and system – are struggling for the destruction of life on the planet within the next few decades. He did not notice that last April, in a space of only ten days, the US came close to starting two nuclear wars, in Syria and in Korea. He has not been told anything about the wars in the Middle East and the situation of a humanity which, from an overall perspective, finds itself in probably the worst, and certainly the most dangerous, moment in its history.

There is one thing that Mr. Guterres, a veteran of that peerless ensemble of European “Socialists” has in the forefront of his mind, keeping him awake at night. It is not the bombs in Afghanistan, the cholera in Yemen, the situation in Palestine, the famine in Africa. Mr. Guterres is concerned about how he can bring peace to Cyprus, where the hostilities ended in… 1974!

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres (Source: UN Photo)

For this purpose he has already traveled to Ankara and now he has urgently summoned the leaders of the Greek and Turkish Cypriot “communities” to New York. Before Mr. Guterres it was Victoria Nuland that was intensely preoccupied with the Cypriot question (she too nearly triggered a nuclear conflict in Ukraine) and also the Prime Minister of Britain, a country that has contributed in every possible way to the demolition of half the Middle East, who even traveled to Ankara to persuade Erdogan to agree to a Cyprus solution. The President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker (during whose watch Greece proceeded serenely on its course towards destruction, Britain left the EU and all of Europe faces the threat of disintegration) also  remembered suddenly that the Cyprus conflict needs urgently to be addressed.

That is how it came about that Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders arranged a meeting with Mr. Guterres tomorrow in New York.

How do they want to solve the Cyprus conflict?

In a revealing interview for the German Press Agency (DPA, 27.1.2017) given by the Greek Foreign Minister Mr. Kotzias, who wrote bulky tomes on the transformation of Greece into a “debt colony” before himself becoming one of the colony’s ministers, outlines with a cogency to which his German readership will feel entitled what exactly the plan is for Cyprus, making it clear beyond any doubt that the purpose of the operation is to transform a second member of the EU (after Greece) into a protectorate of the “axis of naval powers” (USA, Britain, Israel), with some kind of role in the governance of the EU, even if we do not know what that will be and whether the Union will even exist in a few years.

As the honorable Minister explained, re-interpreting with disarming frankness Pericles’ definition of democracy,  all major decisions in the new state whose structure is at present under negotiation and which will replace the existing one will be taken on a half-and-half basis by the majority (82% Greek Cypriots) and the minority (18% Turkish Cypriots). He did not say as much, but clearly, as most probably these two parts of the population will not be in agreement, foreigners will be called in to take the decisions, as envisaged in the Annan Plan that was rejected in the 2004 referendum.

It is one question who makes the decisions. Just as important is the question of who implements them. In our case the ultimate responsibility for exercising sovereignty will be in the hands, as the Minister explained, of an International Police Force. As for the existing armed forces of Cyprus, they will be dissolved. The new “state” will not have its own army or the right to self-defense that is possessed by other UN and EU members. It will be “demilitarized”, which in practice means that the natives will be forbidden to have their own army, but there will be a lot of foreign troops in circulation, and above all there will still be the monstrous British bases with a fundamental role in the wars in the Middle East and the monitoring of global communications.

This “state” legally will be a post-modern protectorate run by foreigners. Psychologically it will be a way to ensure that Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots will never be friends, because the majority will hate the minority for the perennial injustice written into the very institutions of the new “state” and the minority will be trapped as never before in its excessive privilege and will be forever running to Ankara to ensure that this is not challenged. Both communities will be petitioning the “international community” (i.e. the USA, Britain, Israel, Brussels: the post-modern colonial authority), and bending over backwards to retain its favour.

In practice the New Cyprus will be a time bomb, with the capacity to turn the island into a new Syria at any moment, creating serious problems and threats for both Greece and the EU. Through the Turkish Cypriots Turkey will have voting rights in the EU, henceforth made a de facto member, with the rights – but not the obligations – of countries belonging to the Union. But not even Turkey itself will benefit from this in the long run, because such a situation will lead sooner or later to serious European hostility against Turkey.

Following the Greek “experiment”, where sovereignty and democracy of a member state of the EU were abolished through utilization of a debt war and “bail-out” memoranda, a new experiment of the same kind will take place inside the EU, under the pretence that this is the way to “solve the Cyprus conflict”.

If such a plan is accepted and succeeds, it will represent a huge new triumph of the forces that are struggling to transform the EU into a totalitarian structure. If it fails, as is more probable, this will be to the advantage of the Forces of Chaos, which we have already seen in action in the Middle East, in the Greek/European crisis, in Ukraine, in the issues of global climate.

States turned into simulacra

The method used in Cyprus is the same as that used in Greece. First, as much as possible, you control the local elites through corruption, blackmail and every type of pressure. Then you find a way to circumvent the will of the people.

In 1789, the people of France decapitated its kings as a means of obtaining their freedom. Now, the Kingdom of Money takes its revenge by decapitating societies, through assertion of control, through buyouts, through coercion and other means, over their political elites, their media, their intellectuals, their entrepreneurs, their universities, etc.

At some point they have so much control over local leaders that they can order them to commit suicide and secure their obedience in doing so. This is happening even in larger countries, like France, where Mr. Hollande was ordered to organize the suicide of his own party and promote his own successor and did both, without objections!)

President of Cyprus Nicos Anastasiades (Source: Britannica Encyclopedia)

The President of Cyprus, Mr. Anastasiades, is said to be blackmailed through the threat of more public revelations of the Lebedev affair (in the Greek case we had the blackmail of the Greek political and state elite, which accepted massive sums of money from Siemens and other firms). (1)

In the Eastern Mediterranean, if not in all of Europe, the Empire has achieved giant leaps towards turning nation states into virtual reality. Those formally sovereign states now remind us of the final phase of Roman imperial extension when the kings of the still independent Hellenistic kingdoms went of their own accord to Rome and surrendered their powers, their countries and their subjects, to Caesar, asking for some benefits for themselves.

In the Greece-Cyprus-Turkey sub-system of the Eastern Mediterranean, the first of the three states has been to all intents and purposes dismantled and placed under the economic sovereignty of the creditors and the suffocating geopolitical-strategic control of  the axis of “naval powers” (USA-UK-Israel); the second, under Mr. Anastasiades  has managed to preserve an independence verging on the purely formal  and only the third is struggling in its way to retain its sovereignty and independence.

This is why the governments of Cyprus and Greece are putting up no resistance to the plans for dissolving the Cypriot state.

But there is one more “detail” to be addressed. The will of the people. Which brings us to the relevance of the method introduced by Victoria Nuland and supported by Mr. Guterres for addressing the problem of the existence of the population.

Circumventing the obligation of a referendum

Up until 1^st December an unspeakably farcical comedy of “intercommunal negotiations” was under way in Cyprus, where the leaders of the Greek Cypriots (82% of the population) and Turkish Cypriots (18% of the population), Anastasiades and Akıncı, were allegedly attempting to find a solution to the Cyprus problem that could be submitted to a referendum and approved.

We call it a farcical comedy because in reality it was not an attempt to solve the Cyprus problem, something that would presuppose engagement of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot societies in a deep, frank, serious and honest dialogue about how they envisage their common future. It was a negotiating initiative between two leaders  that took place not because the society of the island wanted it but because the West, which aspires to control over the island, demanded it. The conflict between Greeks and Turks on the island was in any case, historically, fomented and perpetuated by Britain, the USA and others because they had no other way of maintaining their control.

These negotiations were conducted in reality on the basis of the proposal already rejected by the population in the referendum of 2004, the Annan Plan, which involves massive violation of the most basic and globally recognized provisions of constitutional, international and European law, including the full abolition of the rule of majority (democracy) and of the right to self-defence.

Supposedly if these discussions reached some conclusion, the new plan  for solving the Cyprus conflict would be put to a new referendum so that the inhabitants could decide if they want to live in this state.

But the discussions have evidently not come to any conclusion, nor has there been much chance that the inhabitants would have voted yes to any new plan of such a kind. The internationally renowned peace lover Mrs. Victoria Nuland thus resolved to implement a change of methodology. She retrieved from oblivion the neo-colonial agreements of 1960 that had been imposed by London with threats and blackmail upon the Cypriots revolting against British colonial rule. The validity and legality of those agreements was  challenged decades ago by the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council, not to mention Britain’s own specialists in the Foreign Office. Those agreements should also be regarded as null and void after the admission of Cyprus as a state with full and unimpeded sovereignty into the European Union.

Based on the provisions of those agreements, a Conference of Guarantor Powers was convened in Geneva on January 12^th. In this conference, convened to decide the status of Cyprus, three foreign states: Greece, Turkey and Britain are participating, but not the Republic of Cyprus, a member of the EU and the Eurozone. Representatives of only two (of the four) “communities” of the island (to use the British colonial terminology, itself an heir to Ottoman terminology) are participating: the Greek and Turkish Cypriot “communities”.

To understand what is involved, imagine an international conference on the national problem of Spain, in which there is participation from France, Italy and Portugal, the various regions of Spain, but not Spain itself.

In fact, the situation with the International Conference on Cyprus is even more surreal, as all the three states participating in this conference: Britain, Turkey and Greece (under the Colonels’ dictatorship, imposed on the country by the US and NATO), have in the past waged bloody wars against Cypriots, with the aim of preventing them from achieving self-determination and exercising it!

In theory, a referendum is still provided for. But if it finally takes place, this will be when it has no meaning. If the Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders, Greece, Cyprus and Turkey sign the agreements on the status of Cyprus, the security provisions, etc., and then the EU and the UN validate this, then the international status of the new “state” will have been decided and no opposite vote in a future referendum will be able to resuscitate the currently existing Republic of Cyprus. A referendum may be held only when it will have no meaning.

We should remind readers once more that all this is happening not in Eastern Timor or in Kosovo, in Namibia of the last century, or in apartheid South Africa. It is happening now in the European Union and the Eurozone.

And it is of course completely illegal. It runs counter to the Constitution of Cyprus, the EU Treaties, the UN Charter and the fundamental principles of international law.

But this is of a very relative significance, as long as there is no international institution  able to impose conformity with international law. We have seen the results of this absence in bombing of Yugoslavia, the invasion of Iraq, the Greek “bail-out” programmes, etc.

Mr. Guterres should be interested in this question, but judging from his actions he seems mainly interested in serving US and British imperial interests in the Eastern Mediterranean.

The Conference convened on 12^th January, reached no conclusions but remains in operation because it has been decided that it will be a permanent institution, like the Holy Inquisition. It ceases functioning only when the accused has surrendered his soul, or in this instance the Cypriot people their state.

The purpose of this undertaking is of course not to resolve the Cypriot conflict but  to wrest control of the island from its inhabitants and acquire it for an Empire that has coveted it since the time of Richard the Lionhearted and the Knights Templar. The Empire wants the whole island. It is not satisfied to have just the bases. And it would prefer to have it without its inhabitants. For, as Henry Kissinger is said to have explained, to justify his own crimes in Cyprus, whoever governs Gibraltar, Malta, Crete and Cyprus governs the world.

Reasons of much wider significance for the Cyprus obsession

There are general and specific reasons for this unnatural obsession with “solving the Cypriot crisis”  as quickly as possible.

– preparations for a major war in the Middle East (confirmed by the bombing of Assad’s forces by the US). To neutralize or attack Assad’s Syria and the Russian forces in Syria you must first encircle them and cut them off from Russia. You must control Turkey, which lies between Syria and Russia (this perhaps explains the hasty and unsuccessful 2016 coup) as well as Cyprus, which controls all the Eastern Mediterranean. As the British Defense Secretary Fallon explained recently “our bases in Cyprus are now more important than ever in History”. Why?

– the existence within the international Establishment of a powerful “party of Chaos”, which seeks to cause as many problems as possible for the EU, and perhaps to break it up.

– the very favorable conjuncture of the presence of President Anastasiades in Cyprus and a “debt colony” regime in Greece, under stifling control and supervision from USA-Britain-Israel.

If anyone thinks that this is not correct and that there is something else to explain what is happening, let them say what it is. We ourselves have not read any other plausible explanation.

This aspiration would long ago have been achieved if Tayyip Erdogan and Benjamin Netanyahu had been able to agree. For the moment this has not been achieved, so that the Cypriot state, for now, continues to exist and the European Union is spared yet another very serious crisis.

If Delacroix were still alive, he could probably paint “The Argument of the Pimps in the Antechamber of the Odalisk”.

Athens, June 3, 2017

Note

1. For the Lebedev affair see for instance http://www.defenddemocracy.press/%ce%b1nastasiades-under-pressure-to-abolish-now-his-own-state-and-bring-turkey-into-the-eu/

Featured image: Wikimedia Commons

There is hardly a day that goes by without a terror attack somewhere in the world, emphasis on western world.

There were three successive UK terror attacks within less than three months, one in Manchester two in London, where all the ‘terrorists’ – who all yelled coincidentally Allahu Akbar (God is Great) while committing their heinous crimes – were killed. None was left alive for testimony.

Since then another one was carried out in front of a Mosque in northern London. Yesterday in a Brussels railway station someone exploded a bomb, and people heard him scream Allahu Akbar. Its terror non-stop. We better get used to it.

Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) fighting against the Maute Group in Marawi (Source: Land Destroyer Report)

Terror is reigning in Africa every day, in Central Africa, the Congo, Burundi, Nigeria – you name it. The Islamic State is fighting in the Philippines. They are fighting a proxy war for Washington against the inconvenient President Duterte, who likes to ally with China and Russia. Geographically, economically and politically speaking, a logical choice. It’s hardly reported by the media. And if reported, it’s twisted and turned into barrage of lies. Terror is the scare of the day; and terror is a branch of the US military – it’s a weaponized strategy to conquer the world by fear and as a consequence, by militarization. People ask for it, for protection.

Terror is fed, trained and armed by Washington and the Pentagon. The number of attacks are increasing by the day. We can only wonder, where will it strike tomorrow. The question, “when will it stop?” is not even an option. It will not stop. It’s part of the war game.

On the other side of the equation, globalized Wall Street, the FED and international financial institutions are strangling poor countries with debt into submission, especially those with natural resources, like hydrocarbons tropical forests, gold and diamonds. All stained in blood. But finance does not stop there. It comes down to the individual, digitizing cash.

Making us a cashless society. It’s good for you. No need for carrying money around. It’s worthless anyway. Going digital, we can control you-and you are safe. The State will never steal your money. They could, but they won’t. Ethics. It’s called Ethics. And we trust them. In God We Trust – and god is money, to be precise – the US Dollar.

US rocket artillery system in Syria (Source: South Front)

In the Middle East, a serious confrontation between the US and Russia is brewing, as Russia keeps believing in agreements signed with Washington, despite deceptions, time and again. The latest incident, supposedly fighting ISIS, a US F-18 fighter shot down a Syrian plane fighting ISIS. By accident, of course.

The Russian Defense Ministry did not mince its words, “In areas where Russian aviation is conducting combat missions in the Syrian skies, any flying objects, including jets and unmanned aerial vehicles of the international coalition discovered west of the Euphrates River will be followed by Russian air and ground defenses as air targets.” In other words, they will be shot down. Is it that what the dark forces behind Washington want? – a deadly provocation?

Possibly. Because the US economy is based on war – and the European one is following closely in these bloody footsteps. We are living an economy of destruction, not one of construction, of a congenial livelihood, of solidarity among people and societies. Now our economy is also a tool of war – it impoverishes the masses and enriches the few. It divides the people, the countries, the continents – to conquer them. Those who control the economy are those who control the western monetary system, the fraudulent, privately made, owned usurping debt and interest machine; the dollar pyramid, upon which every other western currency depends. Those who control this unspeakable fraud, will eventually control a divided world. A world of man-made eternal chaos.

For the masters of war-and the would-be Masters of the Universe, it doesn’t matter whether we all go under. They still think, ‘The War’, even nuclear – will be fought in far-away places – such as Europe and the Middle East. The May, Macron, Merkel puppets, who allow it, by having nurtured NATO for the last decade-plus, hope to be ‘evacuated’ to Miami, or the Caribbean, in time, when Europe burns – for the third time in 100 years.

Propaganda tells us be on your guard, the Russians are coming, and behind them the Chinese. We will protect you; we will militarize your countries, and we will make sure your money is safe, therefore it will be digitized. And every explosion that you see and hear about – it is not for you. It is taking place in foreign lands.

People, there is nothing left to hope for in the west. This could be it. The end-run. And you and me are in it, if we don’t leave it NOW. We have for too long believed in the treachery of Washington, the false promises, the eternal lies for centuries drop-by-dripping-drop into our brains have drained our self-worth, our autonomy; and we have ‘democratically’ allowed that these Washington bandits and the criminal gang that directs them from behind, have stolen our nations sovereignty.

Are we doomed?  The West is in its final stage of committing unrelenting suicide by sheer greed and monstrous aggressions and an eternal flood of lies.

The only hope for those of us who may survive, is the East. China, Russia and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) offer an economy of peace. They offer the world, including the west, for those who are not afraid to break loose from the weakening fangs of Washington, an enormous economic and scientific development program – the New Silk Road, or OBOR – One Belt One Road, or OBI for short.

The One Belt Initiative – an economy of peace and prosperity offered to the world by China’s President Xi. Wake up, People, wake up – and step out from the western warmongers orbit.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik, PressTV, The 4th Media (China), TeleSUR, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.

Featured image: samritchie.net

Professor Yakov Rabkin of the University of Montreal presents in this video, an important historical and carefully documented perspective on Palestine and Israel.

.

.

.

Featured image: credits to the owner

On June 21st, ISIS terrorists blew up the Al-Nuri Kabir Mosque in the Old Mosul area in western Mosul.  The mosque is located in the center of Old Mosul, the last remaining ISIS stronghold in the Iraqi city.  The Al-Nuri Kabir Mosque was the place where ISIS Leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi proclaimed a ‘Caliphate’ in 2014.

The ISIS-linked news agency Amaq released a statement arguing that a US airstrike destroyed the mosque.

On the same day, Iraqi security forces (ISF), backed up by the US-led coalition, launched a large-scale advance in order to retake Old Mosul from ISIS. ISF fighters advanced on Old Mosul from the northern and southwestern directions, penetrated ISIS defense lines, and reached the area close to the Al-Nuri Kabir Mosque.

The destruction of the mosque by terrorists is a clear indication of the collapse of ISIS in Mosul.

According to pro-government sources, about 300 ISIS terrorists were killed in the recent clashes in Old Mosul.  However, this has not been confirmed by photo or video evidence. According to some sources, the total number of ISIS members remaining in the city is between 300 and 400.

According to pro-ISIS sources, some 36 ISF servicemen were killed in clashes in Old Mosul.

According to official estimates, over 100,000 civilians are trapped in the ISIS-held area.  However, experts believe that number to be an overestimation as was the case during the final stages of the battle for Aleppo.

Iraqi forces entered a final phase of their wider effort to liberate the city of Mosul from terrorists.  If they entrench in the recently captured areas of Old Mosul, they will be able to set a foothold for a rapid liberation of this strategic area.

Voiceover by Harold Hoover

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: Pinterest

The unilateral independence of Kosovo was declared in February 2008.

Kosovo is a member of  The Bretton Woods institutions. Kosovo seeks membership of NATO, the EU and now Interpol.

The Interpol Executive Committee has decided that the application of Kosovo for membership in Interpol would be put on the agenda of the General Assembly to be held in Beijing, China, from 26 to 29 September 2017, Government of Kosovo stated Monday.

In a bitter irony, Kosovo president Hashim Thaci is still on the list of Interpol in relation to his links to organized crimes and the drug trade. Last February president Thaci requested the secretary-general of Interpol, Juergen Stock, “to cancel warrants for the detention of former Kosovo Liberation Army fighters who are wanted in Serbia over war crimes allegations.”

Kosovo is a Mafia state which is supported by Washington and NATO. Criminals are the ideal heads of state. They obey orders from their puppet masters.

 The accession of Kosovo to Interpol of a territory run by criminals?

The following article was first published by Global Research in February 2008.

Michel Chossudovsky, June 23, 2017

*  *  *

Our orientations are clear. The building of the state of Kosova, economic development, economic and social well-being and rigorous measures against corruption, organized crime and negative behavior, so we can have improved security and integrate Kosova into European Union structures.

(Hashim Thaci, chairman of the Democratic Party of Kosovo (PDK), Prime Minister of the Kosovo provisional government, former KLA leader and known criminal)

The PDK, led by Hashim Thaci, former Kosovo Liberation Army [KLA] commander, took control of many municipalities after the war. The party has close links with organized crime in the province. (The Observer, 29 October 2000)

Mr. Thaci, nicknamed “the Snake” during his KLA days, is a sharp-suited 32-year-old former rebel commander with poor oratory skills, links to organized crime and a determination to preserve relations between his party and the United States (The Scotsman, 20 October 2000)

I know a terrorist when I see one and these men are terrorists,” (US Special Envoy and Ambassador Robert Gelbard)

“The KLA [formerly headed by Hashim Thaci] is tied in with every known Middle and Far Eastern drug cartel. Interpol, Europol, and nearly every European intelligence and counter-narcotics agency has files open on drug syndicates that lead right to the KLA,…”  (Michael Levine former official of the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA))

“Hashim Thaci founded the “Drenica-Group” an underground organization that is estimated to have controlled between 10% and 15% of all criminal activities in Kosovo (smuggling arms, stolen cars, oil, cigarettes and prostitution).” Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia
The US, the EU and the UN are supporting a Kosovo government headed by a known criminal, Prime Minister Hashim Thaci [now President of Kosovo].

The position of Prime Minister was created under the “Provisional Institutions of Self-Government (PISG)” established by the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK)

Under UN mandate, the purpose of the provisional government was “to provide ‘provisional, democratic self-government’ in advance of a decision on the political status of Kosovo.

What this signifies is that the United Nations has not only set the stage for an “Independent” Kosovo government in violation of international law, it has also installed a Kosovo government integrated by the members of a criminal syndicate. All three Kosovo Prime Ministers, Ramush Haradinaj, Agim Ceku and Hashim Thaci are war criminals.

Hashim Thaci and EU Secretary-General Javier Solana

The Kosovo Democratic Party headed by former KLA Commander Hashim Thaci is essentially an outgrowth of the former Kosovo Liberation Army.

US-NATO covert support the KLA goes back to the mid-1990s. In the year preceding the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia, the KLA was quite openly supported by the Clinton administration.

KLA leader Hashim Thaci was a protégé of Madeleine Albright. He was chosen by Albright to play a key role on Washington’s behalf at the 1998 Rambouillet negotiations. .

Madeleine and Hashim [1998]

The links of the KLA to organized crime have been documented by Interpol and the US Congress. The Washington Times in an article published in May 1999 describes the KLA and its links to the Clinton administration as follows:

 Some members of the Kosovo Liberation Army [headed by the current Kosovo Prime minister Hashim Thaci] , which has financed its war effort through the sale of heroin, were trained in terrorist camps run by international fugitive Osama bin Laden — who is wanted in the 1998 bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 224 persons, including 12 Americans.

The KLA members, embraced by the Clinton administration in NATO’s 41-day bombing campaign to bring Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to the bargaining table, were trained in secret camps in Afghanistan, Bosnia-Herzegovina and elsewhere, according to newly obtained intelligence reports.

The reports also show that the KLA has enlisted Islamic terrorists — members of the Mujahideen –as soldiers in its ongoing conflict against Serbia, and that many already have been smuggled into Kosovo to join the fight.     ….

The intelligence reports document what is described as a “link” between bin Laden, the fugitive Saudi millionaire, and the KLA –including a common staging area in Tropoje, Albania, a center for Islamic terrorists. The reports said bin Laden’s organization, known as al-Qaeda, has both trained and financially supported the KLA. (Washington Times,  May 4, 1999, see complete article below)

The Christian Science Monitor in an August 14, 2000 report describes the criminal network controlled by Thaci:

UN police suspect that much of the violence and intimidation has come from former KLA members, especially those allied with Hashim Thaci, the former KLA leader and head of the Democratic Party of Kosovo, one of the KLA’s political offshoots.

In one recent incident, the shop of an LDK activist in Mr. Thaci’s home village was sprayed with automatic gunfire – the second such attack since November.

Thaci’s party potentially has much to lose in the elections, which are for municipal offices only. After Serb forces withdrew last year, the KLA occupied town halls and public institutions across Kosovo and set up its own provincial government.

Although the UN has gradually asserted its own authority and placed representatives of other political groups in local governments, in places like Srbica ex-KLA members affiliated with Thaci’s party still exercise virtual complete control.

“These guys are not going to give up power that easily,” says Dardan Gashi, a political analyst with the International Crisis Group, a US-based research organization with an office in Pristina.

UN police also suspect organized crime is involved in some of the violence. They say that criminal groups engaged in racketeering, smuggling, and prostitution rely on close links to some people in power. The prospect of losing these connections – and the income they generate – may make them ill-disposed toward the LDK.

Officials say the problem is the worst in the Drenica region of Kosovo, the KLA’s heartland and a stronghold of Thaci’s party. Srbica, where Koci is the local LDK president, is one of the main towns in Drenica. (emphasis added)

The Heritage Foundation: Support the KLA-KDP, despite its Criminal Connections 

The Heritage Foundation in a May 1999 report acknowledges that the KLA is a criminal organization. It nonetheless called for the support of the KLA by the Clinton administration:

Should the U.S. harness the KLA’s military potential against Milosevic’s brutal regime, despite the KLA’s unusual ideological roots and apparent ties to organized crime? …  The KLA does not represent every group seeking an end to Milosevic’s brutal campaign and is known to have committed some atrocities of its own, it is the most significant force resisting Yugoslav aggression within Kosovo. Moreover, the scale and scope of its crimes have been dwarfed by the systematic campaign of terror unleashed by Yugoslav military, paramilitary, and police forces inside Kosovo. which Washington has done consistently since the 1999 war. (Heritage Foundation Report, 13 May 1999)

Shunning the KLA now will deprive the United States of the benefits of cooperating with a resistance force that is capable of ratcheting up the pressure on Milosevic to negotiate a settlement (Ibid)

The Heritage Foundation supports the Kosovo Democratic Party (KDP) which is integrated by former members of the KLA.

The KDP has retained its links  to organised crime. This position of the Heritage Foundation broadly summarizes the attitude of the “international community” in relation to Kosovo.  More recently, the Heritage Foundation, which plays a behind the scenes role in the formulation  of US foreign policy, has been pushing for Kosovo “Independence”

Hashim Thaci

Hashim Thaci with another war criminal: Tony Blair

The evidence amply confirms that the prime minister of Kosovo [now president] never severed his links to organized crime.

A known criminal is being protected by the United Nations: He was arrested in Budapest in July 2003 on an Interpol warrant and was immediately released, following a request from the UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). This is not an isolated event. There is evidence that the UN Mission and its international police force have protected the former KLA, which in the wake of the 1999 NATO bombing was relabeled the Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC) under a formal UN mandate.

According to Serbian Justice Minister Vladan Batic, “the prosecution at the Hague war crimes tribunal has over 40,000 pages of evidence against former Kosovo Liberation Army leader Hashim Thaci,  (quoted by Radio B92, Belgrade, 3 July 2003).

In April 2000, US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright “ordered The Hague chief prosecutor Carla del Ponte to omit from the list of war crime suspects Hashim Thaci” (Tanjug, 6 May 2000). Carla del Ponte subsequently claimed that there was not enough evidence to indict Thaci on war crimes. .

More generally, the UN Mission has acted as an accessory in protecting a criminal syndicate.

In November 2003, criminal proceedings against several former KLA commanders were initiated in Belgrade. These included Hashim Thaci, Agim Ceku and Ramush Haradinaj. .Both Haradinaj and Ceku’s names are on Interpol lists.

Agim Ceku

Agim Ceku is known for having committed extensive war crimes in the Krajina region of Croatia in the mid-1990s involving the massacre and ethnic cleansing of the Serb population. He was a former brigadier general in the Croatian Army and a key planner of Operation Storm,  which led to the expulsion of several hundred  thousand Serbs from Krajina region of Croatia. In 1999, he was appointed Commander of the KLA, with the approval of the US and NATO.  He was subsequently appointed Commander of the UN sponsored Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC) (on UN payroll) and became Prime Minister of Kosovo in 2006, succeeded by Hashim Thaci, the current Prime Minister  In Kosovo, he continues to have links to organized crime syndicates. According to a London Observer, the KPC which was headed by Ceku, was involved in acts of torture as well protecting prostitution in Kosovo. (March 14, 2000 , Atlanta Journal-Constitution)

From Left to right: Hashim Thaci, Bernard Kouchner, General Michael Jackson, Agim Ceku, General Wesley Clarke 

Condoleeza Rice meets [former] Kosovo President Fatmir Sejdiu and Prime Minister Agim Ceku (left)

The Western Media: Disinformation concerning the Nature of the Kosovo government

The Kosovo government is tied into organized criminal syndicates involved in narcotics and human trafficking.

The fact that all three Kosovo Prime Ministers, Ramush Haradinaj, Agim Ceku and Hashim Thaci are war criminals has not been acknowledged in recent press reports regarding the Independence of Kosovo.

The EU and the US are supporting the criminalization of Kosovo politics. 

Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best seller America’s “War on Terrorism”  Second Edition, Global Research, 2005. He is Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization. 

To order Chossudovsky’s book  America’s “War on Terrorism”, click here

Nell’immaginario collettivo le armi spaziali sono quelle dei film di fantascienza della serie «Star Wars». Non ci si accorge, perché sui media quasi nessuno ne parla, che sono divenute reali. La corsa agli armamenti, compresi quelli nucleari, si è da tempo estesa dalla Terra allo spazio. In testa sono gli Stati uniti, che puntano sempre più al controllo militare dello spazio.

Israel has displaced almost 66 per cent, nearly 957,000, of the Palestinian people who lived in historic Palestine during the 1948 Nakba, a new report has revealed.

Published on World Refugee Day, the study by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) stated that nearly 5.9 million people are registered as refugees with UNRWA, the UN relief agency tasked with dealing with Palestine refugee affairs, 17 per cent live in the West Bank and 24.5 per cent in the Gaza Strip.

As many as 39.1 per cent of Palestinian refugees live in Jordan, 8.8 per cent in Lebanon and 10.6 per cent live in Syria.

In an interview with Quds Press, Ahmad Hanoun, director of the Refugee Department in the Palestine Liberation Organisation, said that resolving the refugee issue by ensuring that they return to their abandoned homes in 1948 is “the key to stability in the entire region and the basis of any future political solution to end the conflict”.

Hanoun said the world marks World Refugee Day as the Palestinian refugees at home and in the diaspora live under difficult conditions which are exacerbated by the intensification of regional crises in the Arab region and the Israeli restrictions on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

1 person was forced to flee EVERY SECOND due to conflict, violence and disasters in 2016

MEMO Infographic by QUAD Business House

READ MORE: ow.ly/aNZ730cJzwO

Featured image: Anadolu Agency

First published in February 2015

Obama [and now Trump] are on a hot war footing. Western civilization is allegedly “threatened by the Islamic State”.  

 The “Global War on Terrorism” is  heralded as a humanitarian endeavor.

We have a “Responsibility to Protect”. Humanitarian warfare is the solution. 

Evil folks are lurking. ‘Take ’em out”, said George W. Bush.

The Western media is beating the drums of war. America’s military agenda is supported by a vast propaganda apparatus. 

One of the main objectives of war propaganda is to “fabricate an enemy”. As the political legitimacy of the Obama Administration falters, doubts regarding the existence of this “outside enemy”, namely Al Qaeda and its network of (CIA sponsored) affiliates  must be dispelled.

The purpose is to tacitly instil, through repeated media reports, ad nauseam, within people’s inner consciousness, the notion that Muslims constitute a threat to the security of the Western World.  

Humanitarian warfare is waged on several fronts: Russia,  China and the Middle East are currently the main targets.

Xenophobia and the Military Agenda

The wave of xenophobia directed against Muslims which has swept across Western Europe is tied into geopolitics. It is part of a military agenda. It consists in demonizing the enemy.

Muslim countries possess more than 60 percent of total oil reserves.  In contrast, the United States of America has barely 2 percent of total oil reserves. Iraq has five times more oil than the United States. (See Michel Chossudovsky, The “Demonization” of Muslims and the Battle for Oil, Global Research, Jannuary 4, 2007).

A large share of the World’s oil lies in Muslim lands. The objective of the US led war is to steal and appropriate those oil reserves. And to achieve this objective, these countries  are targeted: war, covert ops, economic destabilization, regime change.

The American Inquisition

A consensus building process to wage war is similar to the Spanish inquisition. It requires social subordination, the political consensus cannot be questioned. In its contemporary version, the inquisition requires and demands submission to the notion that war is a means to spreading Western values and democracy.

A good versus evil dichotomy prevails. We must go after the bad guys.

War is peace.

The ‘big lie’ has now becomes the truth … and the truth has become a ‘conspiracy theory’.

Those who are committed to the Truth are categorized as “Terrorists”.

According to Paul Craig Roberts (2011), the conspiracy theory concept “has undergone Orwellian redefinition”…

A “conspiracy theory” no longer means an event explained by a conspiracy.  Instead, it now means any explanation, or even a fact, that is out of step with the government’s explanation and that of its media pimps….

In other words, as truth becomes uncomfortable for government and its Ministry of Propaganda, truth is redefined as conspiracy theory, by which is meant an absurd and laughable explanation that we should ignore.

Fiction becomes fact.

Investigative journalism has been scrapped.

Factual analysis of social, political and economic issues is a conspiracy theory because it challenges a consensus which is based on a lie.

What is the Truth

The real threat to global security emanates from the US-NATO-Israel alliance, yet realities in an inquisitorial environment are turned upside down: the warmongers are committed to peace, the victims of war are presented as the protagonists of war.

The homeland is threatened.

The media, intellectuals, scientists and the politicians, in chorus, obfuscate the unspoken truth, namely that the US-NATO led war destroys humanity.

When the lie becomes the truth there is no turning backwards.

When war is upheld as a humanitarian endeavor, Justice and the entire international legal system are turned upside down: pacifism and the antiwar movement are criminalized. Opposing the war becomes a criminal act. Meanwhile, the war criminals in high office have ordered a witch hunt against those who challenge their authority.

The Big Lie must be exposed for what it is and what it does.

It sanctions the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children.

It destroys families and people. It destroys the commitment of people towards their fellow human beings.

It prevents people from expressing their solidarity for those who suffer. It upholds war and the police state as the sole avenue.

It destroys both nationalism and internationalism.

Breaking the lie means breaking a criminal project of global destruction, in which the quest for profit is the overriding force.

This profit driven military agenda destroys human values and transforms people into unconscious zombies.

Let us reverse the tide.

Challenge the war criminals in high office and the powerful corporate lobby groups which support them.

Break the American inquisition.

Undermine the US-NATO-Israel military crusade.

Close down the weapons factories and the military bases.

Bring home the troops.

Members of the armed forces should disobey orders and refuse to participate in a criminal war.

The reason for the U.S. government’s hostility — at least since 4 February 2014 —toward Europeans, has been a mystery, until now.

This hostility wasn’t even publicly recognized at all, until it leaked out, on that date, from a tapped phone-line of arguably the most powerful person at the U.S. State Department, the person whom American President Barack Obama had personally entrusted with running his Administration’s most geostrategically sensitive secret foreign operations (and she did it actually throughout almost the entirety of Obama’s eight years in office, regardless of whom the official U.S. Secretary of State happened to be at the time): Victoria Nuland.

Her official title was “Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs” and she was appointed to that post by the President himself, but nominally she reported to him through the Deputy Secretary of State William Joseph Burns, who reported to the Secretary of State, who, in turn, reported to the President. 

Former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych (Source: Wikipedia)

She ran policies specifically on Ukraine (and, more broadly, against Russia). In the famous leaked phone call that she made on 4 February 2014 to the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, she instructed him to place in charge of Ukraine’s government, once America’s coup in Ukraine would be completed (which then occurred 18 days later and overthrew the democratically elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, entirely in violation of Ukraine’s own Constitution), “Yats” or Arseniy Yatsenyuk. He did, immediately after the coup was completed, receive this crucial appointment — basically, the power to control all other top appointments in the new Ukrainian government. With this appointment, the coup, which had started by no later than 2011 to be planned inside the U.S. State Department, was effectively completed.  

In this phone call, Nuland said “F—k the EU!” and no one, at the time, paid much attention to what this outburst was all about, but only that it sounded shockingly undiplomatic. Finally, however, clear evidence has now emerged, concerning what it was actually about. 

This crucial evidence consists of a refusal (at long last) by both Germany and Austria, to ratchet-up further, as the U.S. regime now demands, economic sanctions against Russia, sanctions that are a key part of America’s plan ultimately to conquer Russia — a plan that’s been carried out consistently by all U.S. federal governments since the moment, on the night of 24 February 1990, when U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush himself secretly announced it to West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, and afterward to other U.S. vassal-heads-of-state — that, though the Soviet Union was already irrevocably in the process of ending the Cold War against the U.S. and its allies, the U.S. and its allies would secretly continue that war, henceforth, against Russia, until Russia itself would be conquered. He was implicitly informing them, there, that the Cold War, on the U.S. side, wasn’t really about ideology (capitalist versus communist), but instead, was actually a long war for conquest, of the entire world (now it would be to strip Russia of its allies, and then to go in for the kill), by the U.S. aristocracy and its vassal aristocracies (whom those European leaders represented).

On 15 June 2017, the Associated Press headlined “Germany, Austria slam US sanctions against Russia”, and reported that both of those U.S. vassal-nations, while paying obeisance to the imperial master, were not going to proceed further all the way to destruction of their own major oil and gas companies, in order to please that master:

In a joint statement, Austria’s Chancellor Christian Kern and Germany’s Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said it was important for Europe and the United States to form a united front on the issue of Ukraine, where Russian-based separatists have been fighting government forces since 2014.

“However, we can’t accept the threat of illegal and extraterritorial sanctions against European companies,” the two officials said, citing a section of the bill that calls for the United States to continue to oppose the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that would pump Russian gas to Germany beneath the Baltic Sea. Half of the cost of the new pipeline is being paid for by Russian gas giant Gazprom, while the other half is being shouldered by a group including Anglo-Dutch group Royal Dutch Shell, French provider Engie, OMV of Austria and Germany’s Uniper and Wintershall. Some Eastern European countries, including Poland and Ukraine, fear the loss of transit revenue if Russian gas supplies don’t pass through their territory anymore once the new pipeline is built.

Gabriel and Kern accuse the U.S. of trying to help American natural gas suppliers at the expense of their Russian rivals. They said the possibility of fining European companies participating in the Nord Stream 2 project “introduces a completely new, very negative dimension into European-American relations.” 

Currently, and for a very long time, the leading energy-supplier to the EU has been Russia, in the forms of oil and, especially, natural gas, both of which are transported into the EU via an extensive network of pipelines, most of which travel through Ukraine, which is a major reason why the U.S. rulers wanted to take over Ukraine — in order to stop that, or at least to cause a necessity for Russia to build alternative pipelines (which the U.S. regime would likewise do everything to block from happening) — but now both Germany and Austria are saying no to this U.S. effort. 

Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud left

The U.S. regime wants fracked U.S. natural gas to fill an increasing portion of Europe’s needs, and for natural gas from U.S.-allied fundamentalist Sunni royal regimes to fill as much of the rest as possible, so as to squeeze-out the existing top supplier, Russia. (Until recently, the plan was for U.S. ally Qatar, owned by the Thani royal family, to become Europe’s main supplier, via pipelines which would traverse through Syria, for which reason Syria needs to be conquered (so that those pipelines through Syria can be built, perhaps even by American firms). However, the Sauds, who usually run U.S. foreign relations — often with assistance from the Israeli regime, which is far more popular in the United States and also in Europe (and thus serves as the Sauds’ agents in the U.S. and Europe) — have now blockaded Qatar because of Qatar’s insufficient compliance with the Sauds’ demand for total international isolation of Iran and of any other nation where Shia are or might become dominant. (For example, the Sauds bomb Yemen to impose fundamentalist Sunni leadership there and kill the Shia population.) And, so, now, after the break between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, even more than before, the main beneficiaries of cutting off Russian gas-supplies to the EU would be U.S. fracking companies.

However, the big European oil and gas corporations would then play a smaller role in the European market, because those firms have mutual commitments with Gazprom and other Russian giants. The only big winners, now, of increased sanctions against Russia, would thus be U.S. firms.

“Europe’s energy supply is a matter for Europe, and not for the United States of America,” Kern and Gabriel said.

Europe already has suffered considerable economic harm from complying with the U.S. on taking over Ukraine, and from absorbing millions of destitute and alien refugees from Syria, Libya, and other countries where the U.S. CIA, and other agencies, fomented the “Arab Spring” to unlock, in those countries, the oil and gas pipeline potential, which, if controlled by the U.S., would go to U.S. oilfield-services firms such as Halliburton, and not to European ones such as Schlumberger. 

Kern and Gabriel — and the local national aristocracies (respectively Austrian, and German) whom they represent — are now speaking publicly about the limits beyond which they will not go in order to obey their U.S. masters.

Consequently, back in February 2014, when the European aristocracies complied with the U.S. aristocracy’s coup in Ukraine even though knowing full well that it was a barbaric and very bloody coup and nothing ‘democratic’ such as the U.S.-manufactured story-line alleged it to have been, those aristocracies accepted the heist because they thought and expected to be cut in on enough of the looting of Ukraine so as to come out ahead on it. But that’s no longer the case. Because of the Sauds’ campaign against the Thanis (the owners of Qatar), the gang are starting to break up. The U.S. gangsters are no longer clearly in control, but are being forced to choose between the Sauds and the Thanis, and have apparently chosen the Sauds. The Sauds financed the 9/11 attacks in the United States, but are the largest foreign purchasers of U.S.-made weapons.

The U.S. aristocracy hate Europeans because the U.S. aristocracy are determined to conquer Russia, and because Europeans aren’t fully cooperating with that overriding U.S. government goal — many EU billionaires want deals with Russia, but America’s billionaires are determined instead to take over Russia, and so the U.S. (and the Sauds) might be losing its traditional support from the EU.

International affairs — U.S., Russia, Sauds, Thanis, Iran, Germany, UK, etc. — are in unpredictable flux. But Europe seems gradually to be drifting away from the U.S.

And resistant European aristocrats seem even to be digging in their heels on this. Here is a translation of a report dated June 17th from the most reliable source of news regarding international relations, Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten, or “German Economic News”:

https://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2017/06/17/ost-ausschuss-us-sanktionen-gegen-russland-sind-bedrohung-fuer-europa/

Eastern Committee: US sanctions against Russia are a threat to Europe

German Economic News  |  Released:17.06.17 00:36 Clock

The Eastern Committee of the German economy is indignant at the new US sanctions against Russia.

The German companies have sharply criticized the US sanctions against Russia. “The sanctions plans of the US Senate are deeply alarming and, in principle, a threat to the European and German economy,” said Klaus Schäfer, Deputy Chairman of the Eastern Committee of the German Economy, on Friday evening in Berlin. “America first is a new dimension to open up international markets to US providers at the expense of European jobs. Furthermore, we consider an extraterritorial application of economic initiatives generally wrong, “he said. In the Eastern Committee, the German companies active in Eastern Europe are organized. The federal government had also clearly criticized the sanction decision.

“Every further turn at the sanctioning screw increases the danger of new trade wars and the uncertainty of the world economy,” warned Schäfer. The solution of the Ukraine conflict is not a step closer. A de-escalation on all sides was necessary. He pointed out that the US-Russia trade represented only one-tenth of the EU-Russia trade. “We pay the price of sanctions to Europeans”, he criticized. “Implementation of the planned sanctions would make Europe more difficult to provide with favorable energy and inevitably lead to higher prices.”

The most remarkable thing about this intensification of economic aggression by the U.S. aristocracy against some of the European aristocracies, is that instead of the aggression being spearheaded this time by the U.S. President, it’s being spearheaded by an almost unanimous U.S. Senate: 97 out of the 100 U.S. Senators voted for this bill. One cannot, this time around, reasonably blame “Donald Trump” for this ‘nationalism’ — it is instead clearly a Cold War, this time, by the U.S. aristocracy (who are represented by the U.S. government and newsmedia), against some European aristocracies, which are paying insufficient obeisance to the demands by the imperial aristocracy: the U.S. gang.

Source: Fort Russ

Whereas, at the time of the U.S. coup in Ukraine, the EU swallowed in silence their shock at how brutal and bloody it had been, and stayed with the Americans because the Americans claimed that the takeover would benefit European aristocracies too (‘expand the EU’), the lie about that is now clear to all (and Ukraine has been too wrecked by America, to be of much use to anyone but the Americans as a staging base for their missiles against Moscow), and therefore “the Western Alliance” might finally be breaking up.

The vassal-governments have put up with a lot from the U.S. aristocracy, such as when German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s phone was revealed to be tapped by America’s NSA, and the case was quietly dropped because, “Prosecutors say they can find no actionable evidence to support claims German chancellor’s mobile phone was tapped by US National Security Agency” even though everyone knew that the refusal by Germany’s prosecutors was based upon a lie, and that Germany “remains heavily reliant on the US,” and that the U.S. government’s knowing everything that German politicians do, provides against those politicians a blackmail-potential against themselves, that cannot be taken lightly. On the other hand, perhaps there now exists a countervailing force that can outweigh even considerations such as that. Maybe Germany’s billionaires have, somehow, finally become able to turn the tide on this.

The American public have been whipped into such a fury of hatred towards the Russian government, so that, on June 21st, Morning Consult headlined “Americans Show Bipartisan Support for Russia Sanctions, Poll Shows”, and reported their poll, which showed that overwhelming majorities among all political categories — Democrats, Republicans, and independents — wanted the already-severe economic sanctions against Russia to be made even more severe. The owners of America’s oil and gas giants, and of companies such as Lockheed Martin, not to mention of the major newsmedia, and of course the megabanks that are interlocked with those people, might have enjoyed a good chuckle, reading these poll-results. Of course, if one or more of Europe’s aristocracies ends up blocking the effectiveness of such sanctions, then the U.S. and EU might have to go their separate ways; but this would then make Brexit seem like merely the antipasto before the main course of The West’s break-up.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Featured image: Strategic Culture Foundation

Originally published on Home – Stephen Lendman.

On Wednesday, head of the Saudi family dictatorship king Salman replaced prince Mohammed bin Yayef as heir apparent in favor of prince Mohammed bin Salman, his son.

He’s currently chief of the Saudi royal court and council for economic and development affairs head, responsible for running the country’s economy, including its long term plan to be less oil-dependent. According to some observers, he’s already the power behind the thrown.

In some respects, Saudi Arabia is like America. Ordinary citizens of both countries have no say over how their countries are run – for and by their privileged class exclusively, no others, for their war OF terror, not on it, for homeland repression against nonbelievers.

The younger Salman’s elevation was no surprise (MS below), just the timing, sooner than expected. In Saudi Arabia, like other family dictatorships, regionally or elsewhere, rule is all in the family, others excluded.

King Salman, aged-81, reportedly is in poor health, what likely prompted his move at this time. If he dies in the coming months, his son will become the youngest king in the country’s history.

A power struggle has been ongoing to succeed him since he assumed the throne in January 2015 – because of his reported failing health.

Defrocked crown prince Mohammed bin Nayef is his nephew, stripped of his position as interior minister as well.

As defense minister, MS is responsible for supporting ISIS, al-Nusra and other regional terrorist groups, along with waging naked aggression on Yemen – creating a biblical level catastrophe, worsening as conflict continues endlessly.

MS may be behind Riyadh’s hostility toward Qatar. As newly appointed crown prince, he’ll remain Saudi defense minister and assume a new position as deputy prime minister.

On Wednesday, the Saudi Press Agency said 31 out of 34 members of the kingdom’s succession committee chose him as new crown prince.

It’s rumored that king Salman may abdicate the thrown in favor of his son, passing the baton while still alive, maybe with not much time left to do it.

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

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

Featured image: PressTV

At the background of the previous incidents, the development of the current situation in Syria has taken a different turn. The U.S. is extremely concerned about the decisive steps of the Syria’s allies regarding the criminal actions of the Western coalition.

Considering Russia’s decision to suspend cooperation with the U.S. within the framework of a memorandum on preventing air incidents in Syria, Washington redeployed its aircraft to the northeast of Syria. Besides, basing on the data from the latest reports, it becomes obvious that the Coalition Air Force doesn’t cross the line (west of the Euphrates River) beyond which its aircrafts will become the targets for the Syrian and Russian land and air anti-aircraft defense.

It also will be appropriate to remind about Australia, whose Ministry of Defense on Tuesday suspended its air strikes against ISIS targets in Syria.

According to Micah Zenko, a senior fellow with the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations, nowadays, the Coalition Command is more than ever afraid of responsibility for its actions. In his article published in The New York Times, Zenko stressed that the Pentagon was in a political impasse.

Such mention is also shared by Nation Interest. Particularly, the journal reports that if the current U.S. administration continues to conduct its foreign policy towards Syria, Washington will be foredoomed to failure.

British Prime Minister Theresa May has also acknowledged the fact that the Coalition Command was extremely concerned about the current situation in Syria. According to Reuters, May called on all parties, fighting terrorism in the country, to coordinate their actions in order to “reduce the level of tensions.”

In this regard, a natural question arises: why the U.S.-led Coalition didn’t think about coordinating its actions in Syria  before? Moreover, the numerous civilian casualties should be acknowledged.

According to Airwars monitoring organization, 4,000 civilians have been killed since the beginning of the ‘counter-terrorist’ operation in Syria and Iraq.

Nowadays, Washington faces a dilemma – to refuse its aggressive policy towards Syria and the Middle East, or continue to risk the lives of the Coalition’s servicemen, who are fighting for the vested interests of politicians.

Anna Jaunger is a freelance journalist at Inside Syria Media Center. 

Featured image: Syria Direct

The effort of the Kin Collective behind Tim Winton’s third play, Shrine, was always going to be a step onto virgin land. For one, Winton comes at the play as a novelist, thick with internalised images and noise. As the director Marcel Dorney explained of the recently concluded production, “People who spend more time in drama have a different approach to structuring that experience.”

The focus of the play is death, but death in a manner reflective of a nation in love with its vehicles. The car is emancipator, a liberating device on four wheels that takes the child out of the womb of the home into the outer world.

Tim Winton (Source: abc.net.au)

That outer world comes with its dangers, including road toll figures that are staggering in their dimension. Cars of freedom can become coffins of despair. Nothing detracts from that sheer carnage, despite the yawn inducing language from the monthly bulletins issued by the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics.

“During the 12 months ending May 2017,” goes one BITRE remark over numbers that would make a mighty necropolis, “there were 1,226 road deaths.” Despite such a number, the bureaucratic instinct prefers to place it in minor, almost congratulatory perspective: “This is a 2.7 percent decrease compared to the total for the 12-month period ended May 2016.”[1]

The spectacular comes up against the prosaic, the ordinariness of the lethal moment, made sacred by monuments, reflective reminders left on the road, near the scene of the cruel departure. As Winton surmises,

“It has to be a particularly grisly death to make the paper. The private story is told by the signs that people put up.”

Winton’s own effort suggests a point repeatedly touched upon by Malraux, who was never convinced that the mystical or religious had retired from the enlightened march of secularism. Underneath the desire for progressive liberation from immaturity is an equally tenacious wish for spiritual identification. Witness that very issue now, where martyrdom retains its potent currency.

In the act of heroism or cowardice, faith beats and hacks its way through the undergrowth of doubt. Winton rightly notes that, despite an essentially secular base in the country of his birth, with its a near manic resistance to iconography, there are gloriously odd exceptions. The Australian war memorial has become the manifestation of a “secular religion”, a form of totemic mysticism clinging to such tenuous concepts as mateship and solidarity before shell and bullet.[2]

Australia is far from unique in this, though it lacks the sheer range of historical material for memorialisation. Countries accustomed to a generational change of foreign rulers, a regular shift in the guard, are also conditioned by the change of monuments, the lexical tricks that come with renaming streets and replacing designated heroes in battles over memory.

In the last decade, Spain provided a supreme illustration about how monuments and symbols from another era – that of the dictator Franco – might be confronted. The Law of Historical Memory remains a remarkable effort to reconcile yet challenge a blood-soaked, grievous past. All societies have their memorials, but some are deemed more desirable than others.

This desirability, this conflict on memory, is central to Shrine. This is not a play about gargantuan monuments whisked off plinths and ravaged by hammers and shoes. It is not about cold storage for deposed dictators. The focus is ordinary: the road death of Jack (Christian Taylor), and the shrine made for him near the spot of his demise by his flawed car companions.

The death of Christian Taylor (Jack) sets off a chain of events in Shrine (Source: The Sydney Morning Herald)

In this production, there was one actor who seized the Winton model ideally, and came across as a masterful man of realised images on stage. The grieving father, Adam Mansfield, played by Chris Bunworth, overwhelms the audience with his wine lubricated suffering, effectively displacing his dead son with an alternative figure – his variant, if you will.

The only criticism here is how overwhelming that performance is, supplanting that of the mother, Mary (Alexandra Fowler). This may well be the failure on Winton’s part to fully realise the female character, a point that adds a note of lopsidedness to an otherwise magnificent effort.

The dead becomes puttee to mould, and the characters of the play supply the material. The shrine that springs up to Jack’s death is not something Adam finds sombre relief in. Such an object is something to revile, a reflection of “mystic shit” rather than deep worth. Each time he drives by, he destroys it, raging at Jack’s companions who survived the crash.

He has one opponent in that respect. June (Teneille Thompson) is the resident teenager frowned upon as a hick, a “bush pig” who works at the local IGA supermarket. After each destructive episode, she returns to resurrect the shrine to Jack. She proceeds to insert herself into the father’s life, and recalls the last moments of Jack’s last night alive. A painting is thereby realised: Jack in the company of rowdy, insecure peers; a blossoming infatuation stemming from June for Jack; acts of supposed heroism and folly.

For all the brooding rage in Adam’s character, it is evident that such anger is a disagreement on how best to remember a late son, a point complicated by a reserve and denial cultivated over the years of parenthood and privilege.

June’s account of Jack, a naïve, boyish enthusiasm, seems somewhat at odds with the father’s. But is this her reading of Jack, or a father’s wish to imagine a different son who died that early morning? Winton, and this production, keeps us guessing.

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

Notes

Saudi Arabia and the Israeli regime are in clandestine talks to establish official economic relations for the first time since the entity was created on the Palestinian territories some 69 years ago, a report says.

The Times, citing unnamed Arab and American sources, said in a report on Saturday that forming economic connections between to two, which would be gradual and step by step, could begin by allowing Israeli companies to open shops in the Arab kingdom, or granting El Al Israel Airlines Ltd. permission to fly over Saudi airspace.

“However, any such progress would bolster the alliance between Iran’s two most implacable enemies and change the dynamics of the many conflicts destabilizing the Middle East,” the report speculated.

So far Saudi officials have had some open meetings with senior officials in Israel, trying to gradually pave the way for establishing ties with the occupying regime.

Back in May last year, Israeli newspaper Arutz Sheva reported that Saudi Arabia and its Persian Gulf allies, namely Jordan and Egypt, had been sending messages to Israel through various emissaries, including former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. They had asked Tel Aviv to resume Middle East negotiations under new terms, which included changes to the Saudi initiative.

In July last year, Anwar Eshki, a well-connected retired general in the Saudi military paid a visit to Israel, meeting with Israel’s Foreign Ministry director general Dore Gold and Yoav Mordechai. He also met with a number of Knesset members.

Israeli daily Ha’aretz at the time described the visit “a highly unusual one,” as Eshki could not have traveled to Israel without approval from the Saudi government.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (L) and US President Donald Trump speak at Ben Gurion International Airport prior to the latter’s departure from Israel on May 23, 2017. (Photo by GPO)

Furthermore, US President Donald Trump, who visited both Saudi Arabia and Israel last month, seems to support a so-called regional peace approach, part of which could be forming ties between Tel Aviv and Riyadh for the first time in history. The US president has already said he wants to pursue “a much bigger deal” in the Middle East, which would include “many, many countries.”

Saudi Arabia has not yet recognized Israel since its foundation in 1948. Saudi authorities thus do not accept Israeli passports, and holders of passports containing any Israeli visa or stamp will be denied entry. However, any prospect of official ties between Tel Aviv and Riyadh will also mean that Saudi leaders might have on their agenda a review of their recognition of the Israeli regime.

Featured image: PressTV

On Tuesday, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and the National Defense Forces (NDF) launched a large military operation in an attempt to split the militant-held area in the Daraa province into two separate parts.

Initially, the SAA and the NDF captured the Daraa Air Defense Base and the Dahdah Hill, but then government forces were pushed to retreat and the joint militant forces led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda) retook the area.

The SAA and the NDF also pushed in the direction of the Grain warehouses and inside the Palestinian camp but were not able to make notable gains.

During the clashes, militants destroyed a government forces battle tank, captured a battle tank, a bulldozer, and armoured vehicle.

On Wednesday, the Syrian Air Force continued bombing militant targets in the border area. This indicates that the SAA and the NDF may repeat an attempt to reach the border. If this is done, government force would develop momentum in the area in order to cut off supply lines to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and its allies inside the city of Daraa.

In the eastern Damascus desert, government forces have captured the Bir Qassab area. The advance was made after a series of firefights with US-backed militants. Government forces steadily drive US-backed forces from the eastern Damascus desert. According to some experts, the goal of this effort is to isolate US-led coalition troops and their allied militant units in the border area near the US military facilities of At Tanf and Al Zqur.

The US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have captured Kasrat al Faraj from ISIS in the city of Raqqah. Clashes continued in al-Baryd and Qadisiyyah.

A pilot of the Syrian Su-22 downed by the US-led coalition, Lieutenant Colonel Ali Fahd, was captured by SDF units. Since then, negotiations are ongoing between the government and the SDF to free him.

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: Radio Free Europe

Before the Grenfell Tower blaze had died down to a smouldering monument to the tragic death of possibly hundreds of, so far, unidentified victims, trapped in the molten edifice, Channel 4 produced a programme showcasing the Al Qaeda affiliated White Helmets, holding up banners in “solidarity” with the London firefighters tackling the inferno of Grenfell Tower. 

With no regard for the ever-mounting evidence, exposing the White Helmets as Al Qaeda co-workers and enablers in Syria, Channel 4 once again promoted this group of NATO and Gulf state funded criminals, as heroes. The genuine firefighters in London should be insulted that their own valiant efforts are compared or conflated with a fraudulent group of terrorists and petty criminals who campaign for war to ensure further bloodshed in Syria.

The White Helmet “team in Daraa”, being universally marketed by corporate media was filmed cheering and mopping up after an Islamic extremist execution in Daraa, on the 16th May 2017, so almost one month before the Grenfell Tower tragedy.

WARNING: This video contains scenes of execution and may be distressing: 

To view the video click here

White Helmets in Daraa – Severed Heads and Dismemberment of SAA Bodies

More shockingly, last night, a video was released that showed a member of the White Helmet, Daraa “team” climbing over the slaughtered and dismembered bodies of Syrian Arab Army soldiers, piled into the back of a pick-up truck. As the White Helmet operative stands on the mutilated bodies, extremist fighters surrounding the truck, parade a severed head as a war trophy. There is no shock or dismay from the “heroic” White Helmet. On the contrary, he is then seen extracting the Syrian flag from among the SAA bodies, before throwing it to the ground.

I was told that the original video was much longer and contained scenes of a much more humiliating nature that would distress the families of the SAA soldiers whose bodies were being so hideously desecrated. The shorter version of the video can be seen here at the Twitter account of @Ali_Kourani. It is certainly one of the worst videos I have ever had to watch so please be warned. The following are screen shots from the video that demonstrate the appalling nature of this atrocity being committed by the White Helmets & extremist factions, once again, working hand in hand in Syria.

The following video which is marginally less gruesome depicts the transportation of the SAA bodies, we assume, prior to their being taken to the dump for disposal which is what is seen in the “severed head” video.

Once again, please be warned, this video is extremely distressing to watch:

To view the video click here

According to Twitter feeds concerning this incident in Daraa, sources on the ground in Syria, and translation of the dialogue from the above video, the Syrian Arab Army were surrounded and attacked in an air-defence base in the region that had, previously, been taken by the NATO and Gulf state extremist factions, in 2013. The base was retaken by the SAA in 2016, fell again to the terrorists in the same year, two days ago the SAA had retaken it, just prior to yesterday’s brutal extremist attack.

Those following the “moderate” extremists, on Twitter, are claiming that the attack was carried out by the Southern Front Furqat Usud al-Sunna. The Southern Front groups are widely recognised to be armed and funded by the US and its allies and controlled from a US-led Military Operations Centre in Amman, Jordan.

“In 2014, the Southern Front secured funding from the United States, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan to target the Assad Regime. [10] Though some reports indicate earlier attacks, the Southern Front launched its first documented attack on October 5, 2014 when it cooperated with former Al Qaeda affiliate Jabhat Fatah al-Sham, formerly known as Jabhat al-Nusra (Al-Nusra), to capture the town of Tel al-Haraa in the Daraa governorate.” ~ Mapping Militant Organisations

The air-defence base that was attacked yesterday,  is strategically positioned, on the old Daraa to Damascus highway.

The extremist factions were described as “waiting for TOW missiles to arrive” before making their move against the SAA. We presume that these are the TOW missiles supplied under former US President Obama’s “Train and Equip” programme in Syria. So, on that basis, the extremist factions have control of an air-defence base in southern Syria and have very probably received supplies of US TOW missiles.

Armed groups who killed #SyrianArmy soldiers in #Daraa had waited for TOW missiles to arrive before making their move pic.twitter.com/1mPvNOT7kb

— EHSANI2 (@EHSANI22) June 21, 2017

The White Helmets Execution Criminal Record

The White Helmets have a record of participation-in, facilitation-of and mopping-up-after the various NATO and Gulf state-armed, terrorist group executions.

May 2015:

“The White Helmets were forced to release a statement explaining the events in this video. According to their own admission here, the sequence of events on the day, 5^th May 2015 were as follows:  Al Nusra called the White Helmets 25 minutes prior to the execution. White Helmets arrived on the scene at 11.35 am, 5 minutes BEFORE the execution was carried out at 11.40.  These impartial humanitarian workers did NOTHING to prevent this execution, they appear a full 5 minutes prior to this murder at the behest of the executioners and they are ushered into shot immediately after the victim is shot twice at close range in the head, to collect the body.” ~ White Helmets – Moderate Executioners

May 2016:

“Various other White Helmet operatives have posted videos of the torture and execution of Syrian Arab Army prisoners to their social media pages with celebratory comments.  One such operative, Muawiya Hassan Agha, is alleged to have been “sacked” for his participation in such executions. His Facebook account has also been closed although we have all original links. However, despite various demands, an official statement has never been issued by the White Helmets to this effect. Neither have they publicly condemned the torture and execution of prisoners of war, an act that contravenes the Geneva Convention.” ~ White Helmets Campaign for War not Peace.  Warning graphic footage: 

The White Helmets have a history of desecrating SAA soldiers bodies:

“The White Helmets have been filmed describing Syrian Arab Army bodies as “trash” and one particular video shows them standing on top of a pile of SAA soldier’s bodies, whose boots have been removed or stolen.  The White Helmets talk about the bodies in pejorative terms and they flick a victory V sign as the truck drives off “~ White Helmets Campaign for War not Peace

In a previous video, a White Helmet operative describes the disposing of SAA soldiers (Shabiha) bodies into the “trash”:

As one Twitter user remarked last night:

“We now know this is true, they really do take human remains to a trash heap”  

We now know this is true, they really do take human remains to a trash heap. @UNCoISyria @AmnestyUK @Channel4News @VanessaBeeley pic.twitter.com/Ny0C7fHmw8

— D'ARAMITZ (@2ndNewMoon) June 21, 2017

Channel 4 Glorifying Terrorism & Weaponizing Human Tragedy?

“Channel 4 -UK propaganda platform for White Helmets. More outrageous and cynical propaganda from Channel 4 News for an organisation John Pilger has called a “Complete propaganda construct in Syria”, the White Helmets. Channel 4 News have deliberately used the victims of Grenfell Fire as tools to promote their propaganda for regime change in Syria, using White Helmet Al Qaeda footage, and promoting this organisation whose operatives have been involved in the beheading of a 12 year old Palestinian child and have now been filmed in Daraa [same team in video fm Channel 4] clambering over slaughtered bodies of SAA soldiers and alongside extremists parading severed heads as trophies. Channel 4 should be prosecuted under the UK Anti Terrorism Act.

The ‘liberation testimonies’ taken by Vanessa Beeley from Syrian civilians liberated from East Aleppo by the Syrian Arab Army and Russians reveal how the White Helmets tortured civilians and held them prisoner, filming their propaganda stunts all the time, operating from their head quarters a few yards form the Al Nusra (aka Al Qaeda in Syria) head quarters. Vanessa, Pierre le Corfe and Patrick Henningsen have all been to these buildings and filmed ISIS flags and documentation that irrefutably ties the White Helmets to Al Qaeda.

Channel 4 must have plumbed the depths of their homage to Goebbels by now – surely!” ~ Sheila Coombes of Frome Stop War

Eminent academic, Tim Hayward has already suggested that Channel 4 owes an apology to independent journalists it has attempted to discredit, such as Eva Bartlett, to Syria and to the UK public that has been misled and deceived by Channel 4’s blatant terrorist cheerleading in its misrepresentation of the dirty war being waged against Syria:

“In my opinion, the Channel 4 News team owe a collective apology to Eva Bartlett for suggesting she was discredited when the truth was quite otherwise. I also think that Channel 4 owe us, the public, a commitment to do better than this in future. As for what Channel 4 owes to the people of Syria? The harms of this war can never be made good. Harms of future wars may yet be mitigated or even avoided, and I believe the one thing Channel 4 can and should do is join the side of truth with those who are seeking ways to break up the monolithic deceptions that our communications are increasingly being submerged in.” ~ Tim Hayward, How We Were Misled About Syria by Channel 4 News

If we read the UK Government Terrorism Act 2006 it is conceivable that Channel 4 and other state affiliated media institutions such as the BBC, are contravening sections relating to, Encouragement of Terrorism and Dissemination of Terrorist Publications. The White Helmets are consistently and increasingly, more openly, being exposed as nothing more than terrorist actors, donning the White Helmet uniform and white helmets as camouflage for the atrocities they are actively encouraging, advocating and participating in.

The profound insult to the grieving families of Grenfell Tower, who have lost loved ones who have perished in one of the most horrifying events in London’s history is shameful. Every single one of these families deserve an apology from Channel 4 for the cynical weaponization of their human tragedy to further promulgate “war producing” propaganda against the Syrian state and army. Above all they deserve an apology for the inclusion of an atrocity-committing, extremist suppporting, fraudulent group of UK/US/EU/Gulf state multi-million-funded propagandists, called the White Helmets in the reports surrounding this dreadful loss of life in London.

The London firefighters who risked their lives to rescue people trapped in the Grenfell Tower inferno deserve an apology for having their authentic courage and dedication to their duty, tarnished by the Channel 4 projected solidarity with the White Helmets who have, many times, celebrated the mutilation and dismemberment of Syrian soldiers defending their homeland and their people from hostile extremist forces introduced by the same government that has marginalised the people of Grenfell Tower.

The people of Grenfell Tower should be told why the UK Foreign Office has funded the White Helmet organisation with £ 65m of taxpayers money and yet, is struggling, to sufficiently aid the recovery of people who have just watched their entire existence go up in flames.

“I did make it to Grenfell and it was heartbreaking. It reminded of scenes in Baghdad during a visit after the occupation. Just looking at the Tower made me cry and forced me to imagine how entire families were burnt alive. People were upset and angry and many thought the media and authorities were drip feeding the info on the number of fatalities.” ~ Sami Ramidani

The UK Government, such as it is, is primarily responsible for the creation of this White Helmeted Frankenstein’s monster and its time it was forced to deal with that responsibility.

Featured image: 21st Century Wire

In 2006 a book was published called Losing Our Democracy by civic leader, Mark Green. His 21^st book, it was the usual Mark Green brand of meticulous research with memorable examples. One would have thought such an important subject would have received wide coverage and circulation. In fact, it was almost completely ignored by reviewers and the media interviewers. In 2017, the danger of having the door shut on the practice of democracy by its citizens is more important than at any other time in recent history.

Republicans prefer to use the words “liberty” and “freedom,” not “democracy.” Why? Because democracy includes these rights but adds “justice,” which holds those in power accountable and brings them down to earth where people live, work and raise their families.

Source: Amazon

Look at some ways democracy’s doors are closing. Thirteen Republican senators (all men) are now meeting secretly behind closed doors to further deny American families access to affordable, accessible healthcare. They arrogantly (or cynically) have refused to hold a single public hearing. In 2009-2010 the Senate held over 100 bipartisan public hearings and 25 days of floor debate before passing The Affordable Care Act, having accepted numerous Republican amendments.

Today, Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the dictator of the Senate, aims to jam this cruel and vicious legislation through the Senate by the end of June, a bill which would take away health insurance from 23 million people, many of whom will die or remain sick, and destroy many critical protections for vulnerable Americans. The legislation also gives a huge tax cut for the rich at the expense of America’s sick children and adults with disabilities.

This is just one example of Americans being denied access to justice in “the land of the free.”

Voting suppression and gerrymandered one-party districts exist in many states. More doors closing. Your right to your day in court against the perpetrators who caused your wrongful injuries has been rolled back in the House of Representatives and in many state legislatures, literally closing democracy’s door to your local courtrooms.

The US Supreme Court, with a 5 to 4 corporatist majority, thrives on closing doors on workers organizing through labor unions, consumers standing up for their rights and citizens demanding  environmental health and fair taxation for corporations.

Astonishingly, the Trump White House suggests that its federal agency heads do not have to respond to inquiries from members of Congress, while Congressional leaders are trying to hold back reporters’ access to legislators on Capitol Hill.

At the Federal Communications Commission, Chairman Ajit Pai is pushing to shut out or make more expensive the people’s access to the Internet and to their own public airwaves. Of course, this will benefit big business.

The Securities and Exchange Commission, led by former Wall Street executive Jay Clayton, is moving to make it even more difficult for shareholders – the owners of publicly traded corporations – to exercise their rights of ownership. Many shareholder rights have already been nearly stripped bare by previous corporatists. Closing doors to the owners in favor of corporate bosses in a touted capitalistic economy is what is partly meant by the corporate state – using government to further entrench the corporate supremacists.

The mass media is shutting out the works of citizen groups who are the advocates for more open doors for justice on behalf of consumers, families, marginalized groups, workers and the environment. See breakingthroughpower.org and ask why, over eight days last year, this historic gathering of civic leaders and justice builders was blocked out by the big print and electronic media. In an age of narrow and sensationalized coverage, it is more difficult than ever for the civil society to participate in mainstream discourse via the media.

Doors are closing on small individual debtors. Fees for regular people to file court cases are going up and judicial procedures are reversing their historic purpose and closing doors on the powerless.

Many consumers are closing doors on themselves by not fighting for their existing rights or to create new rights  Buying from giant absentee companies like Amazon closes the doors on Main Street, with its community-binding small businesses that pay property taxes for schools and other public facilities.

What used to be heralded as our sacred right to “freedom of contract” has been frozen by the fine print contracts that we either sign on the dotted line or click to accept. These inscrutable contracts strip us of our consumer rights, block our right to go to court, including banding together in class actions, and often give the vendors the power to change the terms, unilaterally claiming terms buried in the fine print give them the ultimate power of control.

Third political parties that wish to give the voters more voices and choices are held down by the big two-party duopoly. Independent new parties know what closing democracy’s door is like from ballot access obstacles to exclusion from the candidate debates.

King George III (Source: history.com)

Citizens of America, the Fourth of July is coming up – the day in 1776 when American patriots rebelled against King George III’s closed doors and exclusion from justice. Then and now, everyday people find themselves shut out by the powers that be. Today, millions of shut out Americans face daily denial of healthcare, secretive companies repeatedly telling them to get lost and bureaucrats invoking government secrecy.

Raise your voices, Americans! Shake off the clever slogans and lies of the craven politicians and the intricate chains enveloping your credit/debit economy. Challenge an educational system that avoids giving the next generation the citizen skills and experience necessary to open the doors of democracy and secure its many blessings.

Start with the Congress to whom you have delegated, but not surrendered, your Constitutional power. This Fourth of July, you can make your voices heard in front of your senators’ and representative’s local offices, and call on your friends and neighbors to do the same through social media. No one can stop you from opening that door, at least not yet. Visit breakingthroughpower.org for a Citizen Summons to your legislators that can start opening the doors.

Featured image: Pinterest

It’s been an open secret in the Mideast for years now that Saudi Arabia and “Israel” have been cooperating with one another against their shared Iranian rival, and that this and their equally strategic ties with the US is what’s brought them together. However, due to political sensitivities on both sides, neither has formally recognized the existence of this behind-the-scenes coordination, let alone one another. Nonetheless, reports have circulated for the past couple of months that Trump and his team are working hard behind the scenes to publicly bring the two together in order to more solidly crystallize what has since turned out to be a very fraught and disunited anti-Iranian coalition.

The first step in doing this, according to international and “Israeli” media sources, is to gently encourage Saudi Arabia and “Israel” to negotiate economic relations with one another. That would amount to de-facto recognition in many ways and could, as they expect, make for a smoother transition one of these days into formal recognition. Saudi Arabia wouldn’t be alone in this, since it would probably have the support of the UAE and some of its other regional allies, with Qatar noticeably remaining absent from this arrangement in light of the recent Cold War that broke out between the two Gulf countries.

President Trump visiting Riyadh, May 21, 2017 (Source: Oriental Review)

Furthermore, there’s another element involved as well, and it’s that Saudi Arabia might allow Palestinian pilgrims to pretty much fly directly from their occupied territories to the Kingdom with only a brief and symbolic stopover in the Jordanian capital of Amman. If this actually happens, then it would have powerful symbolism all throughout the global Muslim community by showing that the caretaker of the Two Holy Mosques is basically okay with “Israel” and its occupation of Palestine. While Trump might gather that this and the supposedly proposed formal economic ties between the Gulf and “Israel” would send a positive message to other Muslim countries to follow in their footsteps, there’s a chance that it could backfire by generating such enormous public discontent among its desired international audience that the nobody else ends up emulating these plans.

So all in all, there’s a lot of risk involved with what Trump is trying to do. He’s betting that Sunni heavyweight Saudi Arabia is influential enough to get other Muslim countries to follow its lead, but there might not be enough money in the Kingdom’s coffers to cover the bribes that this could take. Moreover, this very move in and of itself could further undermine the country’s credibility in the eyes of every believer who’s aware of its regional crimes, essentially advancing the argument being spread in some circles that the Saudis are “sellouts” in each and every way, and that their custodianship of the Two Holy Mosques does not automatically make them moral role models whose policies must be followed no matter what.

Big Pharma is the pejorative term given to the vast number of multinational (global) pharmaceutical corporations. It takes no Hippocratic Oath, does not insist that its sycophants give fully informed consent when their products are prescribed and it ignores the Precautionary Principle, thus affirming the sense that it has no concern for the health of its users or the health of the planet.

Big Pharma’s corporations make up the most profitable industry on the planet. According to US surveys, its executives are also among the most despised multimillionaires in America – just behind Big Tobacco and Big Oil. It is the industry that has the largest number of salespersons (who try to induce/bribe physicians to prescribe their increasingly unaffordable products that usually have no long-term safety studies performed prior to launch, especially when taken in combination with other of its drugs).

Big Pharma spends the most money of any other industry advertising their products on TV and print media outlets (trying to make prospective patients demand getting the prescribed from their physicians). This industry hires the most highly paid lobbyists in Washington, DC (many of whom actually help write legislation that favors itself at the expense of patients – who are at the mercy of the medical establishment that prescribes its products).

Critics of Big Pharma often use the Big Pharma nickname when addressing this partial list of its well-documented abuses:

1) Trying to suck every penny out of the pockets of the sick, injured, dying, and hypochondriacal.

2) Inventing new diseases so that frightened people will buy more drugs.

3) Selling new and old drugs, many of which are often falsely and cunningly marketed to be life-long medications that often cause dependency (addiction) so that those now-permanent customers won’t be able to stop taking them without going through serious withdrawal (similar to what happens to those taking addictive, molecularly-similar street drugs like uppers, downers, tranquilizers, hallucinogens, alcohol, nicotine, etc.

4) Demonizing and trying to drive out of business alternative treatments that would be cheaper, safer and possibly even curative.

5) Cleverly “educating” the public about a new disease just before the FDA is about to announce the approval of a new drug for the disorder.

6) Managing to convince people that their curable,temporary malady is permanent or more serious than it is, making them more willing to see a doctor and pay for high priced drugs.

An organized religion is a belief system that has a large number of followers and a set of rules that must be followed.

A cult is a religious or semi-religious sect whose members are controlled almost entirely by a single individual or by an organization.This kind of cult is usually manipulative and demanding of total commitment, unconditional obedience and loyalty from its followers.

Organized crime is illegal behavior that is planned and carried out by groups of people (sociopaths) in a very systematic fashion.

Faith is the strong or unshakeable belief in something, especially without proof or evidence (or, in the case of sociopathic corporations; believing in provably false, fraudulent corporate pseudoscience).

Heresy is any belief or theory that is at variance with the established beliefs or customs of an organized group, especially a religious organization. A heretic is an ex-believer who has come to doubt or disobey the dogmas and beliefs of the group. The heretic is often punished for his or her disobedience (especially if the heretic refuses to be silent in the hope of reforming or exposing the criminality of the organization – sort of like being “dis-fellowshipped” by the congregation of a Christian church).

A sociopath is an entity (including many inanimate, conscienceless corporations, google “The Corporation – the movie”) whose behavior is antisocial, often criminally greedy, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility, empathy or social conscience. Sociopaths never sincerely apologize nor are they capable of exhibiting remorse for wrongs that they have committed.

Common sociopathic traits include: 

No conscience; deceitful; aggressive; often guilty of repeatedly lying

Conning others for profit; aggressively avoiding punishment; lack of remorse for evils done to others; indifference to the suffering of its victims

Rationalizes (makes excuses for) having hurt, mistreated or stolen from others

Willingness to exploit, seduce or manipulate others

Cunning, clever, and always looking for ways to make money or achieve fame or notoriety

Willing to cause or contribute to the financial ruin of others

Untrustworthy; cannot be trusted to adhere to conventional standards of morality

***

Big Pharma and its assortment of pro-drug/pro-vaccine acolytes in Big Medicine has a view of the world that requires as much of the public as possible to bow down to its fundamentalist, authoritarian “scientific priesthood of believers” whose knowledge, opinions, mercenary scientists, manufactured sets of data and orders from on high are never to be questioned.

Many such corporate powers appear to generously spread some of their wealth around (until it longer makes financial sense to do so), but it only does that to the acolytes and true believers that are loyal to it, particularly to its advertising branch, Big Media, a connected-to-the-Big Pharma-hip set of corporations, which knows its place, particularly because its executives and editors understand where most of its advertising revenues come from.

The executives of Big Pharma’s corporations are in possession of immense wealth and power – mostly undeserved, because the wealth usually comes from cunning or lucky investments – and lots of stock options. And, just like most non-democratic, authoritarian systems, the executives of Big Business insist that those below them in the pecking order pledge unquestioned obedience to the organization’s dogmatic teachings.

The acolytes of Big Pharma’s priests, the sales reps, are very well-paid underlings. But they have been indoctrinated in the faith and know that they will lose their status and incomes if they ever waver from the dogmatic teachings. As Upton Sinclair so wisely proclaimed:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” 

Check out this item from a 2008 ABC News expose of the pharmaceutical industry, written by journalist Marcus Baram:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=4438095&page=1

Baram wrote:

“To sell their drugs, pharmaceutical companies hire former cheerleaders and ex-models to wine and dine doctors, exaggerate the drug’s benefits and underplay their side-effects, a former sales rep told a Congressional committee this morning.

Source: Fortune

“According to Ahari (ex-drug rep Shahram Ahari, who spent two years selling Prozac and Zyprexa for Eli Lilly), the benefits could be lucrative for sales reps, who tended to earn more than (Lilly’s)researchers. On top of a base salary for starting reps of $50,000, ‘there were four quarterly bonuses, an annual bonus, stock options, a car, 401K, great health benefits, and a $60,000 expense account.’

“Included in his prepared remarks, Ahari cites a quote from a senior marketing executive at Parke-Davis: ‘I want you out there every day selling Neurontin. Neurontin is more profitable than Accupril, so we need to focus on Neurontin. Pain management, now that’s money…. I don’t want to see a single patient coming off Neurontin before they’ve been up to at least 4,800 milligrams a day. I don’t want to hear that safety crap, either.’ 

Ahari was quoted elsewhere as saying that

“his job involved ‘rewarding physicians with gifts and attention for their allegiance to your product and company despite what may be ethically appropriate …and that drug companies like hiring former cheerleaders and ex-models, as well as former athletes and members of the military, many of whom have no background in science.

Ahari was also quoted as saying that

‘On my first day of sales class, among 21 trainees and two instructors, I was the only one with any level of college-level science education…and that instructors teach sales tactics, including how to exceed spending limits for important clients, being generous with free samples to leverage sales, using friendships and personal gifts to foster a ‘quid pro quo’ relationship, and how to exploit sexual tension…The nature of this business is gift-giving…You drink the Kool-Aid. We were taught to minimize the side effects and how to use conversational ploys to minimize it or to change the topic.’”

Ahari was a heretic from the religious cult of Big Pharma when he finally couldn’t endure his two years job as drug rep for Eli Lilly anymore. He should be congratulated for followed his conscience in exposing the dark side of what he saw of the drug industry. He deserves our thanks, although I suspect that he paid dearly for his act of whistle-blowing.

It could be said that the first (now known to be false) article of faith in the Big Vaccine sector of the pharmaceutical cult (contrary to all the documented, unbiased historical evidence) is this one:

“Vaccinations are the reason for the decreased deaths and disabilities related to common childhood infectious diseases.”

For the evidence establishing that as a falsehood, click on:

http://duluthreader.com/articles/2017/06/14/10297_an_honest_look_at_the_historical_evidence_that 

Another article of faith declares the documented falsehood that “all vaccines are safe and effective”. In order to believe that one, one must ignore the fact that every vaccine has warnings about the dangers and lack of efficacy in the product information handouts. Big Pharma itself acknowledges that their vaccines are neurotoxic and have not been subjected to the gold standard – double blind studies – prior to FDA approval.

Faith in Big Pharma’s high priests (usually not even scientists, but rather masters of business administration) is the key to the belief (preferably blind) in this system. Those high priests are housed in the sacred corporate board rooms at Merck, Glaxo, Pfizer, Sanofi Pasteur, etc, and they forbid any government regulatory inspections of their manufacturing plants (privileged proprietary secrets!) unless there is a court-ordered subpoena related to a vaccine–injury or vaccine-death lawsuit (which, since 1986, is no longer allowed in the US).

The problem is that rich corporations have manipulated the science and thus have been able to distort research. Their vast financial influence gives them political clout and control of many scientific institutions. The result is that these for-profit institutions, research programs and practitioners now willingly serve the interests of powerful corporations rather than their vulnerable patients. Rather than helping mankind corporate greed has usurped what was once an honorable profession.

The reason why so many rational people doubt science is because they can have seen how it has been corrupted and manipulated by the 1%. They have noticed that the 1% has become increasingly unaccountable and that their activities and products are not properly regulated by watchdog governmental agencies. In fact, the regulatory agencies are being shut down or underfunded – as we speak!

Many scientific studies show that prescription drugs (especially psychiatric drugs) are a serious safety issue for both individuals and the environment.

By not being willing to inform patients about what is actually in the cocktail of vaccines or drugs that infants, children, pregnant women and increasingly chronically ill children are being injected with, Big Medicine is failing its ethical responsibility.

Source: The Wire

Labeling vaccines (and also food!) and fully informing patients about any potentially toxic ingredients would convince some patients to reject the “unavoidably unsafe” vaccines that are being forced into their bodies – and perhaps convince a small number of physicians, physician assistants and nurses to wonder about the over-vaccination agendas that they have blindly supported and had developed so much faith in. By attempting to side-line open discussion about Big Pharma’s potentially toxic products in this way, healthy public debate was stymied.

The concept of “sound science” is being manipulated by for-profit corporations and it increasingly obvious that there is a lot of deception going on, and it has become far too easy for America’s vaccine industry to promote vaccines since it coerced the US Congress and Ronald Reagan to grant legal immunity from prosecution for the deaths and disabilities of vaccine victims.

Big Pharma carries out inadequate and only short-term safety and efficacy studies and then conceals the data produced by the research done by its mercenary scientists under the rubric of “commercial confidentiality”, and this cover-up if facilitated by its partners in Big Media. Malcolm X was right when he famously proclaimed:

“The real power of the media is the power to ignore.”

Big Media censors out or distorts scientific facts – especially the inconvenient kind – and then helps its partners in crime to smear and intimidate anybody who challenges its interests. Heretics are not welcome. Ask Andy Wakefield, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden and the hundreds of other American whistle-blowers for justice that have been made radioactive.

The reason why informed consent is not practiced in the US and no vaccine labeling or testing has taken place is not due to “sound science” but rather due to the undeserved political power and influence of Big Pharma – and because sound scientific principles have not been applied.

The pharmaceutical sector knows that it cannot win a fair scientific debate on these issues, so it resorts to co-opting “key opinion leaders” that are willing to propagate various falsehoods and deceptions.

Co-opting Scientific Research

People’s faith in science (especially corporate science) is being destroyed at many levels. Big corporations have achieved intimate access to policy makers, legislators, bureaucrats and governments and are increasingly funding research and setting research agendas that only have profits as their motivation. Money talks.

It is not science itself that people have doubts about but the kind of science that is owned by powerful profit-making corporations who have infiltrated governmental regulatory bodies that have adopted a ‘don’t ask, don’t look, don’t find, don’t tell” approach- or are simply being pressured by Big Pharma to fast-track drugs and vaccines onto the market before proper research is done. Time is money, and there is so much more money to be made if short-cuts are taken doing the research.

Dr. Andrew Wakefield (Source: Vaccine Resistance Movement)

Science is up for sale to the highest bidder, but one of the unwritten contract terms assumes the suppressing of adverse scientific findings and the intent to harm the careers of scientists who discover and then altruistically publish adverse findings about a drug or vaccine. The best recent example was the smearing of the reputation of Andrew Wakefield, MD and his team of researchers (who should have, by the way, gotten the Nobel Prize for making the connection between GlaxoSmithKline’s flawed live virus MMR vaccine and a cluster of severe infectious regional enteritis cases in severely regressed autistic children – and then publishing the study for in a 1998 Lancet article). Big Pharma has the financial clout to control the funding that shapes what research is conducted at Merck, Glaxo, Pfizer, Sanofi-Pasteur, AstraZeneca, the NIH, NIMH, CDC, and the many others who have massive financial and professional conflicts of interest.

Are Synthetic Brain-altering Drugs and Vaccines Actually Good for You? 

Marcia Angell, author of The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It and former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine. Wrote this after she was fired for complaining in an editorial about Big Pharma’s increasing control over medical research:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”

And the retired editor-in-chief of the Lancet, Richard Horton, echoed what Dr Angell said:

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

Big Pharma funds many for-profit research programs and greatly influences the careers of normally altruistic scientists. Through their funding activities, Big Pharma shapes the research agenda. Those agendas decide which issues are to be examined and which are not, and they even determine how research is to be carried out. By diverting funds to more malleable scientists they can suppress certain findings and even decide what gets published.

Corporations may also fund or hold sway over journals and peer reviewers who commonly have their own careers to consider.

Big Pharma: Masquerading as Trustworthy Truth-tellers

Big Pharma’s thought-leaders routinely attack basic unbiased research scientists and scholars who have witnessed the immense dangers of America’s current corporate-induced, over-diagnosis, over-treatment, over-vaccination agendas because it is so very good for business.

The rhetoric makes the actual unbiased truth about the dangers of America’s over-vaccination schedules into taboo subjects. It also shuts down useful discussions about the root causes of our increasingly sick, over-treated and over-vaccinated society which, despite the trillions of dollars that the American health system has wasted on costly and usually unproductive screening tests, costly drugs, costly vaccines, and costly surgeries. Despite the trillions spent nobody can claim that they have increased either the quality or the quantity of American life.

Perhaps the well-financed Big Pharma thought-leaders (and the highly-paid mercenary scientist acolytes that are diligently working deep in the bowels of every Big Pharma corporate plant that you can name) should try to convince us why we should not doubt the perverted science that bombards us consumers multiple time per day – perhaps most cunningly in the incessant prime-time drug commercials and in the ubiquitous canned medical infomercials that pass as news items on the nightly news.

And while they are at it, given the reality of Big Pharma’s generations-long history of deceptions, cover-ups and criminality, they might want to contemplate why we should believe anything they say.

It is well past time for the hidden heretics and whistle-blowers to courageously stand up and address the congregation.

Featured image: Huffington Post

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

High-level bilateral security talks take place on Wednesday against the backdrop of US citizen Otto Warmbier’s death – after returning home from North Korean imprisonment on charges of subversion for stealing propaganda material.

According to senior US diplomat for East Asia Susan Thornton, North Korea will get “top billing” in discussions. Washington seeks more “concrete cooperation” from Beijing on halting Pyongyang’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

The DPRK considers them an essential deterrent against threatened US aggression. Giving them up isn’t an option. It would leave the country defenseless against an American onslaught.

The lesson of Washington’s 1950s aggression and multiple ongoing wars today is only powerful weapons can hope to deter another imperial war against its country.

Secretary of State Tillerson and Defense Secretary Mattis are hosting China’s foreign policy chief Yang Jiechi and People’s Liberation Army’s joint staff department chief General Fang Fenghui.

Talks will also cover Sino-US South China Sea activities and other military-related issues. Divisive trade ones will be dealt with at a later time.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang (Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China)

Last week, Tillerson called China’s efforts on North Korea “uneven.” According to its Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang, Beijing hopes Wednesday’s discussions will be positive.

On Monday, China’s Global Times (GT) said the Trump administration is expected to take a hardline with Beijing in Wednesday talks.

It called Washington policy based on the “belief that (it can) absolutely dominate China-US relations and wantonly manipulate issues concerning China’s core interests…arrogant and distorted.”

Beijing rejects US pressure to go along with its policies. Pentagon warships still provocatively assert “freedom of navigation” in the South China Sea where they don’t belong.

“Unless the Trump administration relaxes its restrictions on high-tech exports to China, stops selling advanced weapons to Taiwan, cancels the Taiwan Relations Act, orders a halt on close-in reconnaissance over Chinese waters, suspends the deployment of the anti-missile batteries in South Korea, and opens more US markets to China, we don’t feel that Washington has made any concessions to China,” GT explained.

Resolving the North Korea issue requires diplomacy, compromise, and consensus, not bullying, other type pressure and threats the way Washington operates.

Warmbier’s death, extensively reported by US media, complicates things further.

Beijing believes Washington may use it as a pretext to exert greater pressure on Beijing to be tougher on the DPRK, something its leadership rejects – refusing to act as a “US ally” against Pyongyang.

If America sanctions Chinese enterprises for dealing with North Korea, bilateral relations will suffer.

It’s unclear if anything constructive will come out of Wednesday talks – given how Washington wants China going along with its way, instead of building mutually acceptable consensus on all important issues.

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

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

Featured image: CHINA US Focus

This incisive and carefully documented article reviews the increase in the consumption of opioids and the dramatic social and health consequences.

This surge in heroin addiction in the US has been facilitated by the increase in export of opioids out of Afghanistan since the onset of the US led invasion and occupation.

The production of opium in Afghanistan has increased more than 30 times since 2001.

Afghanistan under de facto US occupation produces 90% of the World’s illegal opium production:

In the course of the last few, there has been a surge in Afghan opium production.

The Vienna based UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reveals that poppy cultivation in 2012 extended over an area of  more than  154,000 hectares, an increase of 18% over 2011. A UNODC  spokesperson confirmed in 2013 that opium production is heading towards record levels.

In 2014 the Afghan opium cultivation hit a record high, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime’s 2014 Afghan Opium Survey.( See graph below). A slight decline occurred in 2015-2016.

War is good for business. The Afghan opium economy feeds into a lucrative trade in narcotics and money laundering.

(M. Ch. GR Editor)

A report issued Tuesday by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) shows that there were 1.27 million emergency room visits or inpatient stays for opioid-related issues in 2014, the latest year for which there is sufficient data. This represents a 64 percent increase for inpatient care and a 99 percent hike in emergency room treatment compared to figures from 2005.

Aside from the overall skyrocketing of hospital visits, the report found that the previous discrepancy between males and females in the rate of opioid-related inpatient stays in 2005, has disappeared; the rate of female hospital visits has now caught up to that of males.

Another significant finding is that from 2005 to 2014, the age groups with the highest rate of opioid-related inpatient stays nationally were 25–44 and 45–64 years, in other words, adults in their prime working years, not adolescents. The highest rate of opioid-related Emergency Department (ED) visits was among those aged 25–44 years.

This mirrors another recent report, which found that death rates have risen among the same age group, 25–44, in every racial and ethnic group and almost all states since 2010, likely driven in part by the opioid epidemic.

Using a patient’s area code to estimate the income range of people affected, the researchers were also able to report on differences between the rich and the poor. The results showed that rates of hospital admission or emergency room visits were higher in poorer neighborhoods, but that the increases were uniform, between 75 percent and 85 percent over the 10-year period, across all income ranges.

At the top of the national list for inpatient opioid care is Maryland, which recorded nearly 404 admissions per 100,000 residents. The state, which has been rocked by the epidemic in recent years largely due to the spread of the synthetic opioid fentanyl, has seen a quadrupling of opioid-related deaths since 2010. Baltimore City alone saw 694 deaths from drug and alcohol-related overdoses in 2016—nearly two a day.

Following Maryland, the top 10 states with the highest rate of opioid-related hospital admissions in 2014 were Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, West Virginia, Connecticut, Washington, Oregon, Illinois and Maine.

There was substantial state-to-state variation in the findings. States such as Texas, Nebraska and Iowa, for example, are reporting substantially lower rates of hospital admissions than others, which coincides with the unevenness between states in the number of overdose deaths in 2016.

This unevenness may reflect, in part, the ways in which the more potent opioid, fentanyl, has spread throughout the country. The historical divide in the nation’s heroin market between powdered heroin in the East and black tar heroin from Mexico in the West means that fentanyl has been somewhat restricted to certain areas, particularly in the Appalachian and Northeast region.

This does not mean that the opioid epidemic is less severe in the areas with lower hospital visits and deaths rates, only perhaps less deadly. If drug production and distribution makes a shift in the West from black tar to powdered heroin, there will likely be a rise in the use of fentanyl along with it, and consequently the death toll would rise to East Coast levels.

Additionally, the lower rate of hospital visits in rural areas is often due to a lack of access to medical care. Rural areas have even fewer resources to deal with the drug epidemic than their urban neighbors.

Katherine, who works for a nonprofit effort in rural Michigan relating to substance abuse, spoke to WSWS reporters about the unique challenges that face rural areas:

“I work in a small rural community with quite a significant opiate crisis just as it is in urban areas. In our county, we don’t have any treatment options. We have one clinic that is limited in what they can do, and it is always at capacity. They [addicts] have to go out of county for treatment, which is about 90 miles away, and there is typically a wait list in these places that are all in major cities. Every place is pretty much running at max capacity all the time.”

If users decide they need help in a rural town it is very likely they will have to wait 72 hours or more before they can get a bed in a rehab, or in a detox facility. Katherine commented on the further challenges that this poses to addicts seeking recovery help:

“Around here, if they [a user] are at a point when they are ready—which is a big step and where they often feel very vulnerable—they are basically told to continue using at their regular dosage until something opens up. … To be told something like that I think makes them lose hope that there is a way out of addiction.”

The obstacles facing workers in the cities are different, but no less severe. Laura, who works in an adult intensive care unit (ICU) in Boston, told the WSWS:

“Honestly, one of the hardest things is, even when patients bring themselves in, they have a tendency while detoxing to become verbally or psychologically abusive out of desperation. A detox that ends up in the ICU, which is usually alcoholics because the DTs are life-threatening, is a lot of work. With understaffing in hospitals being what it is, it’s kind of a nightmare.”

Drug users who voluntarily enter the emergency room are almost always looking for a safe place to detox, an extraordinarily painful and traumatic process. Patients going through withdrawal from opioids experience vomiting, uncontrollable shaking, sweating, cramping, diarrhea, insomnia, anxiety, intense cravings, etc.

Source: HealthDay News

Most hospitals do not have options for patients who wish to detox. Some doctors are actually authorized to prescribe patients an additional drug called suboxone to help with the symptoms. However, without support and supervision this treatment option often proves to be a futile and even dangerous one. Reports of suboxone abuse, and even overdoses, have spiked significantly since the onset of the crisis.

Laura explained the limitations that exist even for hospitals that provide resources for detox:

“We have a detox unit. But it can’t do much for patients who are acutely withdrawing. If they score over a certain number on the scales that we use, they get transferred to the regular hospital units. And we don’t have addiction training. … Addicts are a underserved and vulnerable population.”

Health care workers in both rural and urban areas express frustration over the seemingly endless crisis. The sheer breadth of the opioid epidemic is astounding. It has bled into nearly every major social challenge of the day, putting a strain not only on hospital and emergency workers, but also on social welfare programs, the education system, mental health facilities, child care workers and more. This creates a situation where the drug epidemic, itself the product of a diseased social order, becomes a major contributor to its further decay.

The capitalist system as a whole is the source of the drug abuse epidemic, as any combination of the various strands of social ills affecting an individual could lead to substance abuse and addiction. The scope of the crisis represents a very complex manifestation of the problems created by a society in which every aspect of life is subjugated to private profit and where only an infinitesimal fraction of the resources available are directed to meet social need.

Katherine in Michigan touched on this reality in her comments to the WSWS:

“I think that there are so many people who are suffering, experiencing poverty and extreme hardship, or who are encountering prejudice and oppression, and these factors are all compounding to create the basis for the drug epidemic to flourish. It is such a multifaceted issue. People are feeling extremely helpless watching the events in society and the political situation, and it is almost like a building up of unrest underneath the surface.”

Featured image: NOLA.com

Though the Western media is barely reporting the fact, the last few weeks have witnessed a total transformation of the Syrian war.

Until the liberation of eastern Aleppo in December the Syrian war was being fought mainly in western Syria along a narrow stretch of Syria’s Mediterranean coast in a grinding war of attrition between the Syrian army and various Turkish backed Jihadi groups all of which were led ultimately by Al-Qaeda.

The intense pressure of this war obliged the Syrian army to withdraw from most of eastern Syria in order to protect the main centres of Syria’s population and power in the cities along the coast. The resulting vacuum in eastern Syria was filled initially by various Jihadi groups, but ultimately by ISIS, which in 2015 gained essentially undisputed control of this area, save for the isolated city of Deir Ezzor.

Smoke billows from buildings during an operation by Syrian government forces (Source: Sputnik)

Al-Qaeda’s defeat in December in Aleppo, and the rout of its offensive from Idlib province into Hama province in April, has left the Syrian government in control of all of Syria’s big cities – Damascus, Aleppo, Hama and Homs – whilst Latakia Province and its capital have always been firmly controlled by the government. Though Al-Qaeda still has a presence in some areas in the countryside near Damascus, and is still firmly in control of Idlib Province, these areas are now covered by the agreements reached between Russia and Turkey in December, supplemented by further agreements reached by Russia, Iran and Turkey in May, which set up the so-called ‘de-confliction areas’ in these territories.

This combination of Al-Qaeda defeats and peace agreements means that the war of attrition in western Syria is at an end, and that the Syrian army there for the moment at least has won.

In saying this it is important to say that fighting between the Syrian army and Al-Qaeda in western Syria has not come entirely to a stop.  Bitter fighting still continues between the Syrian army and Al-Qaeda in southern Syria, especially in the bitterly contested town of Dara’a, where the original uprising against the Syrian government started in 2011. Al-Qaeda still from time to time launches several raids on western Aleppo. People everywhere in Syria, including in the safest regions which are most securely under the government’s control, have to face the daily threat of terrorist attacks.

Nonetheless the agreements reached between the Turks and the Russians in December, and between the Turks, the Russians and the Iranians in May, have generally held.

This has allowed the Syrian army, sections of which have been extensively re-trained and re-equipped by the Russians, to take the battle to ISIS in the east in a serious way, for the first time since the organisation took over central and eastern Syria in 2014 and 2015. Western commentators once claimed that the Syrian army and the Russians were leaving ISIS alone. This was never true, but following the Syrian army’s recent advances into central and eastern Syria this claim has become completely unsustainable.

The first fruit of the stabilisation of in the west was the second liberation of Palmyra from ISIS in March 2017. However since then events have quickened at an accelerating rate, with a whirlwind advance by the Syrian army eastward from Aleppo to Rusafa in the north, and an equally dramatic advance in the south, bringing the Syrian army for the first time in years to the Iraqi border.

The speed of these advances has no previous precedent in the Syrian war. In 2014-2015 ISIS did accomplish equally rapid advances over comparable distances. However with the Syrian army having withdrawn from eastern Syria these advances were largely unopposed. By contrast the Syrian army’s advances over recent weeks have been sustained even in the face of  fanatical resistance from ISIS.

This is not the result of some general collapse of ISIS in eastern and central Syria. Whilst the Syrian army has advanced at a blistering rate, US backed Kurdish forces in the north have been making extremely slow progress in their war against ISIS, which is supposed to end with the capture of Raqqa.

Compare for example the continued failure of the Kurdish militia to take Raqqa despite having launched their US planned and US backed offensive to capture Raqqa as long ago as November 2016 (“Operation Wrath of Euphrates”) with the latest rapid advances in Raqqa Province of the Syrian army.

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA), spearheaded by the elite Tiger Forces, has seized more than 1,400 square kilometers of territory from ISIS in the province of Raqqah. In addition to this, several key oil and gas extraction and refinery sites have been liberated. Lastly, the Syrian Army also expanded their zone of control over the Ethriyah-Raqqah road including two key junctions in the Tabaqah area; this move opens the door to further advances into central Syria from the north by pro-government forces.

The suddenness and rapidity of the entire offensive has come as an absolute surprise for all observers of the Syrian War. In particular, the offensive has not only served to further accelerate the already fast decline of ISIS being witnessed in 2017, but now serves to block any further operations the US-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) might have had planned to expand into central Syria via Tabaqah and seize key oil and gas infrastructures which litter central areas of the country.

These whirlwind advances reflect an underlying reality of the Syrian war, which is almost never discussed.

The two most powerful military forces in Syria for most of the war (until the coming of the Russians) have been the Syrian army and Al-Qaeda. ISIS and the Kurdish militia are no match for either, and the only reason ISIS managed to expand so rapidly in 2014 and 2015 was because the Syrian army and Al-Qaeda were too busy fighting each other to confront it.

Now that the Syrian army does not have to fight Al-Qaeda in its heartlands in western Syria – at least for the moment – it is having little difficulty defeating ISIS wherever it encounters it.

These Syrian army advances are transforming the political map of Syria. Whereas only a few months ago most Syrian territory had fallen out of the control of the Syrian government, that is rapidly becoming no longer the case.

With two powerful columns of Syrian troops now converging on the eastern city of Deir Ezzor – one from Rusafa in the north, the other from Palmyra in the centre – there is now a real prospect that all of central Syria stretching all the way from the Mediterranean to the Iraqi border will soon once more be under the control of the Syrian government.

Should that happen the Syrian government’s opponents, far from being credible challengers for power in Syria, will be confined to enclaves in various parts of Syria: a US controlled enclave around the isolated garrison of al-Tanf in the south, a Turkish controlled ‘safe zone’ in the north west, Idlib province in the west, and a large Kurdish area adjoining Turkey in the north east.

With the Syrian government in control of most of Syria’s territory and population, it will be increasingly difficult to deny its legitimacy, and should this situation arise then it will soon start to have a serious bearing on the course of the negotiations in Astana and Geneva.

The Battle of Deir Ez-Zor: Syrian forces attack ISIS in close combat (Source: YouTube/credits to the owner)

The situation in Syria is still not stable. The two Syrian military columns converging on Deir Ezzor have powerful enemies on their flanks: the US in the south and potentially the Kurds in the north. Intervention by either of these would however risk confrontation with Russia, whose Special Forces and advisers are accompanying the columns, and whose air force is providing them with air support. Frankly I don’t think that will happen.

A far greater risk is that the unstable peace in western Syria will break down, and that Al-Qaeda will be reactivated, and will try to take advantage of the Syrian army’s advance eastward to capture territory in the west.

That would however require the support of Turkey, which has been badly burnt by its involvement in the Syrian war, and which is becoming increasingly concerned by US support for the Kurds in the north.

On balance, though any policy which depends on Turkish President Erdogan abiding by the agreements he has signed is fraught with risk, I think self interest in the end will win out, and that the precarious peace in western Syria will hold.

If so then the war in Syria may indeed be moving towards its end.

President Assad has said repeatedly, even in what were for him his darkest hours, that his intention was to bring all of Syrian territory back under the Syrian government’s control.

Once that attracted disbelief and incredulity in the West. Suddenly it does not look so unlikely..

Alexander Mercouris is the editor-in-chief at The Duran.

Featured image: credits to the owner

The NYT’s lead story recently featured a chilling story of the infamous Israeli cyber-security firm, NSO Group, whose Pegasus malware has been illegally utilized by Mexican intelligence agencies to spy on legitimate human rights and anti-corruption activists. NSO negotiates lucrative contracts with foreign governments, which purportedly use the malware to hack and control the cell phones of criminals and terrorists. The FBI used a similar tool to break into the iPhone of Rizwan Farook, the San Bernardino Islamist who murdered 15 of his work colleagues at a Christmas party.

But there’s a wee problem: one person’s human rights advocate is another’s terrorist. In other words, there are many governments in the world who don’t know the difference between the two, nor do they care. Anyone who threatens the established order is a terrorist. Bahrain used a UK malware developer to hack the phone of an exiled human rights activist. Another activist, perhaps aware of the previous episode, suspected a similar phishing attempt and immediately sent his phone to the Citizen’s Lab at the University of Toronto. It discovered yet another piece of malware which would’ve permitted the hacking of his phone had he clicked on the link.

NSO Group co-founders Omri Lavie and Shalev Hulio (Source: Tikun Olam)

Hacking Team is another such Italy-based company, which has sold its cyber-cracking malware to governments like Morocco and the UAE. They were used to track the communications of human rights activists.

Last year, NSO entered the radar of white-hat cyber-security experts, who noted phishing attempts against Middle East Eye journalist, Rory Donaghy. He had written articles heavily critical of the autocratic government of UAE. Cyber-sleuths were able to trace the code and domains used in the attack to NSO. The Israeli company had gone far beyond attacking a single journalist. The white-hats discovered that its code was found on 67 different servers and had infiltrated 400 individual devices. 24 of these people were UAE citizens and three were arrested shortly after they inadvertently downloaded the suspect code. A fourth was convicted in absentia of insulting the country’s ruler.

Then Ahmed Mansoor, another UAE dissident who’d previously been beaten and robbed by regime goons, sent the white-hat researcher a new phishing exploit. That permitted cyber-detectives to identify with certainty that NSO was directly responsible for the code and malware used in the would-be attack. And it was far the most sophisticated such attack in the history of cyber-hacking: that was the world’s introduction to Pegasus.

Economists find that these companies are drilling for cyber-gold, with the market value for these services reaching $5-billion per year. NSO charges a flat $500,000 fee plus $650,000 for each device hacked. That’s a lucrative business model!

All of these black-hat companies hide behind a veneer of respectability. One claims that it only sells its products to NATO member countries (its code was used in exploits in Morocco and other Arab non-NATO countries). NSO claims that it explicitly forbids its clients from using Pegasus against anything other than criminal and terrorist targets. Then it coyly adds that it can’t be expected to know or police who its clients target once the malware is in the hands of the end-user.

This is akin to a gunmaker selling a man a weapon who’s used them in the past to kill people, then saying it can’t be responsible for how he uses it after they sell it to him. Or alternatively, it’s like pharmaceutical companies which manufacture opioids. Though there are legitimate uses for these drugs, once the drugs leave the plant the companies look the other way as doctors and dealers distribute the product to addicts who shouldn’t have access to them. Everyone makes money off this scam from Big Pharma to the prescribing doctors. The fact that the drugs wreak havoc throughout homes and towns in America is collateral damage.

Given that NSO is selling code, rather than physical weapons or drugs, we can indeed expect it to be able to track how its products are used by clients. The truth is that NSO doesn’t want the trouble of having to do so. Nor does it want to know who and how it is used. But the world must crack down on these practices. It must criminalize this behavior.

Doing so will be difficult. In Israel, for example, cyber-security is a huge export bonus to the economy. The government is happy to authorize export licenses for NSO, despite the uses to which its products are put. Israel doesn’t exercise oversight regarding the high-tech industry. If necessary, it looks the other way. It doesn’t even restrain arms dealers selling advanced Israeli weaponry containing U.S. components to our adversaries. NSO is a perfect expression of the amorality of Israeli commerce.

But perhaps Israel isn’t just “looking the other way” in these cases . Perhaps the NSOs of Israel are doing precisely what the government wishes them to. Perhaps Israeli cyber hacking tools are instruments of state. If you examine the company’s client list you will find many of the Arab states Israel is attempting to cultivate in its efforts to sabotage the Palestinian cause. What better way to peel off an authoritarian  state from such allegiance than by doing favors for its intelligence agencies; hoping the favor will be returned one day when Israel needs it.

Remember, as well that the Israeli defense ministry approves licenses for the export of all products which have a security component. Meaning the government has direct and complete control of the export process.

NSO’s engineers, the ones who developed the most sophisticated and powerful malware programs on the market, are veterans of the IDF’s Unit 8200. They learn their trade on Palestinian victims, deemed the enemy of the Israeli state.  Sometimes the target might be a terrorist. But sometimes he or she might be a legitimate political or community leader whom Israeli intelligence has deemed vulnerable to blackmail. Perhaps they’re gay, or having an affair, or have a child with cancer. All are prime recruits as informers for Israel’s Shabak. This is how Israel’s most elite hackers learn their craft.

NSO Group offices in Herzliya (Source: Tikun Olam)

There is no oversight, no ethical code governing such behavior. For Israel, the code-word is “security uber-alles.” The same sordid ethos infects NSO operations in the world. Go where the money is. All the rest be damned.

The closeness between NSO and the Israeli state may be seen in one security consultant’s characterization of the Pegasus malware used to jailbreak iPhones:

“Apple had never seen anything like this—ever. This was an incredibly sophisticated nation-state attack, kind of breathtaking in its scope. This took a herculean effort on their part to patch it so fast. It was Katy-bar-the-door over there.”

It’s important to note that he called Pegasus a product of a “nation-state attack.” Not a product of a private company. In other words, a private company, no matter how large or sophisticated would simply not have the resources or skill-set to coordinate so many different elements of this jailbreak tool. Only a huge military SIGINT outfit like Unit 8200 could accomplish such a monumental task.

And NSO was able to commercialize this military-intelligence tool for use by other intelligence agencies around the world. In effect, Israel was exporting not just its products but its flagrant disregard for human or civil rights; and as in the case of other counter-terror strategies it’s pioneered like drone assassinations and targeted killing, it’s exported a blatant disregard for human life itself.

Let’s also not forget that Israel is the fifth largest arms exporter in the world and first on a per capita population basis. It didn’t get to this point by scrupulously investigating all the uses of the weapons it was selling, and the dirty pedigrees of many of the nations to whom it was selling.

Featured image: MIT Technology Review

This week, in New York City, representatives from more than 100 countries will begin collaborating on an international treaty, first proposed in 2016, to ban nuclear weapons forever.

It makes sense for every country in the world to seek a legally binding ban on nuclear weapons. It would make even more sense to immediately deactivate all nuclear weapons. But, by boycotting and disparaging the process now underway, the U.S. and other nuclear armed nations have sent a chilling signal. They have no intention of giving up the power to explode, burn and annihilate planetary life.

“The United States is spending $1 trillion USD over the next thirty years to modernize its nuclear weapon arsenals and triple the killing power of these weapons,” says Ray Acheson, programme director at Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF).

Acheson also notes that the excessive spending for nuclear weapons contrasts with U.S. cuts to vital anti-poverty programs.

On June 19^th, more than a dozen people blocked the U.S. Mission to the UN entrance to protest Washington’s boycott of the negotiations. They were arrested for disorderly conduct, but I believe it’s incomparably  more disorderly to plan for nuclear war.

Source: Women’s March and Rally to Ban the Bomb

During the past weekend, to support the negotiations for a treaty banning nuclear weapons, WILPF called for “Women’s March to Ban the Bomb” actions in cities across the U.S. and around the world. Jane Addams, who helped found the League in 1919, was a Chicago woman who understood the crucial need to put an end to war, all war, and instead care for the neediest people. She dedicated herself to assuring that many new immigrants in her city were treated with respect, given assistance to meet basic needs and encouraged to live and work together, peaceably. Addams worked passionately to prevent nations from sleepwalking into the horrors of World War I, and she vigorously campaigned to stop the United States’ entry into it.

Upon return from visiting soldiers who had been maimed while fighting in the trenches of World War I, she spoke of how the young men couldn’t have carried on the war without mind-altering substances -sometimes absinthe, sometimes extra rations of rum. Families were sending laudanum and even heroin to the front lines in hampers. The soldiers couldn’t kill, she concluded, if left in their right minds.

The WILPF gatherings help us ask hard questions about our capacity to prepare for massive obliteration of entire cities, through nuclear weapon buildup, while failing to meet the needs of children, like those in Yemen, whose survival is jeopardized by war and indifference. Can we persist in perfecting our nuclear arsenals, indifferent to millions of children at risk of starving to death or dying because they lack clean water — and because U.S. supported Saudi airstrikes decimate the infrastructure that might have supplied food and water, –can we do so and claim to be in our right minds?

WILPF gathered us in Chicago where we took time to remember a remarkably brave former Chicagoan, Jean Gump, a mother of twelve whose altruism led her to help dismantle an intercontinental ballistic missile. On March 28, 1986, Jean and her companions in the Plowshares movement enacted the biblical call to turn swords into plowshares. Picture it in the words of Lila Sarick’s article, “The Crime of Ms. Jean Gump”:

The early morning sun was beginning to glow red over the horizon as a trio ran through the dew-soaked Missouri field.

Silently, a young, bearded man cut the chain-link fence topped with barbed wire, while his two companions, another man and a woman, hung banners beside the scarlet sign that warned them not to enter.

Beside the warning sign, the pair hung a photo collage of the woman’s 12 children and 2 grandchildren. Alongside it, they hung a pennant that bore the group’s logo: “Swords into plowshares — an act of healing.”

The trio then clambered through the hole in the fence and entered M-10, a Minuteman II missile site at Whiteman Air Force Base in Knob Noster, Missouri.

The missile site resembled an abandoned railway yard. Rust-colored tracks ended abruptly in the middle of the site. Tall signal arms and white concrete bunkers dotted the landscape.

Wordlessly, the three set to work. Ken Rippetoe, 23, swung a sledgehammer at the railway tracks, designed to launch a nuclear missile with the punch of one million tons of TNT.

Larry Morlan, 26, snipped the wires on the signal arms, which pointed blindly toward the sky.

And Jean Gump uncapped a baby bottle filled with the trio’s blood and poured it in the shape of a cross on the gleaming hatch from which a missile could emerge. Underneath, she painted the words “Disarm and live.”

For this action, Jean Gump was sentenced to 4 ½ years in prison. The following year, her husband, Joe Gump, performed a similar action, believing Jean was right about assuming personal responsibility to deactivate nuclear weapons. The couple galvanized a group of Midwesterners to form a 1988 campaign, the “Missouri Peace Planting,” which involved dozens of people climbing over barbed wire fences onto the grounds of nuclear weapon silos in Missouri, and planting corn on top of  the missile silos. I remember entering a nuclear weapon site in Missouri’s Whiteman Air Force Base, planting corn, and shortly thereafter finding myself kneeling in the grass, handcuffed, as a soldier stood behind me with his weapon pointed toward me. I lasted about two minutes in silence, and then started talking about why we did what we did and how we hoped the action would benefit children that he loved as well. And then I asked him,

“Do you think the corn will grow?”

“I don’t know,” he responded, “but I sure hope so.”

And then he asked me,

“Ma’am, would you like a drink of water?”

I nodded eagerly.

“Ma’am,” said the soldier, “would you please tip your head back.”

I did so, and he poured water down my throat. Recalling his kind offer to give me water jolts me into awareness about the relationship between the nuclear weapon below us, that day, and massive numbers of people, then and now, who acutely need clean water.

Imagine if his question, “Would you like a drink of water?” were asked, today, to people living in Yemen. Now, as the U.S. insists on having an exceptional right to dominate the planet, insists on being armed with enough explosive fire power to obliterate entire cities, suppose we were to ask people in Yemen, millions of whom now face cholera and starvation, if they would like a drink of clean, pure water?

Or, let’s bring the question closer to home and ask people in Flint, Michigan, whose water is contaminated, “Would you like clean, pure water?”

And as we grope for solutions to the signs of climate change, including severe droughts and the rush to privatize dwindling resources of potable water, imagine asking the children of future generations, “Would you like a drink of water?”

President Eisenhower was right to equate possession of nuclear weapons with commission of crime:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

It’s a big “ask”: get rid of nuclear weapons. Along with planning and joining protests, another  way to remain awake and focused on preventing nuclear annihilation involves recognizing how interconnected we are with others, so much so that the suffering and death of another person diminishes our own lives.

This wakefulness entails abiding care for others. Jean Gump and Jane Addams practiced such care throughout most of their lives. We, likewise, can work toward justice for those who live in communities like Flint; we can seek sane approaches to the climate crisis; and we can insist that those who are targets of war, like the cholera-ridden, desperately hungry children of Yemen, be spared from aerial terrorism and given full access to clean, life-saving waters.

Kathy Kelly ([email protected]) co-coordinates Voices for Creative Nonviolence (www.vcnv.org).

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Featured image: OCHA/Charlotte Cans

The plight of farmers in India has been well documented. A combination of debt, economic liberalisation, subsidised imports, rising input costs and a shift to cash crops (including GM cotton) has caused massive financial distress. Over 300,000 (perhaps closer to 400,000) have taken their lives over the last 20 years. From the effects of the Green Revolution (degraded soils, falling water tables, drought, etc.) to the lack of minimum support prices and income guarantees, it is becoming increasingly non-viable for many smallholder farmers to continue. The effects of last year’s demonetisation policy merely compounded the situation.

Indian smallholder/peasant farmers are under attack on all fronts. Transnational corporations are seeking to capitalise the food and agriculture sector by supplanting the current system with one suited towards their needs (the maximisation of profit), ably assisted by the World Bank and its various strategies and directives. Moreover, proponents of neoliberalism are pushing to further commercialise the countryside, which will involve shifting hundreds of millions to cities.

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) could accelerate this process. A trade deal now being negotiated by 16 countries across Asia-Pacific, the RCEP would cover half the world’s population, including 420 million small family farms that produce 80% of the region’s food.

GRAIN is an international non-profit organisation and has just released a short report that outlines how RCEP is expected to create powerful new rights and lucrative business opportunities for food and agriculture corporations under the guise of boosting trade and investment.

Land acquisition and seed saving

GRAIN is a small international non-profit organisation that works to support small farmers and social movements in their struggles for community-controlled and biodiversity-based food systems. (Source: Wikipedia)

What RCEP will do, according to GRAIN, is allow foreign corporations to buy up land. This would provide corporations with far more control than just use rights and drive up land prices and speculation, pushing small farmers out. If RCEP is adopted, it could intensify the great land grab that has been taking place in India.

Turning to the issue of farmer seed-saving, GRAIN notes that Monsanto and Bayer want to end this practice and force farmers to buy their proprietary seeds each season. The global seed industry is highly concentrated today and recent (proposed) mergers will consolidate power and influence over both governments and farmers. For example, China is currently in the process of buying Syngenta, one of the world’s top three seed firms. According to Grain, this means that China will have a new vested interest in seeing seed laws strengthened via tighter intellectual property rights under RCEP.

We have already seen the devastating effects on Indian farmers due to Monsanto’s ‘royalties’ (on ‘trait values’) on GM cotton seeds in India. Monsanto effectively wrote and broke laws to enter India. Under RCEP, things could get much worse. According to GRAIN, if states are allowed patents on inventions ‘derived from plants’ (whether hybrid or genetically modified seeds), we could see higher seed prices, a further loss of biodiversity, even greater corporate control and a possible lowering of standards (or a complete bypassing of them as with GM mustard) for high-risk products such as GMOs.

India’s dairy sector

The Indian government has encouraged the co-operative model in the dairy sector with active policy protection. However, the dairy trade could be opened up to unfair competition from subsidised imports under RCEP. We have already seen the effects of this in the edible oils sector, for instance.

According to RS Sodhi, managing director of the country’s largest milk cooperative, Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation, the type of deals being pushed under the banner of ‘free trade’ will rob the vibrant domestic dairy industry and the millions of farmers that are connected to it from access to a growing market in India.

Source: Alimenta

India’s dairy sector is mostly self-sufficient and employs about 100 million people, the majority of whom are women. The sector is a lifeline for small and marginal farmers, landless poor and a significant source of income for millions of families. Up until now they have been the backbone of India’s dairy sector.

New Zealand’s dairy giant Fonterra (the world’s biggest dairy exporter) is looking to RCEP as a way in to India’s massive dairy market. GRAIN notes that the company has openly stated that RCEP would give it important leverage to open up India’s protected market. As a result, many people fear that Indian dairy farmers will either have to work for Fonterra or go out of business.

At the same time, some RCEP members not only heavily subsidise their farmers, but they also have food safety standards that are incompatible with the small-scale food production and processing systems that dominate in other RCEP countries. There is sufficient room for concern here: during the ‘mustard crisis’ in 1998, ‘pseudo-safety’ laws were used to facilitate the entry of foreign soy oil: many village-level processors were thereby forced out of business.

GRAIN argues that RCEP could accelerate the growth of mega food-park investments that target exports to high-value markets, as is already happening in India. These projects involve high tech farm-to-fork supply chains that exclude and may even displace small producers and household food processing businesses, which are the mainstay of rural and peri-urban communities across Asia. This would dovetail with existing trends that are facilitating the growth of corporate-controlled supply chains, whereby farmers can easily become enslaved or small farmers simply get by-passed by powerful corporations demanding industrial-scale production.

Fertiliser and pesticide use will increase

Fertiliser and pesticide sales are expected to rise sharply in Asia-Pacific in the next few years. Agrochemical use is heaviest in China and growing rapidly in India. GRAIN notes that China’s acquisition of Syngenta, the world’s top agrochemical company with more than 20% of the global pesticide market, puts the country in a particularly sensitive position within RCEP.

A farm worker sprays cotton plants with pesticides on the farm of Jarnail Singh in Jajjal village, Punjab, India, on Aug. 28, 2013. The “Green Revolution” introduced the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides Punjab’s farmers. (photo: Prashanth Vishwanathan/Bloomberg)

According to GRAIN, in January 2017, China announced that it will scrap export tariffs on nitrogen and phosphorus fertiliser in order to boost its market share abroad. RCEP trade ministers have promised to deliver a deal that immediately cuts tariffs to zero on 65% of trade in goods, followed by a second phase to cut the rest. GRAIN states that farm chemicals are bound to be part of this, resulting in increased residues in food and water, more greenhouse gas emissions, rising rates of illness and further depletion of soil fertility.

Big retail will wipe out local markets

RCEP also demands the liberalisation of the retail sector and is attempting to facilitate the entry of foreign agroprocessing and retail gaints, which could threaten the livelihoods of small retailers and street vendors. The entry of retail giants would be bad for farmers because they may eventually monopolise the whole food chain from procurement to distribution. In effect, farmers will be at the mercy of such large companies as they will have the power to set prices and also will not be interested to buy small quantities from small producers.

RCEP is designed to usher in a wave of corporate consolidation and help facilitate take-over of Asia’s food and agriculture sector from seed to plate. Corporate concentration will deprive hundreds of millions of their livelihoods. Moreover, the type of farming and food production practices that these corporations will bring entails massive social, health and environmental costs, which ordinary people and the state sector ultimately bear.

Neoliberal ideologues may say exposing farmers and those working in the food sector to such agreements can only be good for ‘growth’ and is a perquisite for transforming countries like India. But this is a bogus argument that seeks to hijack the development agenda by seeking to define it solely in terms of GDP growth – a narrow, outdated and wholly misleading concept. RCEP is a recipe for undermining biodiverse food production, food sovereignty and food security for the mass of the population. It will also massive job losses in a country like India, which has no capacity for absorbing such losses into its workforce.

Moreover, RCEP belongs to a model of development that is the wholly unsustainable due to the impact on the environment of capitalism’s ‘infinite growth’ paradigm. Given Gandhi’s views on the environment, if any country should recognise this, it is India. Writing from a Marxist perspective, prominent economist Prabhat Patnaik appreciates the need to align any notion of development with the requirement to live within the limits of the environment, which Gandhi stressed:

“This really is a spiritual/cultural question, about what it means to live a good life… Marxism shouldn’t be reduced to productionism. The goal of socialism has always been human freedom, which is about much more than material wealth… Gandhi talked about the ethical demands of nature… we do have to live within the limits of nature.”

Patnaik proposes an alternative to the current neoliberal agenda by saying we must delink ourselves from capitalist globalisation via capital controls, managing foreign trade and expanding the domestic market through the protection and encouragement of petty production, including peasant agriculture; through larger welfare expenditure by the state; and through a more egalitarian distribution of wealth and income.

While calling for new and innovative solutions to the problems we face under capitalism, aspects of his thinking dovetail with many in the environmental/food sovereignty movement who advocate a need for localisation not globalisation, self-sufficiency not corporate dependency.

There is a need to encourage localised food economies that are shielded from the effects of rigged trade and international markets. Rather than have transnational agribusiness corporations determining global and regional policies and private capital throttling democracy, we require societies run for the benefit of the mass of the population and a system of healthy food and sustainable agriculture that is run for human need.

We need only look at Mexico and what ‘free trade’ has done to that country’s food and agriculture sector: destroyed health, fuelled unemployment, transformed a rural population into a problematic group of migrants who now serve as a reserve army of labour that conveniently depresses the incomes of those in work. The writing is on the wall for India.

Current policies seek to tie agriculture to an environmentally destructive, moribund system of capitalism. RCEP would represent a further shift away from real, practical solutions to India’s agrarian crisis based on sustainable agriculture and which place the small farmer at the centre of the development paradigm.

Details about what can be done to resist RCEP are outlined at the bottom of this page on GRAIN’s website. 

Colin Todhunter is an independent writer.

Featured image: yourarticlelibrary.com

The actions the Pentagon has recently been taking in Syria resulted in the extreme risk of a direct armed engagement between American troops illegally deployed in Syria and the forces of Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad.

Upon realizing the success of anti-terrorist operation which Syrian armed forces were conducting together with Russian and Iranian forces in bid to liberate regions still under Islamic State control, Washington decided to establish a foothold in the country before the conflict ends. Once Syrian troops reached the border areas with Iraq, it jeopardized all plans Washington has been making toward the establishment of a large US-controlled zone in the east of Syria, a scenario that would have affected both the future of the country and the negotiation process to end the war.

Under these conditions, the United States rushed to redeploy its HIMARS multiple rocket launchers from Jordan to Syria’s Al-Zakf, in an urgent attempt to create yet another American military base in the war-torn country. It’s reported the operational range of HIMARS systems reaches 300 miles, which is critical for understanding Washington’s plans. The systems have been deployed near a strategically important border crossing at Al-Tanf, which means that they can block off the advancement of any government troops that would try to seal all border crossing in a bid to prevent new militants from entering the country.

The advancement of Syrian government troops with the support of Russia and Iran towards the At-Tanf border crossing is not just a strategic event, but a historical one. It won’t be an exaggeration to state that at this point in the Syrian war certain areas of Syria have been turned into disputed areas contested by opposing foreign interests. And Washington’s attempts to destroy fleeing ISIS detachments before Syrian armed forces reach them reminds us of the situation in the spring of 1945, when the US and its Western allies were racing to capture strategically important areas in Germany, as the Third Reich was crumbling.

Upon embarking on this path, Washington has decided to provide a show of force, acting in complete disregard of all international norms, putting itself in the shoes of an aggressor that violates the sovereignty of the independent Syrian state. The decision of the US-led coalition to intensify air strikes in the al-Raqqa Governorate led to hundreds of civilian deaths and the forced exodus of 160,000 civilians, as it was announced by the head of the United Nations Independent Commission on Human Rights Violations in Syria, Paulo Sérgio Pinheir in Geneva.

In an bid to obtain an upper hand in the fight for al-Raqqa, the US coalition decided to use white phosphorus, prohibited from use in residential areas by international law, as it’s been reported by the French television channel BFM TV.

In an open demonstration of its aggressive intent, for the last couple of month the US coalition has repeatedly attacked Syrian military units, which has not just resulted in deaths of the Syrian military personnel, but has also claimed dozens of civilian lives.

And now, on Sunday evening, a Syrian Su-22 that was carrying out a mission against ISIS militants in the vicinity of al-Raqqa was shot down by a US F/A-18E Super Hornet fighter. This barbarous step unseen since  the days of the Bosnian war has marked new heights in the Pentagon’s military aggression against sovereign states. The destruction of an aircraft that was carrying out an anti-terrorist mission over its own territory, in the best interests of its citizens and its country is, without a glimpse of a doubt, a war crime. As the Military Times emphasizes, this is a vivid example of the critical level of tension that exists between the Syrian government, supported by Russia, and US coalition forces.

Therefore, the immediate response of the Russian Defense Ministry, which called the destruction of the Syrian warplane by uninvited US forces in Syrian airspace a cynical violation of the country’s sovereignty, committed in disregard of Moscow’s repeated warnings about the possible consequences of the repeated destruction of Syrian military assets and personnel which pose no threat to the US. In this regard, the Russian Ministry of Defense announced that it has ceased its cooperation with its American counterparts in the framework of the memorandum on the prevention of incidents and ensuring air safety during operations in Syria and demanded the Pentagon to conduct a thorough investigation of the Su-22 downing, while providing all details to Moscow. Now Russian military forces, stationed in Syria at the request of the legitimate government of the Syrian Arab Republic, will treat as hostile targets any planes and drones of the US coalition operating west of the Euphrates River.

Washington’s actions in Syria clearly show that its stated goals have nothing in common with the real goals the US has been pursuing in Syria, repeatedly committing acts of armed aggression against the legitimate government of the Syrian Arab Republic and the Syrian military. Today, everyone understands that by their actions, the Pentagon seeks to stop the the movement of Syrian forces eastward, and also to undermine the joint Syrian-Iraqi strategic defense project against ISIS before it takes off. After all, no opposition group, regardless of its affiliation (Kurds, local tribes, the so-called Free Syrian Army etc.) has the capacity to replace ISIS and its ability to fight Syrian forces, since none of these other proxies can resist the Syrian Arab Army.

However, Washington’s recent actions must be regarded more broadly: will it continue supporting terrorists across the globe, trying to put groups like ISIS in power in a bid toward achieving global domination through the use of proxy forces? Will Europe continue suffering from terrorist attacks that are undermining the existing security paradigm, while the US demands its “European allies” to increase their expenditures on arms purchases that are allegedly needed for combating terrorism?

Jean Périer is an independent researcher and analyst and a renowned expert on the Near and Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.

Featured image: New Eastern Outlook

Otto Warmbier was arrested last year on charges of theft as he attempted to leave North Korea after traveling there with a tour group. His recent release from North Korea after 15 months of detainment was followed by his death in the US.

A firestorm of accusations, condemnation, and angry threats have resonated across the Western media, with op-eds ranging from the Independent’s, “America needs to do something about Otto Warmbier’s death – but military force against North Korea isn’t an option,” which calls on US foreign policy to follow that of Imperial Rome’s, including swift and severe retribution, to the Australian’s, “What did North Korea do to Otto Warmbier?,” which incoherently leaps from commenting on Warmbier’s “beautiful name” to claiming, “he was a pawn, a victim of the maniacal brutality of Kim Jong-un,” to Foreign Policy’s piece in which the title, “North Korea Would Not Hesitate to Kill You,” says it all.

Nowhere amongst this familiar Western propaganda used worldwide to dehumanize nations and prime the public for unending hostilities can any actual evidence be found that the North Korean government killed Otto Warmbier.

In every article it is noted that he was returned to the US, and that it was in the US where he died. His death, however, is being blamed on his alleged mistreatment while in North Korea.

No Autopsy, No Evidence, No Honest Conclusions  

Conveniently for the Western media, no autopsy will be performed, as the BBC would note in their article, “Otto Warmbier: No autopsy for US student held by North Korea,” which stated:

The family of a US student who died shortly after being freed from North Korea have declined a post-mortem examination, according to a US coroner.

Otto Warmbier died on Monday near his family home in Ohio after more than 15 months in North Korean captivity.

The Hamilton County coroner said only an external exam was performed on the 22-year-old.

The BBC article even admits that the coroner’s office itself stated:

No conclusions about the cause and manner of Mr Warmbier’s death have been drawn at this time.

Due to the lack of any conclusive evidence regarding Warmbier’s death, and the fact that no autopsy will be performed, the Western media’s collective propaganda is able to stand alone in the court of biased Western public opinion. That propaganda – unsurprisingly – calls for North Korea to be “punished.”

However, without an autopsy, whatever the perception is surrounding North Korea – no conclusions can honestly be drawn one way or the other regarding Warmbier’s death.

One conclusion that can be drawn without doubt, however – is the shameless, merciless, and inhumane manner in which the Western media has exploited the death of Otto Warmbier.

Without evidence and no prospect of ever obtaining any, the Western media has rushed to create as much anger, hysteria, and resentment as possible in the minds of the Western public before the next news cycle hits. Embedded in the minds of many across the West will be the notion that North Korea “killed” Otto Warmbier. The minds of many will be primed ahead of further escalations by Washington on the Korean Peninsula where it seeks to maintain its power and influence as part of a wider strategy to maintain its unwarranted and uninvited “primacy” across Asia.

While the Western media poses as appalled over North Korea’s inhumanity, it is the Western media that has helped set the stage for yet another bloody chapter of US-Asia relations and all of the inhumanity that unfolds because of it.

Featured image: ClickOnDetroit

United Nations UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has expressed concerns about a spike in contacts between Israeli armed forces and Syria militants in recent months.

In a report released recently, Guterres warned that the growing interactions between the two sides could lead to escalation and cause harm to members of the UN Disengagement Observer Force deployed to the Golan Heights.

According to the report, UN observers listed 16 meetings between the Israel forces and the Syria militants in the border area, including on Mount Hermon, in proximity to UN outposts in Syria’s Quneitra Province and the Golan Heights, from March 2 to May 16.

“Relative to the previous reporting period, there has been a significant increase in interaction” between Israeli soldiers and individuals from the Syrian side of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, “occurring on four occasions in February, three in March, eight in April and on one occasion in May,” the report said.

In its previous report released in March, the UN listed at least 17 interactions between the two sides between November 18, 2016, and March 1, 2017.

The figures show a significant increase when compared with only two such meetings recorded between August 30 and November 16, 2016.

The report said people likely affiliated with the militant groups, some of them armed, arrived at an Israeli outpost accompanied by mules and were greeted by the soldiers.

“In some instances, personnel and supplies were observed to have been transferred in both directions. On all occasions, the unknown individuals and mules returned to the Bravo (Syrian) side,” it added.

The UN chief said such interactions have “the potential to lead to clashes between armed elements and the Syrian Arab Armed Forces.”

“All military activities in the area of separation conducted by any actor pose a risk to the ceasefire and to the local civilian population, in addition to the United Nations personnel on the ground,” he wrote.

Earlier this week, The Wall Street Journal reported that Israel has been providing Takfiri terrorists in Syria’s Golan Heights with a steady flow of funds and medical supplies.

Israel’s former minister of military affairs Moshe Ya’alon (Source: Haaretz)

Citing militant commanders and people familiar with Israel’s thinking, the paper said Israel’s “secret engagement” in the war aims to install a buffer zone on the Syrian border with elements friendly to Tel Aviv.

The Tel Aviv regime regularly attacks positions held by pro-Damascus forces in Syria, claiming that the attacks are retaliatory.

The Syrian army has on several occasions confiscated Israeli-made arms and military equipment from terrorists fighting the government forces. There are also reports that Israel has been providing medical treatment to the extremists wounded in Syria.

In April, Israel’s former minister of military affairs Moshe Ya’alon admitted to a tacit alliance with Daesh, saying the terrorist group had “immediately apologized” to Tel Aviv after firing “once” into Israel.

Featured image: UN Photo

According to Bill Van Auken, “The downing of the Syrian fighter marked the first time in this century that a US warplane has shot down the plane of another country. The last instance of such aerial combat took place in 1999 during the US-NATO war against Serbia, when an American fighter plane shot down a Serbian MiG.”

Is this aggression from Washington a pretext to wage a more concerted war between Russia and America, both of which are nuclear powers? We have compiled related articles which provide and understanding of this issue.

*     *     *

Phony US Congress Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF): Justification for US Military Operations

By Stephen Lendman, June 21, 2017

US justification for downing a Syrian warplane in its own airspace, combating terrorism, is willfully and deceitfully false, deceitfully claiming “(w)e will not hesitate to defend ourselves or our partners if threatened” – when no threat exists.

Dangerous Development: Iranian Missile Launch into Syria Against ISIS Puts US in Precarious Position

By Patrick Henningsen, June 21, 2017

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard announced that it had fired several missiles at ISIS positions in the Deir Az Zor province in Syria. The reason given for this unprecedented military strike was retaliation for double terrorist attacks which struck Tehran two weeks ago. Readers should not underestimate the significance of this event.

US Aggression in Syria: Testing Russia’s Resolve

By Stephen Lendman, June 21, 2017

They’re part of Washington’s diabolical regime change plan – at the same time, testing Russia’s resolve in the wake of its announced halt in cooperating with America in Syrian airspace, following the downing of one of its Su-22 planes.

The US Escalation in Syria and the Threat of World War

By Bill Van Auken, June 21, 2017

The escalation of the conflict continued Tuesday with a US warplane shooting down an Iranian drone in southeastern Syria.

Another Step Toward A Devastating War. Washington’s Pretense that It is Fighting ISIS

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, June 21, 2017

An idiot American pilot shot down a Syrian fighter that was attacking ISIS, thus confirming that Washington is not fighting ISIS, as Washington claims, but is protecting ISIS, its agent sent to Syria by Obama and Hillary to overthrow the Syrian government.

Video: Military Escalation in Syria, Towards US-Russia Confrontation? By South Front, June 21, 2017 

The Russian Defense Ministry said that the US move may be considered an “act of aggression,” and announced that it is halting all interactions with the US within the framework on the memorandum of incident prevention in Syrian skies.

US Downs Syrian Warplane over Syria Amid War on ISIS By Tony Cartalucci, June 20, 2017

With the United States now responsible for multiple strikes against the Syrian military as Syrian forces battle ISIS militants and attempt to retake eastern territory, it is clear that the US is willing to risk wider war in pursuit of the 2012 agenda of using ISIS to “isolate the Syrian regime.”

*     *     *

Truth in media is a powerful instrument.

Global Research is a small team that believes in the power of information and analysis to bring about far-reaching societal change including a world without war.

Consider Making a Donation to Global Research 

Featured image: idnews.ge

DAMASCUS (Analysis) — Last year, U.S.-backed Kurdish militias active in northern Syria took advantage of the chaos caused by the nation’s ongoing conflict and declared the parts of Syria under their control to be a federal “autonomous region.” 

The move ignored major resistance from most of the Syrian “opposition”, as well as the Syrian government in Damascus and the government of nearby Turkey.

For much of the conflict, several Kurdish militias have become some of the U.S.-led coalition’s closest allies within Syria, receiving massive amounts of arms and heavy weapon shipments from coalition members.

The Kurdish militias also dominate the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the U.S.-backed group best known for leading the coalition-supported offensive targeting the Daesh (ISIS) stronghold of Raqqa.

The U.S.-supported push to claim Raqqa from Daesh has been months in the making. However, once the operation to take the city began, things started to move rather quickly. Now, the fight for Raqqa seems to be nearly over, with SDF forces set to capture Daesh’s “capital” in a matter of weeks.

So it begins the partition of #Syria,US-Backed Forces Enter #Raqqa as Coalition Drops White Phosphorus Bombs https://t.co/IQpHvEeBKR #GE2017

— CounterBalanceToday (@CounterBalanceT) June 9, 2017

The SDF announced months ago that control of Raqqa following Daesh’s ouster would be given to an autonomous “council,” not the Syrian government, and that it would soon become part of the Kurdish autonomous region that it borders. As MintPress previously reported, keeping Raqqa out of Syrian government control plays right into the hands of U.S. and Israeli geopolitical interests, which have long been pushing for a partitioned Syria.

However, this plan has at least one major obstacle – the population of Raqqa itself. Raqqa has historically been populated by an Arab majority. As journalist Andrew Korybko notes, it is highly unlikely that any Arab, or non-Kurd for that matter, living in Raqqa would freely choose to live in a “Kurdish-dominated statelet” as a second-class citizen instead of choosing to instead have equal standing within the Syrian Arab Republic.

The presence of Raqqa’s pre-siege population would essentially prevent the annexation of Raqqa into the Kurdish autonomous region. But if the vast majority of Raqqa’s population were forced to leave, or were killed, the whole operation would become much more feasible.

That is exactly what is happening. Just within the first week of the coalition’s operation to take Raqqa, at least 300 civilians were killed, while many speculate that the actual figure is much higher. The loss of life has largely been due to the coalition’s indiscriminate bombings of the area and its use of chemical weapons, particularly white phosphorus. These bombings and the coalition use of chemical weapons have also forced 160,000 civilians to flee Raqqa. Thus, in just one week, Raqqa lost the vast majority of its population, which prior to the conflict in Syria stood at around 220,000.

Harrowing massacre again.. #BREAKING 44 civilians killed mostly women & children killed in US strikes on Ratla south #ISIS-held Raqqa #Syria pic.twitter.com/8rvpHIN84b

— Rami (@RamiAILoIah) June 19, 2017

Staggering Loss of Life: 'Raqqa is not about protecting civilians' https://t.co/SAQhFhdDTQ via @YouTube Ethnic Cleansing

— Teresa Wright (@TeresaTeresa133) June 15, 2017

The U.S.-led coalition’s divide and conquer strategy

The possibility that the U.S.-led coalition and its allies are seeking to remove the Arab-majority population of Raqqa becomes much more feasible when one considers that Daesh does not appear to be the intended target of these attacks.

While the effort to capture Raqqa has been expedited in part by prior coalition and SDF efforts to isolate the city, other factors that have received little media attention likely played a major role in the operation’s rapid pace. Most notable among these is the substantial evidence that both the Kurds and the U.S. have cut deals with Daesh that have allowed for the SDF’s rapid capture of major parts of the city.

Sergey Surovikin, the commander of Russia’s active forces in Syria, argued in early June that the Kurdish SDF and Daesh terrorists had created an arrangement that allowed Daesh militants to leave Raqqa and its suburbs without incident.

“According to available reliable information, in early June ISIL [Daesh] terrorists entered into collusion with the command of the Kurdish armed units, which are part of the Democratic Forces Union, [and] left the populated localities of Tadia and al-Hamam located 19 kilometers southwest of Raqqa offering no resistance and headed toward Palmyra,” Surovikin told the Tass News Agency.

Ammar al-Assad, a senior Syrian lawmaker, echoed these claims, telling Fars News that the U.S. and its SDF allies had allowed over 120 Daesh members to leave Raqqa with their weapons in order to create insecurity in Palmyra and the surrounding region. He also stated that the U.S. had airlifted Western Daesh commanders out of Raqqa, sending them to unknown destinations. While some may argue that al-Assad’s account is not credible, video evidence emerged last week of entire convoys of Daesh fighters leaving Raqqa entirely untouched by the U.S. military, even though the U.S. is actively bombing that exact location – essentially corroborating al-Assad’s account.

Watch the U.S. coalition allow a massive convoy of Daesh fighters to leave Raqqa untouched:

While the U.S. coalition apparently “missed” the hundreds of vehicles in the Daesh convoy, they had no problem shooting down a Syrian Army plane this past Sunday. According to the Syrian military, the plane had been bombing Daesh forces leaving Raqqa when it was shot down.

Thus, if neither the U.S.-led coalition nor the SDF is targeting Daesh with their indiscriminate bombing, it seems increasingly likely that they are instead targeting civilians who could resist Raqqa’s annexation by the U.S.-backed Kurds.

Featured image: MintPress News

Severe, lifelong, and trans-generational harm has resulted not only from the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but also from the testing, development, and production of nuclear weapons. Late effects and long-lived environmental contamination will continue to create new victims. This damage has disproportionately affected women and indigenous communities—the reflections of this in the revised preamble are important. For all of these reasons, including provisions on victim assistance and environmental remediation in the nuclear ban treaty is important.

Some delegations such as Egypt, Iran, Cuba, and Viet Nam, amongst others, argued that the primary responsibility for victim assistance should lie with the states that created the victims in the first place. Malaysia argued international customary law supports this, including the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. However, as other states and civil society organisations pointed out, the primary responsibility for ensuring that victims’ rights are respected and needs are met lies with the state in whose jurisdiction or control they live or work. This is consistent with states’ sovereignty, general human rights obligations, and responsibilities towards any of their citizens.

This approach does not mean that affected states must face these issues alone or be solely responsible for addressing them. Establishing strong international cooperation and assistance provisions is crucial to helping affected states meet their obligations to victims, and in order to establish responsibility for these matters amongst all states party to the treaty. The provisions on victim assistance in the antipersonnel landmine and cluster munition treaties take this approach, which heavily affected states have joined.

In this context, during the discussion on article 6(1) on victim assistance, Brazil, Ireland, Ghana, Holy See, Mozambique, and Philippines strongly argued for removing the qualifying language that each state party “in a position to do so” shall provide assistance. Human rights law requires all states to provide assistance to victims in areas under their jurisdiction or control, and this must be reflected in the treaty. This would not prevent affected states from pursuing redress for such harms through other peaceful means. The treaty should also strongly encourage the states that have caused this humanitarian and environmental devastation to help affected states meet their victim assistance obligations.

There was a suggestion from the delegation of Uganda that the current text discriminates amongst victims, due to its reference to age- and gender-sensitive assistance. However, this language ensures against discrimination. Without paying attention to gender- and age-specific needs, victim assistance mechanisms tend to end up discriminating against women as well as children and the elderly. It isn’t a question of providing more assistance to these groups, but ensuring that their unique needs are met rather than overlooked.

The Major Trials Between 3rd and 9th October 1957, Britain tested 12 nuclear devices at Maralinga in a program known collectively as the ‘major trials’. (Source: nuclearweaponarchive.org)

There was minimal debate about what acts should be covered in the provision on victim assistance, though Mexico suggested replacing “use or testing of nuclear weapons” with “any detonation of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive device”. This provision should be expanded to include production of nuclear weapons, given the humanitarian and environmental impacts of uranium mining and production processes. It should also include other types of nuclear weapon development, including so-called minor trials conducted by the UK government in Australia that did not involve detonations but did spread radioactive contamination.

Article 6(1) usefully delineates types of victim assistance to be provided. This type of detail is currently missing from article 6(2) on environmental remediation. As Nigeria said on Tuesday, the provisions for remediation should not be left vague in the treaty. The text should clearly oblige states parties to remediate contamination in areas under their jurisdiction or control. It should also outline in more detail principles for environmental remediation as well as the protection of populations from associated threats, and provide guidance for undertaking such actions. These could include requirements for measures to assess threats and contamination, to reduce risks of exposure, to rehabilitate contaminated areas, and to enact national laws and policies and a national action plan.

The International Committee on the Red Cross (ICRC) suggested that article 6(2) should specify that each state party “shall take necessary and appropriate measures towards environmental areas so contaminated,” which was supported by the Philippines amongst others.  Switzerland suggested that it should say, “states should take steps towards environmental remediation.” Sweden later said it supported the Swiss position.

In terms of international cooperation and assistance in relation to these issues, some states suggested merging articles 6 and 8. Others objected, because aspects of international cooperation and assistance will pertain to more than victim assistance and environmental remediation. The ICRC, Holy See, and Switzerland suggested moving article 6(3) to article 8, while Liechtenstein suggested that article 8 could refer to article 6 in some way. It is important to coordinate these articles to make the provisions related to assistance and cooperation on victims and the environment as straightforward as possible, but having separate articles is preferable. There should also be, as some states suggested, an obligation on other states parties to provide assistance when it is requested. It would also be useful to describe the types of assistance to be sought and provided, such as legal or legislative assistance, institutional capacity-building, and technical, material, or financial assistance.

From start to finish, the nuclear weapon ban treaty is a humanitarian instrument. It therefore must take care to provide for victims and the environment that have suffered harm from nuclear weapons. This does not, as one state suggested, imply that we are preparing for future use or testing or production of these weapons, but rather that we recognise the horrific legacy these weapons have already left behind, and that we ensure human rights and environmental care are pursued and respected.

Featured image: credits to the owner

The U.S. mainstream media’s near universal demonization of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin – along with similar hatred directed toward Iran and Hezbollah – has put the world on a path toward World War III.

Ironically, the best hope for averting a dangerous escalation into a global conflict is to rely on Assad, Putin, Iran and Hezbollah to show restraint in the face of illegal military attacks by the United States and its Mideast allies inside Syria.

In other words, after the U.S. military has bombed Syrian government forces on their own territory and shot down a Syrian warplane on Sunday – and after Israel has launched its own strikes inside Syria and after Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies have financed and armed jihadists to overthrow Assad – it is now up to the Syrian government and its allies to turn the other cheek.

Of course, there is also a danger that comes from such self-control, in that it may encourage the aggressors to test the limits even further, seeing restraint as an acceptance of their impunity and a reason to ignore whatever warnings are issued and red lines drawn.

The guided-missile destroyer USS Porter conducts strike operations against a Syrian military airbase while in the Mediterranean Sea, April 7, 2017. (Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Ford Williams)

Indeed, if you follow The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and other big U.S. news outlets, perhaps the most striking groupthink that they all share is that the U.S. government and its allies have the right to intervene militarily anywhere in the world. Their slogan could be summed up as: “International law – that’s for the other guy!”

In this upside-down world of American hegemony, Assad becomes the “aggressor” when he seeks to regain control of Syrian territory against armed insurgents, dominated by Al Qaeda and Islamic State (ISIS), or when he protests the invasion of Syrian territory by foreign forces.

When Assad legally seeks help from Russia and Iran to defeat these foreign-armed and foreign-backed jihadists, the U.S. mainstream media and politicians treat his alliances as improper and troublemaking. Yet, the uninvited interventions into Syria by the United States and its various allies, including Turkey and Israel, are treated as normal and expected.

Demanding Escalation

The preponderance of U.S. media criticism about U.S. policy in Syria comes from neoconservatives and liberal interventionists who have favored a much more ambitious and vigorous “regime change” war, albeit cloaked in prettier phrases such as “safe zones” and “no-fly zones.”

So, you have Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal editorial, which praises Sunday’s U.S. shoot-down of a Syrian military plane because it allegedly was dropping bombs “near” one of the U.S.-backed rebel groups – though the Syrians say they were targeting an Islamic State position.

Although it was the U.S. that shot down the Syrian plane over Syria, the Journal’s editorial portrays the Russians and Syrians as the hotheads for denouncing the U.S. attack as a provocation and warning that similar air strikes will not be tolerated.

In response, the Journal’s neocon editors called for more U.S. military might hurled against Syria and Russia:

“The risk of escalation is real, but this isn’t a skirmish the U.S. can easily avoid. Mr. Assad and his allies in Moscow and Tehran know that ISIS’s days are numbered. They want to assert control over as much territory as possible in the interim, and that means crushing the SDF [the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces].

“The Russian threat on Monday to target with anti-aircraft missiles any U.S. aircraft flying west of the Euphrates River in Syria is part of the same intimidation strategy. Russia also suspended a hotline between the two armed forces designed to reduce the risk of a military mistake. Iran, which arms and assists Mr. Assad on the ground, vowed further Syrian regime attacks against SDF, all but daring U.S. planes to respond amid the Russian threat.

“The White House and Pentagon reacted with restraint on Monday, calling for a de-escalation and open lines of communication. But if Syria and its allies are determined to escalate, the U.S. will either have to back down or prepare a more concerted effort to protect its allies and now U.S. aircraft.

“This is a predicament President Obama put the U.S. in when his Syrian abdication created an opening for Vladimir Putin to intervene. Had the U.S. established a no-fly or other safe zone to protect refugees, the Kremlin might have been more cautious.”

Nikki Haley, United States Permanent Representative to the UN, addresses the Security Council’s meeting on the situation in Syria on April 27, 2017 (UN Photo)

As senior U.S. commanders have explained, however, the notion of a sweet-sounding “no-fly or other safe zone” would require a massive U.S. military campaign inside Syria that would devastate government forces and result in thousands of civilian deaths because many air defenses are located in urban areas. It also could lead to a victory for Al Qaeda and/or its spinoff, Islamic State, a grisly fate for most Syrians.

Propaganda Value

But the “safe zone” illusion has great propaganda value, essentially a new packaging for another “regime change” war, which the neocons lusted for in Syria as the follow-on to the Iraq invasion in 2003 but couldn’t achieve immediately because the Iraq War turned into a bloody disaster.

Instead, the neocons had to settle for a proxy war on Syria, funded and armed by the U.S. government and its regional allies, relying on violent jihadists to carry out the brunt of the fighting and killing. When Assad’s government reacted clumsily to this challenge, the U.S. mainstream media depicted Assad as the villain and the “rebels” as the heroes.

In 2012, the Defense Intelligence Agency, then under the direction of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, warned that the U.S. strategy would give rise to “a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria.”

Flynn went further in a 2015 interview when he said the intelligence was “very clear” that the Obama administration made a “willful decision” to back these jihadists in league with Middle East allies. (Flynn briefly served as President Trump’s national security adviser but was ousted amid the growing Russia-gate “scandal.”)

Only in 2014, when Islamic State militants began decapitating American hostages and capturing cities in Iraq, did the Obama administration reverse course and begin attacking ISIS while continuing to turn a blind-eye to the havoc caused by other rebel groups allied with Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front, including many outfits deemed “moderate” in the U.S. lexicon.

But the problem is that almost none of this history exists within the U.S. mainstream narrative, which – as the Journal’s neocon editors did on Tuesday – simply depicts Obama as weak and then baits President Trump to show more military muscle.

What U.S. National Interests?

The Journal editorial criticized Trump for having no strategy beyond eradicating ISIS and adding:

“Now is the time for thinking through such a strategy because Syria, Russia and Iran know what they want. Mr. Assad wants to reassert control over all of Syria, not a country divided into Alawite, Sunni and Kurdish parts. Iran wants a Shiite arc of influence from Tehran to Beirut. Mr. Putin will settle for a Mediterranean port and a demonstration that Russia can be trusted to stand by its allies, while America is unreliable. None of this is in the U.S. national interests.”

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. (Source: Consortiumnews)

But why isn’t this in U.S. national interests? What’s wrong with a unified secular Syria that can begin to rebuild its shattered infrastructure and repatriate refugees who have fled into Europe, destabilizing the Continent?

What’s the big problem with “a Shiite arc of influence”? The Shiites aren’t a threat to the United States or the West. The principal terror groups – Al Qaeda and ISIS – spring from the extremist Saudi version of Sunni Islam, known as Wahhabism. I realize that Israel and Saudi Arabia took aim at Syria in part to shatter “the Shiite arc,” but we have seen the horrific consequences of that strategy. How has the chaos that the Syrian war has unleashed benefited U.S. national interests?

And so what that Russia has a naval base on the Mediterranean Sea? That is no threat to the United States, either.

But what is the alternative prescription from the Journal’s neocon editors? The editorial concludes:

“The alternative would be to demonstrate that Mr. Assad, Iran and Russia will pay a higher price for their ambitions. This means refusing to back down from defending U.S. allies on the ground and responding if Russia aircraft or missiles attempt to take down U.S. planes. Our guess is that Russia doesn’t want a military engagement with the U.S. any more than the U.S. wants one with Russia, but Russia will keep pressing for advantage unless President Trump shows more firmness than his predecessor.”

So, rather than allow the Syrian government to restore some form of order across Syria, the neocons want the Trump administration to continue violating international law, which forbids military invasions of sovereign countries, and keep the bloodshed flowing. Beyond that, the neocons want the U.S. military to play chicken with the other nuclear-armed superpower on the assumption that Russia will back down.

As usual, the neocon armchair warriors don’t reflect much on what could happen if U.S. warplanes attacking inside Syria are shot down. One supposes that would require President Trump to authorize a powerful counterstrike against Russian targets with the possibility of these escalations spinning out of control. But such craziness is where a steady diet of neocon/liberal-hawk propaganda has taken America.

We are ready to risk nuclear war and end all life on the planet, so Israel and Saudi Arabia can shatter a “Shiite arc of influence” and so American politicians don’t have to feel the rhetorical lash of the neocons and their liberal-hawk sidekicks.

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).

Featured image: Friends of Syria

On September 14, 2011, congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), giving the president power to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against parties involved in the 9/11 attacks, flagrantly violated international and constitutional law.

Security Council members alone may authorize one country attacking another – permitted only in self-defense, never preemptively the way America goes to war, always against nations threatening no one post-WW II.

Washington operate illegally in all its war theaters, waging naked aggression, the highest of high crimes.

Monday at the National Press Club, Joint Chiefs Chairman General Joseph (“fighting Joe”) Dunford was asked “(w)hat’s the legal justification for targeting Syrian government forces?”

He responded, saying

“(w)e are there and have legal justification under the Authorization for Use of Military Force. We are prosecuting a campaign against ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria.”

Fact: The proper question should have been what gives America the right to violate international and constitutional law in Syria and all its other war theaters?

Fact: No legal justification exists for US military operations anywhere. The nation wasn’t attacked. It’s not threatened. Its wars on other nations are flagrant acts of aggression.

Fact: America supports ISIS, al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. No campaign against them exists.

According to Law Professor Francis Boyle, the AUMF

Professor Francis Boyle (Source: bushtothehague.org)

“cannot possibly be used to justify targeting the Syrian government. Those attacks are…clearly illegal and impeachable.”

“If we care about the rule of law, the most striking thing about Trump is his flagrant violation of the War Powers Clause of the Constitution in this targeting of the Syrian government.”

“Now, the US has been violating international law in terms of its drone assassination program and various bombing campaigns, like the one purporting to target ISIS in Syria.”

“Many of these activities are justified by attempts to invoke the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, passed after the 9/11 attacks. A decade and a half after those attacks, that rationale is international legal nonsense, but it exists.”

“(T)argeting of forces of or allied with the Syrian government has no justification whatsoever” – an impeachable offense.

In the post-Soviet Russia era alone, the Clintons, Bush/Cheney, Obama and now Trump are guilty of the highest of high crimes – yet remain unaccountable for what demands accountability.

US justification for downing a Syrian warplane in its own airspace, combating terrorism, is willfully and deceitfully false, deceitfully claiming “(w)e will not hesitate to defend ourselves or our partners if threatened” – when no threat exists.

Russian and Syrian aircraft operate legally in the country’s airspace. US-led (so-called) coalition warplanes DO NOT!

After four US-led attacks on Syrian and allied troops in recent weeks, CENTCOM claiming it has no desire to fire on these forces is a bald-faced lie. Facts on the ground speak for themselves.

US-led forces aim to control as much northern and southern Syrian territory as possible – their operations flagrantly illegal, wanting these areas separated from Damascus control.

Russian, Syrian and allied forces seek to protect the nation’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Neither Washington or Moscow wants direct confrontation. Given escalated US aggression in Syria, anything is possible by accident or design.

Obama didn’t wage war on the country for regime change to quit. It’s now Trump’s war with the same objective.

The risk of possible US confrontation with Russia is too great to ignore.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman)

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

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

Featured image: credits to the owner

Thanks to the second count of votes took place after the early parliamentary elections in the so-called “Republic of Kosovo”, new data on voting results were published. As a result of the June 11 elections, the most votes were received by the Albin Kurti  movement “Self-Determination” advocates the full integration of the “country” into Albania. The “military coalition” led by terrorist Ramush Haradinai received only 80,000 votes, despite a full-scale campaign of support from the government.

Such a development was quite expected. Economically impoverished Albania, developing independently, turned out to be much richer than the “Republic of Kosovo”, which is kept by the EU and the US. It is logical that most of the almost completely unemployed population of this “country” wants to join the “big brother”. It is another matter that such a development of events is completely unprofitable for the political elites, neither the first nor the second.

Tirana uses the illegally torn away territory of Serbia as its trade center. Through the airfield “Slatina” around the world diverges Albanian skunk, Russian “Kalashnikovs”, Chinese RPG-7 and European money. So-called “refugees” from Kosovo operate in many European airports and help in the transportation of goods. Our ancient land became the shadow economic colony of Albania, which through her willingly makes his black affairs with criminal groups and Arab monarchies (mainly with Qatar – Tirana’s largest creditor). Political elites of Tirana do not want to lose such a source of budget revenues and their pockets.

The former commanders of the so-called “Kosovo Liberation Army”, despite any proclaimed slogans, consider the illegally torn away territory of Serbia as a cow that they milk. They receive numerous European loans and share money (mainly in the budget of Pristina – “icons” of the new “free” “Kosovo” – or in their pocket). If Kosovo becomes part of Albania, the money flow will be stopped, and they will be in the best of the local elite, among whom will be quickly cleaned up.

That is why Albin Kurti, led by his party, can propagandize the idea of “reunification” as much as possible – a similar idea for the “Republic of Kosovo” is something of a political suicide. And perhaps – and physical. The Government of the Republic of Serbia, under pressure from the UN, the EU and NATO, was forced to look at how Kosovo proclaimed its “independence”. But will Belgrade see how its territory becomes part of another state? Or does the Serbian Army fulfill one of the requirements of the Constitution – the protection of citizens and the territorial integrity of the country?

Featured image: Balkan Insight

At a recent panel discussion in Washington, screenwriter, film director and producer Oliver Stone briefly addressed the issue of alleged Russian interference in the recent national election, observing that “Israel interfered in the U.S. election far more than Russia and nobody is investigating them.” A few days later, in an interview with Stephen Colbert on the Late Show, Stone returned to the theme, responding to an aggressive claim that Russia had interfered in the election by challenging Colbert with “Israel had far more involvement in the U.S. election than Russia. Why don’t you ask me about that?”

Don’t look for the exchange with Colbert on YouTube. CBS deleted it from its broadcast and website, demonstrating once again that the “I” word cannot be disparaged on national television. Stone was, of course, referring to the fact that the Israel Lobby, most notably acting through its American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), is undeniably a foreign lobby, no less so than anyone representing the presumed interests of Russia or China. It operates with complete impunity on Capitol Hill and also at state and local levels and no one dares to require it to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, which would permit scrutiny of its finances and also end its tax-exempt “educational” status. Nor does Congress or the media see fit to inquire into AIPAC’s empowerment of candidates based on their fidelity to Israel, not to mention the direct interference in the American electoral process which surfaced most visibly in its support of candidate Mitt Romney in 2012.

Oliver Stone and Stephen Colbert at The Late Show (Source: CBS via Daily Beast)

The last president that sought to compel the predecessor organization of AIPAC to register was John F. Kennedy, who also was about to take steps to rein in Israel’s secret nuclear weapons program when he was assassinated, which was a lucky break for Israel, particularly as Kennedy was replaced by the passionate Zionist Lyndon Baines Johnson. Funny how things sometimes work out. The Warren Commission looked deeply into a possible Cuban connection in the shooting and came up with nothing but one has to wonder if they also investigated the possible roles of other countries. Likewise, the 9/11 Commission Report failed to examine the possible involvement of Israel in the terrorist attack in spite of a considerable body of evidence suggesting that there were a number of Israeli-sourced covert operations running in the U.S. at that time.

Looking back from the perspective of his more than 40 years of military service, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas Moorer described the consequences of Jewish power vis-à-vis U.S. policy towards Israel, stating that

“I’ve never seen a president – I don’t care who he is – stand up to them [the Israelis]. It just boggles your mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn’t writing anything down. If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens don’t have any idea what goes on.”

He also addressed the 1967 Israeli assault on the USS Liberty, saying

“Israel attempted to prevent the Liberty’s radio operators from sending a call for help by jamming American emergency radio channels. [And that] Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned lifeboats at close range that had been lowered to rescue the most-seriously wounded.” He concluded with “our government put Israel’s interests ahead of our own? If so, Why? Does our government continue to subordinate American interests to Israeli interests?”

It is a question that might well be asked today, as the subservience to Israeli interests is, if anything, more pervasive in 2017 Washington than it was in 2002 when Moorer spoke up. And, as in Moorer’s day, much of the partiality towards Israel makes its way through congress with little or no media coverage lest anyone begin to wonder whose tail is wagging which dog. To put it succinctly, there is an Israeli hand in much of what the United States does internationally, and the involvement is not intended to do anything good for the American people.

During the past several weeks alone there has been a flurry of legislation backed by Israel and its Lobby. One bill might actually have been written by AIPAC. It is called Senate 722, Countering Iran’s Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017. The bill has 63 co-sponsors, most of whom are the usual suspects, but it also included an astonishingly large number of Democrats who describe themselves as progressive, including Corey Booker and Kamila Harris, both of whom are apparently terrified lest they say “no” to Israel. With 63 co-sponsors out of 100 senators the bill was certain to pass overwhelmingly, and it was indeed approved 98 to 2, with only Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders voting “no.”

And there’s more to S.722 than Iran – it’s subtitle is “An act to provide congressional review and to counter Iranian and Russian governments’ aggression.” Much of it is designed to increase sanctions on both Iran and Russia while also limiting the White House’s ability to relieve any sanctions without approval by congress. Regarding Iran, the bill mandates that

“Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Director of National Intelligence shall jointly develop and submit to the appropriate congressional committees a strategy for deterring conventional and asymmetric Iranian activities and threats that directly threaten the United States and key allies in the Middle East, North Africa, and beyond.”

The premise is of course nonsensical as Iran’s ability to threaten anyone, least of all the United States, is limited. It is far outgunned by its neighbors and even more so by the U.S., but it has become the enemy of choice for congress as well as for the former generals who serve as White House advisers. The animus against Iran comes directly from Israel and from the Saudi Arabians, who have managed to sell their version of developments in their part of the world through a completely acquiescent and heavily Jewish influenced western media.

And there’s more. A bill has surfaced in the House of Representatives that will require the United States to “consult” with Israel regarding any prospective arms sales to Arab countries in the Middle East. In other words, Israel will have a say, backed up undoubtedly by Congress and the media, over what the United States does in terms of its weapons sales abroad. The sponsors of the bill, one Brad Schneider of Illinois, and Claudia Tenney of New York, want “closer scrutiny of future military arms sales” to maintain the “qualitative military edge” that Israel currently enjoys.

Schneider is, of course, Jewish and a life member of AIPAC, so it is hardly as if he is a disinterested party. Tenny runs for office in New York State, so it is hardly as if she is disinterested either, but the net result of all this is that American jobs and U.S. international security arrangements through weapons sales will be at least in part subject to Israeli veto. And you know that is precisely what will happen as Israel could give a damn what happens to the struggling American entity that it so successfully feeds off of.

And there’s still more. Bill HR 672 Combating European Anti-Semitism Act of 2017 was passed unanimously by the House of Representatives on June 14^th. Yes, I said “unanimously.” The bill requires the State Department to monitor what European nations and their police forces are doing about anti-Semitism and encourages them to adopt “a uniform definition of anti-Semitism.” That means that criticism of Israel must be considered anti-Semitism and will therefore be a hate crime and prosecutable, a status that is already de facto true in Britain and France. If the Europeans don’t play ball, there is the possibility of repercussions in trade negotiations. The bill was co-sponsored by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen from Florida and Nita Lowey of New York, both of whom are Jewish.

There is also a Senate companion bill on offer in the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Act of 2017. The bill will make the Anti-Semitism Envoy a full American Ambassador and will empower him or her with a full staff and a budget permitting meddling worldwide. The bill is sponsored by Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Marco Rubio of Florida. Gillibrand is unlikely to miss co-sponsoring anything relating to Israel due to her own self-interest and Rubio wants to be president real bad so he is following the money.

And finally, the U.S. Senate has also approved a resolution celebrating the 50^th anniversary of Israel’s conquest of East Jerusalem. Again, the vote was unanimous. The resolution was co-sponsored by Senators Charles Schumer and Mitch McConnell, two reptiles who give snakes a bad name and about whom the less said the better. Schumer is Jewish and has described himself as the “shomer” or guardian of Israel in the Senate. That the resolution opposes long established U.S. government policy that the occupation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank by Israel is in contravention of international law and is an impediment to any peace process with the Palestinians apparently bothered not even one Senator.

US President Donald J. Trump and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in West Bank on May 23, 2017. (Source: Vos Iz Neias)

I might note in passing that there has been no Senate resolution commemorating the 50^th anniversary of the bravery exhibited by the officers and crew of the USS Liberty as they were being slaughtered by the Israelis at the same time as Jerusalem was being “liberated.” There is probably even more to say, to include secret agreements with the Pentagon and intelligence agencies, but I will stop at this point with one final observation. President Donald Trump traveled to the Middle East claiming to be desirous of starting serious negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, but it was all a sham. Benjamin Netanyahu took him aside and came out with the usual Israeli bullshit about the Palestinians “inciting” violence and hatred of Jews and Trump bought into it. He then went to see Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and shouted at him for being a liar and opposed to peace based on what Netanyahu had told him. That is what passes for even-handed in the U.S. government, no matter who is president. A few days later the Israelis announced the building of the largest bloc of illegal new settlements on the West Bank since 1992, an action that they claim is being coordinated with Washington.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon once boasted about owning the United States. I guess he was right.

Featured image: The Unz Review

Yesterday, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard announced that it had fired several missiles at ISIS positions in the Deir Az Zor province in Syria. The reason given for this unprecedented military strike was retaliation for double terrorist attacks which struck Tehran two weeks ago. Readers should not underestimate the significance of this event. 

According to a statement issued by the news agency for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, Sepahnews,

“Multiple medium-range missiles were fired from the Iranian provinces of Kermanshah and Kurdestan, and a large number of terrorists were killed and their weapons were destroyed.”

Regarding the alleged ISIS attack which killed 13 people and wounded 50 others, the Revolutionary Guard added,

“The spilling of any pure blood will not go unanswered.”

Make no mistake about it – this was a major media event. It’s been 30 years since Iran has fired missiles at targets outside of its own borders.

Iranian television featured images of the IRGC missiles being launched at night…

The following image (above) was released in a media handout from Iranian news agency, Sepahnews, showing a missile launched by the Revolutionary Guard Corps in the west of Iran, targeting an ISIS position near the city of Deir Az Zor.

The IRGC has also warned that more missile strikes will follow should ISIS militants plot any future attacks on Iran.

“If they carry out a specific action to violate our security, definitely there will be more launches, with intensified strength,” said General Ramazan Sharif of the IRGC (also cited by AP).

Fars News Agency added,

“The IRGC warns the Takfiri terrorists and their regional and trans-regional supporters that they would be engulfed by its revolutionary wrath and flames of the fire of its revenge in case they repeat any such devilish and dirty move in future.”

This latest move by Iran is worrying for a number of reasons. Justified or not, Iran’s launch from its western provinces,  over Iraqi airspace and into Syria will most certainly heighten tensions in an already tense Syrian theatre. If the situation escalates, the question of who has the upper hand may not matter should the situation descend into all-out war involving the US.

Syria: A Crowded Theatre

Iran’s missile strike took place on Sunday June 18th, targeting an ISIS command center located near the embattled city of Deir Az Zor, a key choke point on the road to the ISIS-held city Raqqa in northeastern Syria. This area is currently a hive of international military activity featuring a host of players – the Syrian Army, Russia, Iran, Lebanese Hezbollah militia and opposing US, UK, Australia, France, Turkish and German forces positioned alongside numerous US-allied (and paid for) militias like the Kurdish SDF, YPG militias – all presumably camped in the region to “defeat ISIS.” Add to this the problem of US having repeatedly attacked Syrian military forces in a manner which has aided the strategic advances of ISIS.

Following from this point, it should be well-known by now, based on successive US aggressions inside Syria, that the Pentagon is probing both Syrian and Russian defenses, testing their level of patience, perhaps in the hope that either Syria or Russia might retaliate against an US aircraft, or US support positions on the ground. In the event that the US loses a single aircraft, or loses one member of its combat team to hands of a Syrian or Russian military asset, then Washington will no doubt seize on this event as an “act of aggression,” initiate its media machine to begin consensus-building internationally, ramping-up military operations on par with Iraq in 2003. This would be the excuse that the US-led Coalition has been needing in order to blow the Syrian theatre open into a wide regional or possibly, world-wide war. 

The missile strike by Iran could be a mid-term game changer in the sense that it places Iran squarely into the frame of fighting international terrorism, and ISIS. Up until this point, parties in the US led by the Neoconservative right, the Trump White House, and the sister lobbies of Israel and Saudi Arabia – have tried hard to enforce a strict party line that Iran is somehow, “The number one state sponsor of terror on the planet,” despite the fact that no evidence is ever presented to back-up this sensational geopolitical plank. One of the main beneficiaries of this talking point is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, who gains on two fronts; the ‘Iranian terror’ line deflects from Saudi’s own sordid role in supporting and funding armed militants, terrorist groups (including active factions in Syria) and radical mosques worldwide. This dovetails well with the Trump Administration’s current embrace of Saudi in the ‘War on Terror’ and the simultaneous casting-out of gulf state Qatar from the US-led Coalition’s inner circle in Middle East military and diplomatic affairs. This week, Turkish troops were deployed to Qatar, in a show of support for the gulf state by Ankara. This is just another signal that the geopolitics of the region and around Syria, is getting more complicated by the day.

BFFs? Trump and the Saudis, sword dancing at the Arab Summit in Riyadh last month. 

However, Washington and Riyadh’s efforts to bracket Qatar with ‘state sponsor of terror’ Iran will be even more difficult following the Tehran’s twin-terror attack and Sunday’s retaliatory missile strike. For this reason, the IRGC believes that Saudi and the US are linked to the Tehran attacks. The FT explains:

However a statement from the Revolutionary Guards linked the “brutal attack” to Donald Trump’s visit last month to Riyadh, where the US president singled out Iran for fuelling “the fires of sectarian conflict and terror”.

“This terrorist act took place a week after a joint meeting between the US president and head of a reactionary regional country [Saudi Arabia] which has been a constant supporter of terrorism,” the statement said. “The fact Isis claimed responsibility proves that they [Saudi Arabia] were involved in the brutal attack.”

Despite all of this, Trump has placed all his chips on Saudi Arabia as Washington’s only major Arab partner in the region. Does Washington really think Saudi is of high moral standing in the region? You can blame their decline in popularity for a number of reasons – supporting Wahhabi extremism, beheading Shia clerics, or Saudi’s ability to buy their seat at the head of the UN Human Rights Committee, or cynically acquiring the UN Women’s Rights chair. Perhaps Washington is over-estimating Saudi Arabia’s position as a bona fide leader in the Middle East.

Tehran Attack: Who Did It? 

Another interesting but under-reported component of this story has to do with the reason for Iran’s missile retaliation. Although ISIS apparently claimed credit for the Tehran attacks on June 6th, other evidence suggests that another well-known international terrorist entity might have been involved.

After events in Tehran, the US-backed regime change terrorist proxy, the MEK (Mojahedin-e Khalq) was named by senior Iranian politician Mr. Hamid-Reza Taraghi, as a partner in the terrorist attacks. This theory gains a bit more credence following a statement from former member of the MEK, Massoud Khodabandeh, who has stated that ISIS drew on MEK ‘expertise’ for the terror attacks on Tehran. Certainly, the MEK have been active in carrying out operations inside of Iran for decades now, while ISIS has not. Massoud’s analysis of the attacks is stunning, and raises two essential points:

“The targets selected by ISIS were sites constantly targeted by the MEK. The Iranian Parliament and its members had always been primary targets for the MEK since the 1980s. The group had managed to assassinate several members of the Parliament and tried to plant a bomb there at one point. They were unsuccessful and some members were killed by security forces while other terrorist teams were arrested. Similarly, after Ayatollah Khomeini’s shrine was created, Massoud Rajavi, the late MEK leader, announced that “Khomeini’s grave must be exploded”. It became a mantra among MEK members which they would chant in indoctrination sessions. The MEK tried unsuccessfully to send terrorist teams there in 1991 and 2002.”

“While ISIS and the MEK have the same interests in attacking Iran, ISIS could have caused much greater anti-government fear and hatred among the civilian population in line with its regime change agenda if they had bombed a civilian target like transport infrastructure or a shopping mall. They could have done more damage by targeting the Revolutionary Guards whose forces are in Syria. Instead, the ISIS targets matched those which had been constantly under attack by the MEK for thirty years.”

The MEK factor is extremely worrying because it signals a new leg in Washington’s asymmetric war in the region. History shows us that when great powers sow this level of chaos, the chances for a multi-country conflagration becomes more likely.

Regardless of where blame is apportioned in this case, Iran seems to have accepted the claim by ISIS for these attacks on Iranian soil, effectively giving Tehran an internationally recognized green light to act unilaterally against ISIS assets inside Syria. For those who subscribe to the school of thought that implicates Saudi Arabia and the US for aiding and supporting ISIS covertly, then Iran has not only called their bluff, but co-opted their own ‘anti-ISIS’ narrative too. Presently, Iran has military assets deployed in Syria at the invitation of the government in Damascus, so it’s certain that both Damascus and Moscow were aware of Iran’s missile strike in advance, but not the US – once again demonstrating that without significant ground assets deployed in the region the US cannot really control the situation around Raqqa. This means that Washington, no matter how hard its media machine can spin, are simply not able to dictate facts on the ground in Syria.

Clearly, Iran seized an advantage here, but how this plays out in terms of increased tensions with the US-led Coalition in Syria remains to be seen.

Timing is Everything

The most worrying aspect of this development is the timing. On the same day as Iran fired missiles into Deir Az Zor province in Syria, a US F/A-18E Super Hornet shot down a Syrian SU-22 fighter jet near Raqqa. Washington claimed it as an act of ‘collective self-defense’ as the Syrian jet had dropped bombs “near US-backed forces.” As a result of this overt act of aggression by the US, the Russian Defense Ministry announced this morning that it is halting its “Deconfliction” cooperation with its US counterparts set out in their bilateral Memorandum on the Prevention of Incidents and Ensuring Air Safety in Syria.

Add to this the fact that each day the US continue to kill more Syrian civilians during their supposed ‘anti-ISIS’ strikes in Raqqa, and it’s not difficult to see that the US position is becoming increasingly isolated in the Middle Eastern theatre, leaving its only two remaining solid partners as a pair who themselves are now widely regarded as rogue states in the region: Saudi Arabia and Israel.

The scene has now been set for a wider war. All it will take is a small spark between the two major opposing geopolitical forces or their allies.

Patrick Henningsen is an American-born writer and global affairs analyst and founder of independent news and analysis site 21st Century Wire and host of the SUNDAY WIRE weekly radio show broadcast globally over the Alternate Current Radio Network (ACR).

All images in this article are from the author.

Before we can even process the acquittal of the murders of Philado Castile, we hear about another murder of a black person by the police occupation forces. This time the victim, Charleena Lyles, is a black woman who was also five months pregnant.

Again, there is anger, confusion and calls for justice from the black community of Seattle, where the latest killing took place. Many might remember that it was in Seattle where two members of the local black community attempted to call out the racist and hypocritical liberal white community during a visit by Bernie Sanders. The black activists were subsequently shouted down by a majority of Bernie’s supporters. One of the issues that the activists wanted to raise was the repressive, heavy-handed tactics of the Seattle Police Department.

Some have argued that this rash of killings of black people caught on video or reported by dozens of witnesses is nothing new, that the images of police chocking, shooting and beating poor black and working-class people is now more visible because of technological innovations that make it easier to capture these images. They are partially right.

As an internal colony in what some refer to as a prison house of nations that characterizes the U.S. nation state, black communities are separated into enclaves of economic exploitation and social degradation by visible and often invisible social and economic processes. The police have played the role not of protectors of the unrealized human rights of black people but as occupation forces. In those occupied zones of repression, everyone knows that the police operate from a different script than the ones presented in the cop shows that permeate popular entertainment culture in the U.S. In those shows, the police are presented as heroic forces battling the forces of evil, which sometimes causes them to see the law and the rights of individuals as impediments. For many viewers, brutality and other practices is forgiven and even supported because the police are supposedly dealing with the evil irrational forces that lurk in the bowels of the barrios and ghettos in the imagination of the public.

Officer Darren Wilson (Source: Your Black World)

It was perfectly plausible for far too many white people in the U.S. that a wounded Mike Brown, already shot and running away from Darren Wilson, the cop who eventually murdered Michael, would then turn around and run back at Wilson, who claimed he had no other choice but to engulf Michael in a hail of bullets killing this “demon” as Wilson described him. And unfortunately, many whites will find a way to understand how Charleena, who called the police herself to report a burglary, would then find herself dead at the hands of the police she called.

But the psychopathology of white supremacy is not the focus here. We have commented on that issue on numerous occasions. The concern is with some black people who have not grasped the new conditions that we find ourselves in—that black people don’t understand that there will never be justice as defined by the cessation of these kinds of killings. Why? Because incarceration, police killings, beatings, charging our children as adults and locking them away for decades, all of these are inherent in the logic of repression that has always characterized the relationship between the U.S. racist settler-state and black people.

In other words, if Black people really want this to stop we have to come to the difficult conclusion, for some, that the settler-colonial, capitalist, white supremacist state and society is the enemy of black people and most oppressed people in the world. Difficult for many because it means that Black people can no longer deny the fact that we are not equal members of this society, that we are seen as the enemy and that our lives, concerns, perspectives, history and desires for the future are of no concern to the rulers of this state and for vast numbers of ordinary whites.

That is why Charleena Lyles joins Mike Brown, Sandra Bland, Tamir Rice, John Crawford and Philando Castile, just a few of the names of our people victimized in the prime of their lives by the protectors of white power wearing police uniforms.

She will not be the last.

The logic of neoliberal capitalism has transformed our communities and peoples into a sector of the U.S. population that is no longer needed. This new reality buttressed by white supremacist ideology that is unable to see the equal value of non-European (white) life has created a precarious situation for black people, more precarious, than any other period in U.S. history.

African (Black) people are a peaceful people and believe in justice. But there can be no peace without justice. For as long as our people are under attack, as long as our fundamental collective human rights are not recognized, as long as we don’t have the ability to determine our own collective fate, we will resist, we will fight, and we will create the conditions to make sure that the war being waged against us will not continue to be a one- sided conflict.

The essence of the People(s)-Centered Human Rights framework is that the oppressed have a right to right to resist, the right to self-determination, and the right to use whatever means necessary to protect and realize their fundamental rights.

Charleena, we will say your name and the names of all who have fallen as we deliver the final death-blow against this organized barbarism known as the U.S.

Ajamu Baraka is a human rights activist, organizer and geo-political analyst. Baraka is an Associate Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) in Washington, D.C. and editor and contributing columnist for the Black Agenda Report. He is a contributor to “Killing Trayvons: An Anthology of American Violence” (CounterPunch Books, 2014). He can be reached at www.AjamuBaraka.com

Featured image: Ryan Vaarsi | CC BY 2.0

Below is an interview of RT with Aamer Anwar, a Human Rights Campaigner, on the criminal investigation of Grenfell Tower incident. 

.

.

Featured image: Twitter

Dear President Abbas,

Last week I sent an open letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu, criticizing him in the strongest terms for pursuing policies that prolong the occupation of the West Bank rather than searching for ways to end it by resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on a two-state solution. I must hasten to say, however, that you, along with Hamas’ leaders, have contributed your own share to the continuation of the occupation that has deepened the plight of the Palestinian people.

I have always and continue to oppose the occupation, and place the blame largely on right-wing Israeli governments for maintaining it under the pretext of national security concerns. Given that Israel is by far the stronger party, it could have taken significant steps toward peace while tightly guarding its national security. That said, to simply blame the Israeli government alone for obstructing the peace process may be comforting to you, but unless you change your approach and strategy toward Israel, you will further prolong the occupation.

The fact that much of the international community supports your cause is not enough. Your current policies are playing into the hands of the extremely powerful right-wing Israeli constituency, which effectively uses your actions and public narratives to justify their opposition to ending the occupation. Thus, you are weakening the hands of the Israeli political left and center, who are key to negotiating a peace agreement and ending the occupation, as only they can change the public sentiment in favor of a two-state solution, provided you earn their support and trust.

To that end, you need to develop a new strategy that you or your successor must pursue to change the dynamic of the conflict for the better, by developing a non-confrontational policy, engaging in constructive public narratives, ending all forms of incitement, pursuing political reconciliation with Hamas, reining in corruption, focusing on public development projects, and introducing an unbiased curriculum in schools. Finally, do not instinctively reject the Israelis’ complaints and concerns about the Palestinians’ behavior; instead, listen carefully and adopt the strategy that will disabuse a growing number of Israelis of their pre-conceived notions about what the Palestinians’ true intent is. Do not miss yet another opportunity, because the longer the conflict and the occupation continue, the less favorable outcome you will be compelled to accept.

Although the PLO adopted in 1993 the Oslo Accords—a non-violent approach to solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—violence in various degrees against the Israelis remained a major factor that inhibited the emergence of a powerful Israeli political party (or combination of parties) to challenge the right-wing constituency on the occupation. The second Intifada in 2000 that resulted in the deaths of over 1,000 Israelis left an indelible mark on just about every Israeli and deepened their distrust of the Palestinians, which has not been alleviated to this day.

The continuing sporadic but persistent violence, the three Hamas-instigated wars against Israel and its continued advocacy of Israel’s destruction, and the praising of martyrdom provide constant concerns about the Palestinians’ ultimate intentions. Due to those concerns, nearly half of the Israeli population believes that the Palestinians are nowhere near accepting Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign nation—a belief that right-wing parties use effectively to make a convincing argument against the establishment of a Palestinian state.

What you have failed to do, Mr. Abbas, is engage in a constructive public narrative that reiterates time and again the reality of Israel’s existence, and that no amount of violence against Israel will bring the country to heel. In fact, the opposite is true. The more persistent the violence is, the further away you are from ending the occupation, because successive right-wing Israeli governments have masterfully linked the continuing occupation to preserving Israel’s national security.

Most Palestinians support ‘knife intifada’ (Source: Jews for Justice for Palestinians)

To change this discourse, you must take all the necessary steps to end any form of incitement. The violent 2015 uprising (the so-called “Knife Intifada”) was fueled in part by incitement via social media campaigns—propelled by Hamas, Islamist groups, and frustrated individuals—that glorified either those who committed violent crimes or those “martyred” in the cause of Palestinian resistance. Crude cartoons shared on Facebook underscored the ease in which an innocent Palestinian youth could become a martyr, with captions such as “This is not difficult. To the closest kitchen, and go in the name of God.”

During the uprising in 2015, you voiced full support for the so-called martyrs, stating that

“We welcome every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem.”

It is tragic that you and many other Palestinian officials defend the use of “martyrdom” language when killing innocent Israeli civilians, many of whom want to end the occupation. In an interview on Israeli television Channel 2 in April 2016, however, you changed your tone when you said,

“In one school, we found 70 boys and girls who were carrying knives. We took the knives and spoke to them and said: ‘This is a mistake. We do not want you to kill and be killed…’”

But then, in a sign of official endorsement, the village of Surda-Abu Qash in early 2016 named a park after Muhannad Halabi, a 19-year who was killed by Israeli police following a stabbing attack against Israeli civilians. Your public support of such occurrences only encourages more violence. It’s time for you to be honest with your own public by ending your damaging narrative. The young and impressionable would rather embrace the ‘glory’ of martyrdom than listen to your half-hearted, occasional pleas to abandon violence. Meanwhile, you are undermining your position in the eyes of Israelis as you are portraying yourself as a double-talker and a weak leader who is not in control.

It is true that Hamas has and continues to be a major obstacle to peace and a staunch rival to your authority. Given, however, that Hamas must be an integral part of any peace accord with Israel, you should speak publicly and repeatedly about the need for Palestinian political cohesiveness as a prerequisite to reaching a peace agreement with Israel. Yet, your personal rivalry and ego always stands in the away.

In a recent meeting with Arab ambassadors, you said

“I will take unprecedented steps against Hamas since it halted the [Fatah-Hamas] reconciliation. The measures will be painful if the movement does not take back its actions.”

Instead, you should mobilize the Arab states, especially Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Qatar, to persuade and/or pressure Hamas to accept the Arab Peace Initiative so that it will be in line with the rest of the Arab states in relation to a peace agreement with Israel.

To be sure, Mr. Abbas, your political legitimacy has been and will continue to be a problem for you as well as for Hamas. The Palestinian parliament (which had limited oversight powers) has been defunct since Hamas overtook Gaza in 2007, and both of you rule by decree.

Given this sad reality, why do you expect Israel to simply overlook your precarious political situation? Those Israelis who oppose the rise of Palestinian statehood regularly point to your thin political base and disarray, and have convinced much of the Israeli public that you are not and will not be a partner that can forge an enduring peace agreement.

Another major problem that impedes real progress toward peace is the pervasive corruption throughout your government strata. A 2016 poll of Palestinians revealed that 95.5 percent of respondents “believe there is corruption in [your] government.” Among Gazan residents, the percentage is slightly lower, but still stands at 82 percent.

You have enforced the perception of rampant corruption by allowing, for example, the Palestinian Authority’s development budget to earmark $9.4 million for your presidential plane and $4.4 million of undefined “other” expenses. Corruption also exists within your own circle of advisors and party elites, who are given hefty salaries and awarded with positions and various other perks—tens of millions of dollars end up in foreign banks. The European Union noted that overall corruption in the Palestinian Authority resulted in the “loss” of approximately €2 billion in aid funds.

Imagine, Mr. Abbas—if these funds were invested in sustainable development projects and infrastructure, how much would the public have benefited in terms of job opportunities, self-empowerment, education, and overall progress? In this respect, Hamas fares even worse as they have and continue to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into building tunnels and buying and manufacturing weapons, instead of building housing, clinics, schools, roads, sewage systems, and electric grids to bring an end to the Palestinians’ pain and suffering.

Sadly, many Palestinian leaders are still focused on destroying Israel rather than building their own nation, arguing that focusing on development and building infrastructure and civilian institutions is tantamount to acceptance of the status quo. They are dead wrong. It is the very building of state structures and a thriving society that you do not want to be destroyed that will indirectly give Israel the confidence that you want an enduring peace.

In contrast to Israel, which became a global power and one of the most advanced nations in the world, the Palestinians remain an underdeveloped entity. Instead of building a promising future for generations to come by accepting the reality of Israel and learning to compete constructively, Palestinian school curricula includes indoctrination and preparation for the next violent conflict, portraying every Israeli as a soldier ready to kill and destroy.

Palestinian Education Minister Dr. Sabri Saidam (Source: LinkedIn)

What further strengthens the Israeli argument that the Palestinians will never accept Israel under any boundary is that schools use maps that do not detail Israel’s internationally-defined borders along the 1967 borders—which you accept. Your Education Minister Sabri Saidam noted that “I will only stick to the map that the Palestinians desire.” The presence of maps that do not delineate Israel’s existence in textbooks has “ripple effects” as it further prolongs the conflict in the hope of recovering the whole land.  For instance, a question seeking the “surface area of Palestine” was marked true for the answer 27,027 square kilometers, which would include all of present-day Israel.

A recent survey of Palestinian textbooks found an exercise in a fourth grade book that “invites the children to write about a Palestinian martyr of their choice.” In defense of using the word “martyrs,” your minister Saidam said “One man’s hero is another man’s terrorist.” He has rejected attempts by UNRWA to bring the Palestinian curriculum up to UN standards, stating

“As education minister, it’s my responsibility to safeguard the Palestinian narrative.”

The fact that you accept your minister’s position on this critically sensitive issue suggests that you are just as culpable as he is, but it is you who must shoulder the ultimate responsibility.

I personally do believe that you want to settle the conflict with Israel based on a two-state solution. But if you put yourself, Mr. Abbas, in the shoes of an Israeli who is looking at what is being said, done, claimed, promoted, preached in mosques, and taught in schools, how would you feel? This is what you are confronted with. Your statement in support of a two-state solution sounds hollow and insincere, regardless of your true intentions.

Mr. Abbas, you must realize that the resumption of peace negotiations under the present circumstances is futile and will lead nowhere. You must start by changing your public narrative and being honest with your public that the policy of confrontation has failed. A new strategy is needed to enlist the center and left of Israel’s political spectrum in support of a two-state solution, while disabusing many Israelis who feed off the conflict to justify their recalcitrant opposition to ending the occupation.

You can put the Netanyahu government on the defensive by demanding first a process of reconciliation—people-to-people measures, for at least two years—to mitigate the deep distrust and allay concerns over security. You must make it abundantly clear that the Palestinians seek a state based on the 1967 borders, are open to territorial exchanges, and have no territorial ambitions beyond that.

You must start by condemning in the strongest terms any act of terror and violence, ending incitement in any form, and disabusing your public of the notion that Israel will someday disappear. You should ask for joint activities between Israeli and Palestinian youth in sports, art, and theater, and seek tourism in both directions. A strategy of reconciliation is necessary to pave the way for constructive peace talks.

This strategy will weaken the staunch right-wing Israeli parties who are possessed by the illusion that they can have it all, while strengthening the hands of the Israeli left and center who support the creation of a Palestinian state. They will be in a much stronger position to raise their voices and rally behind ending the occupation without being called traitors.

I am known for calling on ending the occupation in any form, but I am also known to call it as I see it. This, Mr. Abbas, is what you are confronted with. You must now use the argument of the hard-core Israelis who support the occupation against them. By adopting this new strategy, you will not only disarm them in droves, but you will also motivate a multitude of Israelis to rally behind the cause of ending the occupation.

***

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.
[email protected] Web: www.alonben-meir.com

Featured image: Pinterest

On Tuesday, for the fifth time in recent weeks, US warplanes attacked Syrian military targets, flagrant acts of aggression.

They’re part of Washington’s diabolical regime change plan – at the same time, testing Russia’s resolve in the wake of its announced halt in cooperating with America in Syrian airspace, following the downing of one of its Su-22 planes.

The latest incident involved a US F-15 warplane, downing a Syrian drone near its border with Iraq and Jordan.

A US-led coalition statement lied, claiming the UAV “displaced hostile intent and advanced on coalition forces.” Calling naked aggression self-defense is the last refuge of a rogue state. America and Israel are Exhibits A and B.

On June 8, a US warplane downed another Syrian UAV in the same southern part of the country.

Washington claiming it doesn’t seek to fight Syria and allied forces is a bald-faced lie. Actions in the air and on the ground speak for themselves.

On Tuesday, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov minced no words, calling America’s presence in Syrian “absolutely illegal.”

“There is neither a United Nations Security Council resolution nor a request from Syria’s legitimate authorities to this effect. It’s a principle of international law,” he stressed.

The same goes for Turkish, UK and other foreign forces operating in Syria. Russia, Iran and Hezbollah are legally involved at Assad’s request.

On Monday, Russia’s Defense Ministry said any foreign aircraft or other airborne objects operating west of the Euphrates River will be tracked by its sophisticated S-400 air defense systems as hostile targets.

Moscow wants confrontation with Washington avoided. At the same time, continued US hostile acts risk possible conflict between both countries by accident or design.

The more aggressive America becomes, the greater the risk of potential war between the world’s leading nuclear powers.

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

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

Featured image: Zero Hedge

It is a tragic measure of the depravity of human existence that genocide is a continuing and prevalent manifestation of violence in the international system, despite the effort following World War II to abolish it through negotiation, and then adoption and ratification of the 1948 Genocide Convention.

According to the Genocide Convention, genocide is any act committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group by killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group and/or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

While this definition is contested because, for example, it excludes killing of political groups, and words such as ‘democide’ (the murder or intentionally reckless and depraved disregard for the life of any person or people by their government,) and ‘politicide’ (the murder of any person or people because of their political or ideological beliefs) have been suggested as complementary terms, in fact atrocities that have been characterized as ‘genocide’ by various authors include mass killings, mass deportations, politicides, democides, withholding of food and/or other necessities of life, death by deliberate exposure to invasive infectious disease agents or combinations of these. See ‘Genocides in history’.

While genocide and attempts at genocide were prevalent enough both before World War II (just ask the world’s indigenous peoples) and then during World War II itself, which is why the issue attracted serious international attention in the war’s aftermath, it cannot be claimed that the outlawing of genocide did much to end the practice, as the record clearly demonstrates.

A Rwandan boy covers his face from the stench of dead bodies in this July 19, 1994 file photo. (Source: About Rwanda)

Moreover, given that the United Nations and national governments, out of supposed ‘deference’ to ‘state sovereignty’, have been notoriously unwilling and slow to meaningfully respond to genocides, as was the case in Rwanda in 1994 and has been the case with the Rohingya in Myanmar (Burma) for four decades – as carefully documented in ‘The Slow-Burning Genocide of Myanmar’s Rohingya’ – there is little evidence to suggest that major actors in the international system have any significant commitment to ending the practice, either in individual cases or in general. For example, as official bodies of the world watch, solicit reports and debate whether or not the Rohingya are actually victims of genocide, this minority Muslim population clearly suffers from what many organizations and any decent human being have long labeled as such. For a sample of the vast literature on this subject, see ‘The 8 Stages of Genocide Against Burma’s Rohingya’ and ‘Countdown to Annihilation: Genocide in Myanmar’.

Burma’s Rohingya genocide (Source: The Cutting Edge)

Of course, it is not difficult to understand institutional inaction. Despite its fine rhetoric and even legal provisions, the United Nations, acting in response to the political and corporate elites that control it, routinely fails to act to prevent or halt wars (despite a UN Charter and treaties, such as the Kellogg-Briand Pact, that empower and require it to do so), routinely fails to defend refugees, routinely fails to act decisively on issues (such as nuclear weapons and the climate catastrophe) that constitute global imperatives for human survival, and turns the other way when peoples under military occupation (such as those of Tibet, West Papua, Western Sahara and Palestine) seek their support.

Why then should those under genocidal assault expect supportive action from the UN or international community in general? The factors which drive these manifestations of violence serve a diverse range of geopolitical interests in each case, and are usually highly profitable into the bargain. What hope justice or even decency in such circumstances?

Moreover, the deep psychological imperatives that drive the phenomenal violence in the international system are readily nominated: in essence, phenomenal fear, self-hatred and powerlessness. These psychological characteristics, together with the others that drive the behaviour of perpetrators of violence, have been identified and explained – see ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’– but it is the way these (unconsciously and deeply-suppressed) emotions are projected that is critical to understanding the violent (and insane) behavioural outcomes in our world. For brief explanations see, for example, ‘Understanding Self-Hatred in World Affairs’ and ‘The Global Elite is Insane’.

Given the deep psychological imperatives that drive the violence of global geopolitics and corporate exploitation (as well as national, subnational and individual acts of violence), we cannot expect a compassionate and effective institutional response to genocide in the prevailing institutional order, as the record demonstrates. So, is there anything a targeted population can do to resist a genocidal assault?

Fortunately, there is a great deal that a targeted population can do. The most effective response is to develop and implement a comprehensive nonviolent strategy to either prevent a genocidal assault in the first place or to halt it once it has begun. This is done most effectively by using a sound strategic framework that guides the comprehensive planning of the strategy. Obviously, there is no point designing a strategy that is incomplete or cannot be successful.

A sound strategic framework enables us to think and plan strategically so that once our strategy has been elaborated, it can be widely shared and clearly understood by everyone involved. It also means that nonviolent actions can then be implemented because they are known to have strategic utility and that precise utility is understood in advance. There is little point taking action at random, especially if our opponent is powerful and committed (even if that ‘commitment’ is insane which, as briefly noted above, is invariably the case).

There is a simple diagram presenting a 12-point strategic framework illustrated here in the form of the ‘Nonviolent Strategy Wheel’.

In order to think strategically about nonviolently defending against a genocidal assault, a clearly defined political purpose is needed; that is, a simple summary statement of ‘what you want’. In general terms, this might be stated thus: To defend the [nominated group] against the genocidal assault and establish the conditions for the group to live in peace, free of violence and exploitation.

Once the political purpose has been defined, the two strategic aims (‘how you get what you want’) of the strategy acquire their meaning. These two strategic aims (which are always the same whatever the political purpose) are as follows:

1. To increase support for the struggle to defeat the genocidal assault by developing a network of groups who can assist you.

2. To alter the will and undermine the power of those groups inciting, facilitating, organizing and conducting the genocide.

While the two strategic aims are always the same, they are achieved via a series of intermediate strategic goals which are always specific to each struggle. I have identified a generalized set of 48 strategic goals that would be appropriate in the context of ending any genocide here. These strategic goals can be readily modified to the circumstances of each particular instance of genocide.

Many of these strategic goals would usually be tackled by action groups working in solidarity with the affected population campaigning in third-party countries. Of course, individual activist groups would usually accept responsibility for focusing their work on achieving just one or a few of the strategic goals (which is why any single campaign within the overall strategy is readily manageable).

As I hope is apparent, the two strategic aims are achieved via a series of intermediate strategic goals.

Not all of the strategic goals will need to be achieved for the strategy to be successful but each goal is focused in such a way that its achievement will functionally undermine the power of those conducting the genocide.

It is the responsibility of the struggle’s strategic leadership to ensure that each of the strategic goals, which should be identified and prioritized according to their precise understanding of the circumstances in the country where the genocide is occurring, is being addressed (or to prioritize if resource limitations require this).

I wish to emphasize that I have only briefly discussed two aspects of a comprehensive strategy for ending a genocide: its political purpose and its two strategic aims (with its many subsidiary strategic goals). For the strategy to be effective, all twelve components of the strategy should be planned (and then implemented). See Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategy.

This will require, for example, that tactics that will achieve the strategic goals must be carefully chosen and implemented bearing in mind the vital distinction between the political objective and strategic goal of any such tactic. See ‘The Political Objective and Strategic Goal of Nonviolent Actions’.

It is not difficult to nonviolently defend a targeted population against genocide. Vitally, however, it requires a leadership that can develop a sound strategy so that people are mobilized and deployed effectively.

Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’. His email address is [email protected] and his website is here.

Featured image: Genocide Watch

Tensions in Syria hit an all time high when the US military shot down a Syrian SU-22 that was attacking Al Qaeda jihadist forces on the ground.

The US version of the incident goes like this (courtesy of The Hill)…

A statement from the U.S. military said it shot down the Syrian SU-22 in self-defense and after contacting Russian counterparts through the established deconfliction zone. The Syrian aircraft was bombing U.S.-backed forces fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) south of Tabqa. It was the first time the United States has shot down a Syrian plane, and the first time a U.S. military jet has shot down any manned aircraft since 1999.

The reality is much more complex, yet simpler. Syria was flying its jets over Syrian sovereign territory, moving to attack Al Qaeda jihadists (aka “moderate rebels”) operating illegally in Syrian territory, and backed up by US forces, which have set up operations illegally within Syrian sovereign territory.

The US has not been invited by the internationally recognized government of Syria to fight ISIS on Syrian land, and as such the United States has de facto invaded and occupied Eastern Syria.

To make matters worse, the US is supporting Al Qaeda terrorists as a foot soldier proxy army, in order to secure as much of Eastern Syria as possible, and create a rump state Syria, effectively dividing the once united country.

Russia responded to the US aggression by saying its surface-to-air missile systems in Syria would begin to track manned and unmanned aircraft from the US coalition if they move west of the Euphrates River.

Once again we see American regime change policy gone horribly wrong (as expected) with consequences now pushing the US military into full confrontation with Russia and Iran…two countries which have been invited by the Syrian government to operate on Syrian sovereign territory to fight ISIS and Al Qaeda.

The Hill reports that American forces may be digging in, ready to protect the Al Qaeda army at all costs so as to ensure an East-West division in Syria…

Robert Ford, a former U.S. ambassador to Syria, said there is real danger to the U.S. as tensions flare.

Syrian President Bashar Assad has vowed to recapture all Syrian territory lost during the nation’s civil war, Ford noted in an email.

“There is, therefore, a real risk of escalation, especially if, unlike in western Syria, the Americans insist on backing up their Syrian allies on the ground and there is no deal with Assad,” he said.

U.S. and Syrian forces largely had stayed out of each other’s way before, because the United States operated mostly in eastern Syria and the government forces mostly in western Syria.

But since the fall of Aleppo, pro-Assad forces have been moving further east, bringing them into closer proximity with the U.S. forces and upping the potential for confrontation, said Ford, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute and professor at Yale.

Assad can’t match U.S. airpower, Ford said, but could hit U.S. forces in other ways.

“The escalation may be asymmetrical,” he said. “Assad’s air force can’t challenge ours. Look instead for car bombs, ground ambushes and small-scale, regular attacks against our forces and those we back in eastern Syria. The Syrian government is very experienced at testing the edges of any envelope or red line.”

Syrian President Bashar Assad, left, meets with Robert Ford, U.S. Ambassador to Syria, in Damascus, Syria, on January 27, 2011. (Photo: US State Dept.)

War hawks in neocon think tanks are salivating at an all out confrontation breaking out between all the players involved…

Nile Gardiner, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, doubted Moscow would follow through on its threat. Russia, for instance, did not retaliate militarily after Turkey shot down its jet in 2015, he noted.

He called the U.S. military’s decision to shoot down a Syrian jet a “welcome development.”

“Washington has sent a clear message to Moscow that it’s no longer business as usual,” he said. “For too long, the Russians have treated Syria as their own backyard.”

But even if neither Russia nor the United States wants to get dragged further into war, they could be “chain ganged” to their allies who are jockeying to control land taken from ISIS, said Stephen Biddle, adjunct senior fellow for defense policy at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Other experts worry about the U.S. military attacking pro-Assad forces without a larger Syria strategy from President Trump.

Danielle Pletka, senior vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, has advocated for more U.S. involvement in the civil war. But she expressed alarm at the United States shooting down the Syrian jet and attacking militias at Al Tanf without a larger strategy.

“My biggest concern is not escalation, although I agree that there’s a real risk,” she said. “Escalation toward a particular end is a good thing. Escalation for no reason with no particular goal is not.”

We remind our readers, the sovereign nation of Syria, whose government is internationally recognized by the United Nations, has invited Russia and Iran to fight ISIS and Al Qaeda.

The United States has not been invited into Syria.

This the irony of neocon war hawks making comments such as, “for too long, the Russians have treated Syria as their own backyard”, which exposes the perversion of US propaganda and the despicable nature of American military empire.

Syria is neither Russia’s or America’s backyard, but only one country was invited to enter the backyard, and it was not the United States.

Alex Christoforou is a writer and director for The Duran – Living the dream in Moscow.

Featured image: credits to the owner

In a Showtime interview of Russian President Vladimir Putin by American film-maker Oliver Stone, which started airing on June 12th, Putin called “lies” many of the allegations by U.S. intelligence agencies, to the effect that he or his government attempted to influence the outcome of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. He also accused the U.S. government of having actually done not only that (influencing other countries’ democratic process), but far more actual meddling in Russian elections, and in the elections in other former Soviet-and-allied countries, and even done it in recent times, and even done it to countries that had never been friendly toward Russia.

The way he asserted this accusation was veiled, however, so that he didn’t identify the specific governments he was referring to, other than to say: “In 2000, and in 2012, this always happened. But especially aggressively in 2012. I will not go into details.” (This article will supply some of those “details,” in what follows.) 

Putin described the current accusations against Russia, by the U.S. government, as a deceitful and fictitious tat, which ignores the very real and longstanding American tit, of CIA and other U.S., meddling in the electoral processes of foreign countries.

Oliver Stone and Pres. Vladimir Putin (Source: Rolling Stone)

The neoconservative American Jan Wenner’s Rolling Stone magazine headlined on June 16th about these Showtime interviews, “10 Most WTF Things We Learned From Oliver Stone’s Putin Interviews”, and sub-headlined: “From denying any involvement with U.S. election hacking to Putin’s love of Judo and Stalin, our takeaways from these truly baffling conversations”. Wenner’s reporter opened:

What’s the Russian equivalent of Kool-Aid? Whatever it is, it’s definitely red – and Oliver Stone has eagerly drunk it down. The trailers for The Putin Interviews, Showtime’s four-part series documenting a series of conversations between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Stone, would have you believe that you’re going to hear some pretty hard-hitting stuff as the autocrat and the filmmaker face off, Frost-Nixon style. What we got instead was a series of softballs lobbed lovingly in the direction of one of the most powerful and dangerous men in the world. Except for a few moments, Stone seems serenely unconcerned with anything beyond flattering his subject – and engaging in some supremely one-sided exchanges about history and policy along the way.

The term “red” in this context refers, of course, to communism, and alleges that Russia is still a communist country. To allow that type of smear to appear in any ‘news’ vehicle, is to expose itself as being actually a propaganda-vehicle, unless the allegation is backed up by solid documentation, which Wenner’s magazine didn’t do — Wenner’s magazine presented no documentation at all, for the inflammatory allegation. The magazine’s presumption was that their readers will simply believe what Wenner’s operation delivers, to be ipso-facto ‘true’. But any such reader would be welcoming his own deception by Wenner’s propaganda-operation. Evidently, successful magazines can insult their own subscribers’ intelligence, so long as it’s done in ‘the right way’ — the subscribers won’t despise the publisher for trying to deceive them about such important matters as what countries to invade, or whether to invade, or why to invade. The U.S. military-industrial complex (MIC) can attract cannon-fodder for its operations, by means of such ‘news’ media to produce dupes for that MIC.

During the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign, Mr. Wenner’s propaganda-machine had ardently campaigned for the neoconservative Hillary Clinton against the moderately progressive Bernie Sanders in the U.S. Democratic Party primaries; and, then, once she (and her friend Debbie Wasserman Schultz who ran the Democratic National Committee) managed to steal the nomination from her opponent, Wenner’s operation campaigned for Ms. Clinton against her Republican opponent Trump, who claimed (falsely as it turns out, in lies exceeding Clinton’s own) to be opposed to neoconservatives (whom he has actually loaded into his Administration). Trump now relies upon neocons for his support, but perhaps Wenner and Robert Kagan and other neoconservatives won’t be satisfied until the U.S. government takes control over Russia — which cannot happen except upon all of our dead bodies (WW III) — which is precisely what Hillary Clinton was aiming for (and maybe Trump is, too). That’s how insane the U.S. aristocracy (and its PR organs such as Wenner’s) now is — they’re pushing the world toward nuclear armageddon.

So, the American system had offered to its public a choice between two neoconservatives, one of whom hid his neoconservatism and won the election but still isn’t sufficiently neoconservative to suit the neoconservatives (such as Wenner).

What, then, about the substance of Putin’s allegation here, that the U.S. government meddles in other nations’ democratic processes?

Here are some prominent examples of that phenomenon:

From the very moment when Barack Obama became the U.S. President on 20 January 2009, the U.S. government was aiming for a ‘revolution’ to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Then, by no later than 2011, the operation was already under way in the U.S. State Department. Furthermore, also by no later than 2011, a parallel operation was under way to overthrow the democratically elected President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych. Whereas in Syria it would be ‘freedom fighters’ who would be paid by the Sauds but armed and trained mainly by the U.S., and mainly organized and led by Al Qaeda; in Ukraine it would be ‘Maidan demonstrators’ who would be paid by the U.S., and mainly led and organized by leaders of Ukraine’s existing two racist-facist, or ideologically nazi, political parties, Right Sektor, and the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine (renamed by the CIA as “Svoboda” or “Freedom” Party). 

Furthermore, on 28 June 2009, shortly after Obama became President, a coup by Honduras’s twenty-four richest families overthrew the democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya, who had been trying to institute land reform so that serfdom could become replaced there by a real democracy, but all governments except the U.S. refused to recognize the coup-regime, until first Hillary Clinton and then her boss Barack Obama recognized it and financed it with U.S. taxpayer money so that the international pressure to restore the democratically elected President failed and the junta-regime became stabilized.

The U.S. government supported the aristocratic families, and helped them rig an ‘election’ amongst only contenders whom that oligarchy and the U.S. oligarchy supported. Much manipulation of the Honduran ‘news’ media and deceit against the Honduran public were perpetrated by both the U.S. aristocracy and the Honduran aristocracy in order to silence of else kill anyone who would challenge it. Here’s the excellent 3-minute video summary of that; and here’s my article documenting it with 72 links to the sources on that matter.

So: those are three examples of extremely severe “meddling” — Syria, Ukraine, and Honduras — all three of which occurred during Obama’s Presidency (and so we’re not talking here about Iran in 1953 or Chile in 1973 or Iraq in 2003 or anything other than the most recent U.S. President).  Each and every one of them is vastly more heinous than anything that Putin and Russia did, but Russia isn’t imposing sanctions upon the U.S. Even if all of the U.S. regime’s propaganda against Russia were true, the U.S. regime does vastly more damage to democracy, and to national sovereignty, around the world, than Russia does.

On 14 June 2017, at 2:08 in the afternoon, the U.S. Senate passed, by a vote of 97 to 2 (only Rand Paul and Mike Lee voted against it) an intensification of U.S. economic sanctions against Russia, sanctions that President Obama had first instituted when Russia accepted the petition supported by more than 96% of Crimeans, for Crimea to become again a part of Russia, from which the Soviet dictator Khrushchev had transferred Crimea to Ukraine in 1954 without even consulting the residents there at all. Obama’s brutal coup overthrowing the Ukrainian President for whom 75% of Crimeans had voted is what had sparked Crimeans to seek to become, yet again — as they had been for hundreds of years until 1954 — Russians. For this ‘conquest of land’ as Obama called it, Russia was slapped with sanctions by Obama, and even now increasingly by the U.S. Congress. One of the four co-sponsors of that bill was the ‘progressive’ Democrat, U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown. Apparently, corruption (or else one would need to call it simply “evil”) is quite bi-partisan. And, given that the vote to increase sanctions was 97 to 2, that corruption (or evil) is almost universal in the U.S. Senate.

This government of the United States became finally entrenched as a facsist regime on 24 February 1990, when the U.S. President, George Herbert Walker Bush, began telling America’s allies, in secret, that, though the Cold War was now ending on the Soviet side, it would be continuing on the U.S. side, until Russia itself is finally conquered by the U.S. What we’re seeing now is an intensification of that aggression by the U.S. government.

UPDATE:

A reader elsewhere commented calling to my attention the following, which is so relevant that I ought to add his comment here:

andrew1212 • 4PM Eastern on 20 June 2017

CIA was very active in Italy, France and Japan elections after WWII.

***

The millions were delivered to Italian politicians and the priests of Catholic Action, a political arm of the Vatican. Suitcases filled with cash changed hands in the four-star Hassler Hotel. “We would have liked to have done this in a more sophisticated manner,” [F. Mark] Wyatt said. “Passing black bags to affect a political election is not really a terribly attractive thing.” But it worked: Italy’s Christian Democrats won by a comfortable margin and formed a government that excluded communists. A long romance between the party and the agency began. The CIA’s practice of purchasing elections and politicians with bags of cash was repeated in Italy–and in many other nations–for the next twenty-five years.

— LEGACY OF ASHES: The History of the CIA, by Tim Weiner (2007), page 31 [in the 2008 printing; page 27 of the first edition, the 2007 printing]. 

[Also see Pages 133-141 (or 116-121 of 2007 edition) for info on CIA involvement in Japan elections.]

***

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Featured image: Strategic Culture Foundation

Norway is executing a drastic change in its military policy, towards a far more aggressive posture. A total of 330 US Marines have been stationed for a trial period from January at the Vaernes military base east of Trondheim. The deployment marks the first time since World War II that foreign troops have been allowed to station in Norway. Last year, the Norwegian Parliament approved a one-year trial period for the US military presence, including two six-month rotations. Now it is planned to double the Marines presence in the country from 330 to 650 soldiers. Norway and the United States are now discussing the usefulness of continuing this agreement beyond 2017.

The airport in Nord-Trøndelag can become a major military air base. The US Marine Corps Prepositioning Program-Norway, already stores large amounts of military equipment in caves. The caves currently hold enough to equip a fighting force of 4,600 Marines. The US military plans to enlarge the stockpile allowing it to store enough weapons and equipment for a Marine Expeditionary Brigade (up to 16, 000 servicemen). Planners are completing an analysis of the current gear cache that should wrap up in the next 12 months.

There are other plans to increase US military presence in the country. Last summer, a study group from the US Navy visited both Andøya and Evenes airports in northern Norway to see if they could host American P-8 Poseidon patrol aircraft.

According to Washington-based Center for Strategic and international Studies (CSIS) report,

“The former Royal Norwegian Navy base at Olavsvern is ideal for supporting submarine operations in the extreme North Atlantic and Arctic Seas”.

The paper says it may be possible for Norway to nationalize and reopen a portion of the facility to support the rotational presence of US submarines. Olavsvern is NATO’s closest naval base to the Kola Peninsula. The paper notes that the United States needs to leverage its bilateral relationships with Norway in order to develop and deploy a new generation of undersea sensing capabilities.

The Globus II overlooking the town of Vardo (Source: BarentsObserver)

The construction of sophisticated new radar system known as Globus 3 in Vardø has started. Formally, the radar’s mission is to track space debris but it’s an open secret that the site is an element of the US-led NATO ballistic missile defense (BMD).

The radar located in Svalbard (the Arctic) can also be used by US military for missile defense purposes. The site has been frequently visited by US officials and politicians. This radar is installed in violation of the 1925 treaty which states that Svalbard has a demilitarized status.

Norway used to be skeptical toward the BMD plans. In 2002, Norway condemned the US decision to pull out from the ABM Treaty. Jens Stoltenberg, the current NATO General Secretary, was skeptical about the system at a summit in Moscow in 2007. But Prime Minister Erna Solberg announced the decision to join the NATO missile defense in 2015 – the same year Norwegian ships participated with radar sensors in an allied BMD exercise.

The joint American-Norwegian radar project is an openly hostile move, which has become an irritant to negatively affect the Russian-Norwegian bilateral relationship. The missile shield will alter the strategic balance—giving Washington and NATO the ability to launch a first nuclear strike on Russia and prevent it from launching a counter-strike. Besides, the radar will be used for intelligence collection being stationed just 40 miles from the Russian Kola Peninsula where strategic submarines and other military assets are based.

According to Professor Theodore Postol, a professor at Massachusetts Technological Institute and a well-known scholar, Norway

“would be dragged into a conflict between the great powers… The radar in Vardø is of the type GBR-P, formerly deployed on the Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific. It was formerly intended to be the most important radar in the US missile shield, to be deployed in the Czech Republic”.

“Norway has to understand that after becoming an outpost of NATO, it will have to face head-on Russia and Russian military might”, Teimuraz Ramishvili, Russian ambassador to Oslo, told Norway’s state broadcaster, NRK.

“Therefore, there will be no peaceful Arctic anymore”.

Formally, the radar’s mission is to track space debris but it’s an open secret that the site is part of US global ballistic missile defense (BMD) system, making Norway a prime target for attack in the event of a conflict.

Norway plans to have over 50 US-produced F-35 stealth warplanes in 2019. It will give it the capability to strike deep into the Russian territory. It underscores the fact that Norway would rapidly be drawn into any war that NATO launched against Russia. Indeed, the preparations unquestionably make Norway a target for Russian military action.

The US military presence represents a shift from the peacetime policy of prohibiting the posting of foreign troops in Norway. Before joining NATO in 1949, Norway pledged not to allow deployment of foreign military on its soil “as long as it is not under attack or threat of attack.” No Norwegian government has said it is threatened by Russia. Quite to the contrary, just a few days ago Prime Minister Erna Solberg said that she doesn’t consider Russia to be a threat to Norway’s security in an interview with German DW. According to her,

Oslo and Moscow have a “good partnership”, especially in the Arctic. “We don’t believe that Russia is a direct threat to Norway, but we believe that Russia has become more unpredictable in its policies”, the PM noted.

Hardly so, Russia is very much predictable because it has no alternative to taking measures in response.

The border between Russia and Norway has been peaceful for centuries. The two countries have always been good neighbors. It is all changing now. Foreign troops on Norwegian soil and the construction of the new radar are parts of unfriendly policy toward Russia, which believes that the provocative moves are unacceptable. Perhaps, it should be taken into account by Norwegian politicians as the country nears the parliamentary elections in the fall.

Peter Korzun is an expert on wars and conflicts.

Featured image: Strategic Culture Foundation

In another menacing act of brinkmanship, President Donald Trump declared in a tweet yesterday that China had failed to force North Korea to accede to US demands, opening the door for unilateral US action, including military strikes. The tweet comes just ahead of top-level talks between US and Chinese officials due to take place in Washington today.

“While I greatly appreciate the efforts of President Xi [Jinping] & China to help with North Korea, it has not worked out. At least I know China tried!” Trump tweeted.

The Trump administration has put great pressure on Beijing to compel Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear and missile programs, but has indicated all along that time was limited.

“North Korea is looking for trouble. If China decides to help, that would be great. If not, we will solve the problem without them! USA,” Trump tweeted in April.

The US president’s latest tweet is clearly aimed at placing additional pressure on Chinese officials—State Councilor Yang Jiechi and General Fang Fenghui—who will meet with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defence Secretary James Mattis in a US-China Diplomatic and Security Dialogue.

The US State Department has indicated that Washington intends to put North Korea at the top of the agenda, and to press China to agree to harsher sanctions, such as an oil embargo and bans on North Korean guest workers. Beijing, however, which has already helped impose harsh sanctions on North Korean mineral exports, is reluctant to make moves that could provoke a political crisis in Pyongyang—on China’s doorstep.

China’s ambassador in Washington, Cui Tiankai, told the Financial Times:

“We should not make it [US-China dialogue] a platform where one side pushes a long list of demands on the other. It has to be a two-way street.” He said that China was “obviously important” in exerting pressure on North Korea, “but there is more the US should do.” Beijing has urged Washington to take steps towards reviving negotiations with Pyongyang.

Trump’s tweet that China’s efforts have “not worked out” is more than just a bargaining ploy at today’s talks. If Beijing refuses to agree to tougher sanctions, the danger of reckless US military action against Pyongyang rises. As a senior administration official told Reuters, the US has limited options to rein in North Korea without Chinese assistance.

Trump officials have already declared that the Obama administration’s policy of “strategic patience”—pressuring Pyongyang with increased sanctions—had failed. The possibility of a meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, which Trump suggested last month might be realizable under the right conditions, is highly unlikely. White House spokesman Sean Spicer declared yesterday,

“clearly we’re moving further away, not closer to those conditions.”

March 16, 2016 – 21-year-old American student Otto Warmbier is sentenced to 15 years hard labor for crimes against the state after he admitted to stealing propaganda material from a Pyongyang hotel. (Source: My Sinchew)

In reality, the Trump administration, along with the American media, has seized on the death of Otto Warmbier to further demonise North Korea and create the conditions for war. Warmbier, a college student, was one of four American citizens convicted and jailed in North Korean prisons. He was flown home last week and died on Monday.

Trump joined the clamour in the media and political establishment for action over Warmbier’s death, declaring what happened “a total disgrace.” He branded the North Korean government “a brutal regime” and said that the death had deepened his determination to prevent other tragedies “at the hands of regimes that do not respect the rule of law or basic human decency.”

US Senator John McCain, chairman of the Senate armed services committee, bluntly stated that the Kim Jong-un regime had “murdered” Warmbier—even as doctors have yet to determine what caused the brain danger that led to the student’s death. McCain accused Pyongyang of “forced labour, mass starvation, systematic cruelty, torture and murder” and added that the US “cannot and should not tolerate the murder of its citizens by hostile powers.”

All the preparations for a US-led war on North Korea have been made. The Pentagon has stationed what Trump referred to as “an armada” off the Korean Peninsula—two aircraft carrier strike groups are in place and another is on its way, along with nuclear submarines—supplementing substantial American forces already stationed in Japan, South Korea and Guam.

Yesterday, two US B-1 strategic bombers flew over the Korean Peninsula in another warning to North Korea. The 10-hour flight from Guam also involved training missions with both Japanese and South Korean F-15 fighters. Pentagon spokesman Jeff Davis told the media:

“We can launch and operate long-range bombers over the Korean Peninsula on very short notice.” He then ominously added: “And we hope not to have to do that.”

In another rather menacing signal, two US officials told CNN that American spy satellites had detected new activity at North Korea’s underground nuclear test site. The officials expressed concern that North Korea could detonate a nuclear test to coincide with the US-China dialogue taking place in Washington. Pyongyang has been publicly critical of Beijing’s willingness to agree to US demands for sanctions.

The CNN report also noted the very advanced character of the Pentagon’s plans for war against North Korea, stating:

“Two senior US officials with direct knowledge also told CNN that military options for North Korea have recently been updated, and will be presented to President Donald Trump for a decision to act if there is a nuclear test.”

The devastating character of any new war on the Korean Peninsula was again underscored last week by US Defence Secretary James Mattis. He told a congressional committee that such a conflict would be “catastrophic” but that the US would ultimately prevail.

“It will be a war more serious in terms of human suffering than anything we have seen since 1953,” Mattis said, referring to the Korean War between 1950 and 1953 in which the casualties ran into the millions. “It will involve the massive shelling of an allies’ capital [Seoul], which is one of the most densely packed cities on Earth. It would be a war that fundamentally we don’t want. Our allies and us would win at great cost.”

However, it is also a war that the Trump administration is relentlessly edging towards, having repeatedly declared that “all options are on the table.” Unlike the Korean War of the 1950s, a new conflict would not remain confined to the Korean Peninsula but would draw other powers into a far wider catastrophe for humanity.

Featured image: Infowars

In the wake of Sunday’s US shoot-down of a Syrian fighter plane and the following day’s warning from Russia that it will treat all American warplanes flying west of the Euphrates River as targets for its surface-to-air missiles, the threat of an armed confrontation between the world’s two largest nuclear powers is now greater than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis nearly 55 years ago.

This threat, which carries with it the grim prospect of the annihilation of humanity, is the product of a calculated escalation on the part of US imperialism.

The downing of the Syrian fighter marked the first time in this century that a US warplane has shot down the plane of another country. The last instance of such aerial combat took place in 1999 during the US-NATO war against Serbia, when an American fighter plane shot down a Serbian MiG.

The gravity of the event was underscored Tuesday with Australia’s announcement that it is grounding its planes that have been flying over Syria. Australia was one of the few members of the US-led “anti-ISIS coalition” that made any significant contribution to the increasingly murderous US air campaign against both Iraq and Syria. While the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph Dunford, responded to the Russian threat with bravado, extolling the ability of US pilots to “take care of themselves,” the Australian military clearly believes that one of its planes could be brought down.

The escalation of the conflict continued Tuesday with a US warplane shooting down an Iranian drone in southeastern Syria.

What will be the consequences if a Russian surface-to-air missile battery fires on a US plane seen as posing an imminent threat to Moscow’s forces on the ground in Syria, or, for that matter, if a US warplane “painted” with the radar of a Russian SAM site takes preemptive action?

No one knows. Complacent US foreign policy “experts” insist that the last thing either Washington or Moscow wants is a nuclear conflagration, and, therefore, it will not happen. This fallacious argument is then employed to justify unbridled US aggression.

The supposed rationality of capitalist ruling classes has again and again proven no deterrent to the outbreak of catastrophic wars. As former defense secretary Robert McNamara recalled in the documentary “Fog of War,” during the Cuban missile crisis, “Rational individuals”—Kennedy, Khrushchev and Castro—“came that close to total destruction of their societies.”

CIA reference photograph of Soviet medium-range ballistic missile (SS-4 in U.S. documents, R-12 in Soviet documents) in Red Square, Moscow.

In a number of ways, the current situation is even more combustible than that in 1962. At that time, the demand of the fascistic Air Force chief of staff, Gen. Curtis LeMay, that he be allowed to bomb Russian missile sites in Cuba was overruled by President Kennedy. Today, US military policy in Syria, and for that matter in Iraq, Afghanistan and across the globe, has been delegated by Trump to a cabal of active-duty and recently retired generals, headed by Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis, as well as to area commanders, whose outlook, in most cases, does not differ from that of LeMay.

A glimpse of their attitude toward the Syrian crisis was provided by a recent forum of the Council on Foreign Affairs featuring the longtime Pentagon advisor on both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, Kimberly Kagan.

Kagan, who now heads the Institute of the Study of War, first invoked the tired pretext of the “war on terror” as the justification for the US intervention. Syria, she asserted, represented a “vital national security threat” because it was “exporting terror and terror groups from its borders.” She acknowledged that ISIS posed a threat, but went on to insist that Al Qaeda posed an even greater danger because it had been allowed to carve out “its own safe haven in Idlib province.”

The hypocrisy is staggering. Syria is not an “exporter” of terror, but rather the victim of the Al Qaeda-linked militias that were unleashed upon the country by the CIA and Washington’s regional allies in a war for regime change. As for Al Qaeda’s “safe haven,” it has been defended by the US, which has repeatedly denounced the Syrian government and Russia for bombing these so-called “rebels” and insisted that only ISIS can be targeted.

Kagan dispensed with her twisted arguments about terrorism to concentrate on the real concerns within the US military and intelligence apparatus. Iran and Russia posed a “long-term strategic threat” to the US, she argued, because of their military presence in Syria, challenging American dominance of the Middle East and the Mediterranean.

The threat was to be dealt with by the US military seizing for itself “a base of operations in what is eastern Syria, along the Euphrates,” from Raqqa in the north to the Iraqi and Jordanian borders to the south. One of the aims of the American intervention, she stated, would be to “energize Sunni populations in the Euphrates River zone, which has been a hotbed of ISIS support, but before it, Al Qaida support.” In other words, Washington will seek to reignite the sectarian war for regime change based on Sunni Islamist militias, but this time with American “boots on the ground.”

How many US troops will this operation require?

“I don’t know,” Kagan said. “It’s not 150,000 guys. But it’s got to be enough to be present and to extend presence forward.” Key to this military adventure, she added, was to “prepare for what the Russians and the Iranians will try to do to respond.”

In other words, what is being prepared—behind the backs of the American people and without any debate, much less a shred of legality—is another full-scale Middle East war directed not just at Syrian regime change, but at confronting Iran and nuclear-armed Russia.

Nor is this conflict confined to the Middle East. Also reported on Tuesday was a Russian jet armed with air-to-air missiles intercepting a US RC-135 spy plane over the Baltic Sea near the strategic Russian military base at Kaliningrad, with the two planes reportedly coming within five feet of each other. Each side accused the other of operating dangerously.

Meanwhile, NATO held a ceremony in the former Soviet Baltic republic of Latvia to mark what it said was the full deployment of a 4,500-strong “deterrent force” on Russia’s border. The Pentagon recently deployed B-2 stealth bombers and other aircraft as well as Army units to the region for “exercises.” Russia has reportedly countered with a buildup of its own on its western border.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said he didn’t see any “imminent threat” of an armed confrontation in the Baltic region, but Russia’s ambassador to NATO, Alexander Grushko, described the “military dynamic” as “dangerous.”

The American media has treated the escalating confrontation in the Middle East and the heightened tensions in the Baltics as virtual nonissues. At the first White House press briefing held in over a week, press secretary Sean Spicer made no statement regarding recent US military actions in Syria and the assembled poodles of the press corps didn’t ask him a single question on the growing war danger.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party, working in close sync with the Pentagon and the CIA, has conducted an unrelenting campaign of anti-Russian hysteria aimed at creating a new, ostensibly liberal, constituency for war among privileged layers of the middle class. Democrats have endorsed every new act of military escalation in Syria, demanding only that the Trump administration present a “comprehensive” plan for war and, in some cases, calling for the passage of a new authorization for use of military force to legitimize military aggression.

The efforts of the Democratic Party and the pseudo-left organizations that orbit it notwithstanding, the same crisis of US and world capitalism that gives rise to war also produces its opposite, the growth of the class struggle and ripening of the objective conditions for socialist revolution. The most urgent task is the development of a mass political movement of the working class in opposition to war and its source, the capitalist system.

Featured image: idnews.ge

The Russian Defense Ministry announced it is halting cooperation with its US counterparts in the framework of the Memorandum on the Prevention of Incidents and Ensuring Air Safety in Syria following the coalition’s downing of a Syrian warplane.

The ministry has demanded a thorough investigation by the US military command into the incident with the Syrian government military jet, with the results to be shared with the Russian side.

An S-400 air defence missile system at the Hmeymim airbase, Syria. © Dmitriy Vinogradov / Sputnik

“In the areas of combat missions of Russian air fleet in Syrian skies, any airborne objects, including aircraft and unmanned vehicles of the [US-led] international coalition, located to the west of the Euphrates River, will be tracked by Russian ground and air defense forces as air targets,” the Russian Ministry of Defense stated.

Downing the military jet within Syrian airspace “cynically” violates the sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic, Russian military said.

The actions of the US Air Force are in fact “military aggression” against Syria, the statement adds.

The ministry emphasized that Russian warplanes were on a mission in Syrian airspace during the US-led coalition’s attack on the Syrian Su-22, while the coalition failed to use the communication line to prevent an incident.

“The command of the coalition forces did not use the existing communication channel between the air commands of Al Udeid Airbase (in Qatar) and the Khmeimim Airbase to prevent incidents in Syrian airspace.”

The ministry considers the move “a conscious failure to comply with the obligations under the Memorandum on the Prevention of Incidents and Ensuring Air Safety in Syria,” and is thus halting cooperation with the US within the memorandum framework as of June 19, the statement concluded.