Global Research

CETA and TTIP have generated unprecedented levels of public opposition in the EU.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) was pictured by their official media wing on Satuday firing a U.S. manufactured anti-tank missile towards a Syrian Arab Army vehicle in the Deir Ezzor Governorate.

Based on the pictures posted by the Islamic State’s official media “Al-Amaq,” the anti-tank missile was identified as a model BMG-71 TOW, which is both designed and manufactured in the United States. 

Leith Fadel | Al-Masdar News

Leith Fadel | Al-Masdar News

Leith Fadel | Al-Masdar News

The TOW missile was likely given to U.S. designated “moderate” rebel factions in Syria before coming into the possession of the Islamic State terrorists.

In the past, the Islamic State has boasted about capturing and buying several TOW missiles from U.S. backed rebel groups in Syria; so, this is not an isolated incident.

Confident in a Hillary Clinton victory, Washington’s foreign policy elite is readying plans for more warfare in Syria and more confrontations with nuclear-armed Russia, an across-the-spectrum “group think” that risks life on the planet, says Robert Parry.

As polls show Hillary Clinton closing in on victory, Official Washington’s neoconservative (and liberal-hawk) foreign policy establishment is rubbing its hands in anticipation of more war and more strife, including a U.S. military escalation in Syria, a take-down of Iran, and a showdown with nuclear-armed Russia.

What is perhaps most alarming about this new “group think” is that there doesn’t appear to be any significant resistance to the expectation that President Hillary Clinton will unleash these neocon/liberal-hawk forces of intervention that President Barack Obama has somewhat restrained.

Assuming Donald Trump’s defeat – increasingly seen as a foregone conclusion – the Republican leadership would mostly be in sync with Clinton if she adopts a hawkish foreign policy similar to what was pursued by President George W. Bush. Meanwhile, most Democrats would be hesitant to challenge their party’s new president.

The only potential option to constrain the hawkish Clinton would be the emergence of a “peace” wing of the Democratic Party, possibly aligned with Republican anti-interventionists. But that possibility remains problematic especially since those two political elements have major policy disagreements on a wide variety of other topics.

There also isn’t an obvious individual for the peace factions to organize around. Sen. Bernie Sanders, who mildly criticized Clinton’s advocacy of “regime change” operations during the primary campaign, is 75 years old and isn’t particularly known for his stands on foreign policy issues.

If Trump loses, the bombastic real-estate mogul would likely be a spent political force, possibly retreating into the paranoid “alt-right” world of conspiracy theories. Even now, his dovish objection to confronting Russia has been undermined by his tendency to speak carelessly about other national security topics, such as torture, terrorism and nuclear weapons.

One potential leader of a peace movement would be Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, (image left below)  a 35-year-old military veteran who is one of the few members of Congress to offer an insightful and courageous critique of the dangers from an interventionist foreign policy. But Gabbard would be putting her promising political career at risk if she challenged a sitting Democratic president, especially early in Clinton’s White House term.

Yet, without a modern-day Eugene McCarthy (the anti-Vietnam War Democrat who took on President Lyndon Johnson in 1968) to rally an anti-war movement from inside the Democratic Party, it is hard to imagine how significant political pressure could be put on a President Hillary Clinton. Virtually the entire mainstream U.S. media (and much of the progressive media) are onboard for a U.S. “regime change” operation in Syria and for getting tough with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Not Thought Through

These “group thinks” on Syria and Russia, like previous ones on Iraq and Libya, have not been thought through, but are driven instead by emotional appeals – photos of wounded children in Syria and animosity toward Putin for not wearing a shirt and not bowing to U.S. global supremacy. As with Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011, there is little consideration about what might follow a successful “regime change” scenario in Syria or Russia.

In Syria, a “no-fly zone” destroying Syria’s air force and air defenses could pave the way for a victory by Al Qaeda’s recently renamed Nusra Front and/or Al Qaeda’s spinoff, the Islamic State. How letting major terrorist groups control Damascus would be good for either the Syrian people or the United States gets barely mentioned.

The dreamy thinking is that somehow the hard-to-find “moderate” rebels – sometimes called the “unicorns” – would prevail, even though they have existed mostly as cut-outs and conduits so Al Qaeda and its allies can secure advanced U.S. weapons to use for killing Syrian soldiers.

Yet, even more dangerous is the already-launched destabilization campaign against nuclear-armed Russia, a policy that may feel-good because we’re taught to despise Vladimir Putin. But this latest neocon/liberal-hawk “regime change” scheme — even if it somehow were “successful” — is not likely to install in the Kremlin one of the U.S.-favored “liberals” who would allow the resumption of the 1990s-era plundering of Russia’s wealth.

Far more likely, an angry Russian population would go for a much-harder-line nationalist than Putin, someone who might see nuclear weapons as the only way to protect Mother Russia from another raping by the West. It’s not the cold-blooded Putin who should scare Americans, but the hot-headed guy next in line.

But none of these downsides – not even the existential downside of nuclear annihilation – is allowed to be discussed among Official Washington’s foreign policy elites. It’s all about giving Bashar al-Assad the “Gaddafi treatment” in Syria, punishing Iran even if that might cause its leaders to renounce the nuclear-arms agreement, and muscling NATO forces up to Russia’s borders and making the Russian economy scream.

And, behind these policies are some of the most skilled propagandists in the world. They are playing much of the U.S. population – and surely the U.S. media – like a fiddle.

Lock-Step Consensus

The propaganda campaign is driven by a consensus among the major think tanks of Official Washington, where there is near universal support for Hillary Clinton, not because they all particularly like her, but because she has signaled a return to neocon/liberal-hawk strategies.

As Greg Jaffe wrote for the neocon-dominated Washington Post on Friday,

“In the rarefied world of the Washington foreign policy establishment, President Obama’s departure from the White House — and the possible return of a more conventional and hawkish Hillary Clinton — is being met with quiet relief.

“The Republicans and Democrats who make up the foreign policy elite are laying the groundwork for a more assertive American foreign policy, via a flurry of reports shaped by officials who are likely to play senior roles in a potential Clinton White House.

“It is not unusual for Washington’s establishment to launch major studies in the final months of an administration to correct the perceived mistakes of a president or influence his successor. But the bipartisan nature of the recent recommendations, coming at a time when the country has never been more polarized, reflects a remarkable consensus among the foreign policy elite.

“This consensus is driven by a broad-based backlash against a president who has repeatedly stressed the dangers of overreach and the need for restraint, especially in the Middle East. … Taken together, the studies and reports call for more-aggressive American action to constrain Iran, rein in the chaos in the Middle East and check Russia in Europe.”

One of the lead organizations revving up these military adventures and also counting on a big boost in military spending under President Clinton-45 is the Atlantic Council, a think tank associated with NATO that has been pushing for a major confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.

Jaffe quotes former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who is leading the Atlantic Council’s bipartisan Mideast team as saying about Syria:

“The immediate thing is to do something to alleviate the horrors that are being visited on the population. … We do think there needs to be more American action — not ground forces but some additional help in terms of the military aspect.” (This is same “humanitarian” Albright who – in responding to a United Nations report that U.S. economic sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s had killed a half million Iraqi children – coldly said, “we think the price is worth it.”)

One of Albright’s partners on the Atlantic Council’s report, Bush’s last National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, added that if Assad continues to bomb civilians, the United States should strongly consider “using standoff weapons, like cruise missiles, to neutralize his air force so that he cannot fly.”

The plans call for “safe zones” where Syrian rebels can base themselves behind U.S. military protection, allowing them to strike Syrian government forces but preventing the Syrian government from striking back. Little attention is paid to the fact that the so-called “moderate” rebels have refused to separate themselves from Al Qaeda’s forces who are in command of the rebel movement in east Aleppo and other urban areas.

As journalist/historian Gareth Porter has written: “Information from a wide range of sources, including some of those the United States has been explicitly supporting, makes it clear that every armed anti-Assad organization unit in those provinces [of Idlib and Aleppo] is engaged in a military structure controlled by [Al Qaeda’s] Nusra militants. All of these rebel groups fight alongside the Nusra Front and coordinate their military activities with it. …

“At least since 2014 the Obama administration has armed a number of Syrian rebel groups even though it knew the groups were coordinating closely with the Nusra Front, which was simultaneously getting arms from Turkey and Qatar.”

Ignoring the Masses

It also doesn’t seem to matter to these elites that many American commoners are fed up with these costly and bloody “regime change” schemes. As Hadley told the Post’s Jaffe, “Everyone has kind of given up on the Middle East. We have been at it for 15 years, and a lot of Americans think it is hopeless. … We think it is not.”

But it is not just the Republican neocons and old Democratic hawks who are determined to whip the American people into line behind more war. As Jaffe wrote, “A similar sentiment animates the left-leaning Center for American Progress’s report, which calls for more military action to counter Iranian aggression, more dialogue with the United States’ Arab allies and more support for economic and human rights reform in the region.”

These “liberal hawks” are enthused that now almost the entire foreign policy elite of Official Washington is singing from the same sheet of martial music. There is none of the discord that surrounded Bush’s war in Iraq last decade.

As Brian Katulis, a senior Middle East analyst at the Center for American Progress, said, “The dynamic is totally different from what I saw a decade ago.” He added that the current focus from all sides is on rebuilding a more muscular and more “centrist internationalism.”

In other words, the Iraq War “group think” that enveloped Official Washington before that catastrophe wasn’t total enough. Now, there is almost a totalitarian feel about the way the foreign policy elites, coordinating with the major U.S. news media, are marching the American people toward possibly even worse disasters.

No serious dissent is allowed; no contrarian thoughts expressed; no thinking through where the schemes might end up – unless you want to be marginalized as an Assad “apologist” or a Putin “puppet.” And right now, there doesn’t seem to be any practical way to stop this new march of folly.

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).

No longer content to lead from behind with the occasional drone bomb, the United States has now resorted to launching missiles from battleships off the Yemeni coast into the embattled nation. Having launched attacks at several Houthi “command and control” centers allegedly housing radar, the U.S. is once again only entrenching its position as a great force for evil and destruction the world over.

Per the usual, the U.S. justification for the attack is questionable at best, and, in the end, an example of just how arrogant and aggressive U.S. foreign policy is toward the rest of the world and, in particular, those nations and forces who do not capitulate to U.S. interests.

According to mainstream press reports and the U.S. government itself, the United States responded to alleged missiles being fired from Houthi-occupied territory at the U.S. battleship U.S.S. Mason. After four alleged missiles being fired in two alleged separate incidents, the U.S. ship, which was operating off the coast of Yemen, fired missiles at the Houthi radar locations.

The Western press has, of course, responded in a predictable fashion by rushing to point out that the U.S. position was entirely justified and was nothing more than retaliation at unprovoked threats produced by the “Iranian proxies” fighting against the democratic kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s invasion of Yemeni territory.

“For the United States, it was simple retaliation: Rebels in Yemen had fired missiles at an American warship twice in four days, and so the United States hit back, destroying rebel radar facilities with missiles,” reads a report in the New York Times. But the framing of the incident assumes that the Houthis actually fired the missiles and that the U.S. merely acted in self-defense and retaliation. It also assumes that the U.S. was justified for having its ships off the coast of Yemen to begin with.

For their part, the Houthi forces have denied firing any missiles at U.S. ships.

Interestingly enough, the United States itself admits that the Houthis may not have fired the missiles. In fact, they admit that they do not even know for sure who fired the missiles. Pentagon Spokesman Peter Cook actually stated “We don’t know who was pulling the trigger specifically,” stopping short of actually blaming the Houthis for the record. But nevertheless, the U.S. “retaliated” against them.

Take a look at the logic being presented by the Pentagon here. “Missiles were fired presumably at our ship. We do not know who fired them. Therefore, we attacked the Houthis.” Is it now considered prudent military and international policy to bomb forces for an act no one is actually sure they committed?

With all this in mind and given the track record of the United States government ginning up “attacks” in order to justify foreign military adventures, it would be wise to question the nature and even the existence of the “missile attacks” to begin with, not only who actually fired the missiles. Indeed, it was in 1964 that the U.S. government claimed North Vietnamese forces fired torpedoes and machine guns at the U.S.S. Maddox which subsequently resulted in large scale involvement of the United States in Vietnam. Decades later, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident has largely been proven as nothing more than a fabrication of the U.S. government in order to justify war in Vietnam.

“For the United States to employ direct military force against an albeit conflict-embroiled sovereign nation over an incident still under investigation and as-yet unproven indisputable fact, is reminiscent of the vehicle it undertook to embroil itself in the Vietnam War — the Gulf of Tonkin incident,” writes Claire Bernish.

“However, in this case,” she continues, “the move could prove an arrogant flub of enormous proportions. Yemen, itself, is not of imperative importance to the U.S. except outside the waters off its coast — however, as a proxy ally of Russia its regional consequence matters a great deal.”

It is also important to consider the timing of the alleged attack. The United States has acted in direct support of Saudi Arabia’s heinous crimes in Yemen from the beginning by “leading from behind” through providing intelligence, strategic advice, refueling, and other logistical assistance. While the U.S. whines incessantly about “barrel bombs” being dropped on terrorists, Saudi Arabia is intentionally dropping bombs on civilians all over Yemen yet not one word has been uttered in condemnation by the U.S.

Still, after the Saudis bombed a Yemeni funeral, killing at least 100 people, even some mainstream press organizations (mostly due to the fact that the independent press has revealed the nature of the Saudi mission in Yemen) were no longer able to hide the Saudi crimes against humanity. As a result, even the United Nations which had been paid by the Saudis to keep silent on previous Saudi war crimes was forced to issue a statement of condemnation.

Amidst the discussion of the Saudi crimes, the U.S. support for Saudi actions has become an issue that is no longer so easily ignored by Washington with many “human rights organizations” and national governments criticizing the Obama administration for its cooperation and assistance in slaughtering the Yemeni people.

Thus, just as the United States’ complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity begins to gather attention on the global stage, the Houthis inexplicably launch missiles at a U.S. warship.

As Global Research writes,

You might consider it strange that the Houthis, who have not fired on American ships ever before in the nearly 2 years of warfare in Yemen, suddenly decided – just as American support for Saudi Arabia was in question – to launch missiles at an American destroyer.

You might be asking yourself, “Why would the Houthis, who struggle to get any coverage in the Western press at all, let alone sympathetic coverage, launch an attack on America?”

You might consider it strange that the Houthis, already fighting a losing battle against a richer and better equipped enemy, might try and drag America into the war.

It’s not strange. Not in the least. It fits so well with the history of American military entanglements that one might even call it predictable, at this point.

It is also noteworthy to mention the fact that the U.S. attack is coming as the Saudis become revealed for being the paper tiger that they truly are. After all, not only has Saudi Arabia failed to defeat the Houthis, but the Houthis have now managed to penetrate at least 10kms in to Saudi territory.

The United States is standing on the precipice of yet another direct military invasion of yet another sovereign country that will surely end in a quagmire. We strongly urge the U.S. government to abandon its meddling in Yemen. At the very least, we invite those members of the “Saudi-led coalition” to remember that Yemen has been a quagmire for every empire that has tried to conquer it.

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 andvolume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 850 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

Over half of American voters surveyed in a recent poll disagree with the FBI’s decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton over her emails scandal.

A survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted on October 18 and 19 by the polling company Rasmussen Reports. Voters were asked whether they agreed with the FBI’s decision not to file criminal charges against Hillary Clinton, despite acknowledging that she had been reckless and potentially exposed classified information to hostile countries. The results were released on Friday.

However, 92 percent of Donald Trump supporters disagreed, mirroring the opinion of their candidate, who has been vocal in criticizing Clinton for deleting 30,000 of her emails rather than handing them over to the FBI. At one point, he even promised his rival that she “would be in jail.”

“If I win,” Trump said at the presidential debate held on October 9, “I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation.”
When asked if the emails scandal was important to their vote, 70 percent of survey respondents replied that it was, out of which 49 percent said that it was very important. Only 27 percent said the issue was not important to them at all.

According to the latest data from Rasmussen Reports, Donald Trump is slightly ahead with a 43 to 41 percent margin over Hillary Clinton. However, other polls have put Hillary in the lead.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted from October 14 to 20 gave Hillary 44 percent support, versus 40 for Trump.

Rasmussen has been criticized for overestimating the popularity of Republican candidates in the 2010 and 2012 mid-term and presidential elections, and been accused of showing bias towards the GOP.

The 2016 presidential campaign has been an eventful one. In recent weeks, Trump has lost some supporters over remarks of a sexual nature made back in 2005, but has fired back with claims that the election system is “rigged.” If Hillary wins, some 70 percent of Republican voters believe it will be because the election was rigging by Democrats, according to the results of a Reuters poll released on Friday.

“We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them.” -Albert Einstein

There is no question that technology has been key to humanity’s mastery and domination of the planet.

Thanks to these marvels of innovation, humans have transformed their natural surroundings to their service, leading to larger numbers of people, reliable and greater supplies of food, and the ability to extend lifespans.

There is of course the other edge of that sword.

Thanks to the powers they have harnessed, humanity is currently facing a multitude of interconnected dilemmas and problems stemming from population over-shoot, climate change, and resource depletion. Thanks to human ingenuity applied on an industrial scale, human agencies threaten destructive wars and military interventions capable of destroying all life on the planet.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Length (59:00)

Click to download the audio (MP3 format) 

In a brilliant new book, author and past guest Dmitry Orlov postulates the existence of something called the ‘technosphere’, analogous to the biosphere, which came into existence as soon as human inventions started impacting the natural world. This artificial construct, appears not to embrace life as we know it, nor does it have any affinity for the human species, beyond what can be manipulated into the technosphere’s service!

In one of our program’s most provocative interviews yet, Dmitry Orlov further explains the characteristics of the technosphere, the short-comings of techno-fixes for our ecological crises (eg: ‘renewable energy’), how organized religion and progressive social movements are enabled by and artifacts of the technosphere, and how this force imperiling all life on Earth can ultimately be overcome and human freedom secured.

Orlov ends the interview with a review of the history behind the current Russia-US tensions, prospects for a larger war, and what, if anything, the diplomatic breakdown signifies.

(Video credit: Rick Siegenthaler)

Dmitry Orlov emigrated from Russia where he was born to the United States in the mid-1970s. He has degrees in Computer Engineering and Linguistics and has worked in the fields of high energy physics, internet commerce, advertising and network security.

He is the author of numerous articles and two previous books: Reinventing Collapse: The Soviet Experience and American Prospects as well as The Five Stages of Collapse: Survivors’ Toolkit. His latest book Shrinking the Technosphere: Getting a Grip on the Technologies that Limit our Autonomy, Self-sufficiency and Freedom is published by New Society Publishers and available in November, 2016. Dmitry Orlov blogs at cluborlov.com.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Length (59:00)

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca . The show can be heard on the Progressive Radio Network at prn.fm. Listen in every Monday at 3pm ET.

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Boston College Radio WZBC 90.3FM NEWTONS  during the Truth and Justice Radio Programming slot -Sundays at 7am ET.

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia Canada. – Tune in every Saturday at 6am.

Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.

CORTES COMMUNITY RADIO CKTZ  89.5 out of Manson’s Landing, B.C airs the show Tuesday mornings at 10am Pacific time.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 6am pacific time.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday Morning from 8:00 to 9:00am. Find more details at www.caperradio.ca 

Stories from Syrians are conspicuously absent from mainstream propaganda stories. 

I asked Ammar about life in Syria, and this is what he wrote:

“As everyday morning my sister was going to the university when a bloody Takfiri Salafi Wahhabi suicide bomber blew up bomb car at the bus stop which led to the martyrdom and injury of many civilians and university students who were going to their exams , after 10 minutes another suicide bomber blew up himself at the same place taking advantage of the gathering of people and ambulance teams, usually when a terror attack happens we call all family members and friends to make sure they all are ok . but this time no one answered! Then we started looking for her in hospitals . . . the shock was in the bloody views there ; many burned bodies and human body parts were on the ground , there i saw my sister a body without soul . . .” 

Almost every new story from the West demonizes Vladimir Putin.  Ammar, however, has direct contact with Russian agencies.  This is his assessment.

“about Russian aid , I see the biggest humanitarian aid provided by our Russian brothers is fighting the US NATO founded brutal terrorism and supporting Syrian armed forces against western backed barbarian terrorism as well standing with Syria in International forums furthermore the Russian aid for in need Syrian civilians represented in food like rice , sugar , tea , canned meat and fish and medical aid that includes medicines, emergency medical supplies, antibiotics and medical products for the treatment of a variety of diseases as well they brought a doctors who made physical check up to needy people. these aid were distributed directly by Russians to needy people thanks to American European sanctions against Syrian people and against Syrian economy , prices got so expensive , economical situation became harder, targeting Syrian infra structures by the illegal US-led coalition aircrafts also Looting and theft Syrian industrial plants and then Sold cheaply to Turkey by their mercenaries. All these reasons increased the suffering of Syrian people moreover targeting Syrian central bank and Syrian pound caused to lose a lot of Syrian pound purchasing value.”

The West demonizes the Syrian government, and invariably praises the mercenary terrorists, or confuses the narrative to protect the terrorists.  This is Amman’s assessment.

“about Syrian government we support the policy of national reconciliation as we stand with reformation against corruption and secularism against the criminal Salafi Takfiri Wahhabi logic we hope the government gives more support to Syrian armed forces

about the Russian assistance I see it saves the Syrian state and re-balance the world after the USA’s domination on the world

Israel still occupies the Syrian Golan heights , still gives Al Qaeda terrorists medical treatment and allows them to use occupied lands to fight against Syrian army many times Israeli airforce participated the fight directly supporting Al Qaeda militants represented by Jabhat Al Nusra and bombed Syrian army sites in the south trying to overthrow Syrian state.

USA is the mastermind and the main planner of war in Syria from the first day USA took the role of Al Qaeda attorney in security council US intervention and its policy are the main reason of Syrian war they founded ,armed and backed terrorists groups in Syria , and created military training camps for those mercenaries in Jordan and Turkey and used them in this proxy war ,USA is supporting Al Qaeda and the other brutal terror groups and recently USA gave ISIS an air cover by targeting Syrian army in Deir Ezzor which allow to ISIS to capture strategic mountain also , yes it seems ISIS has an air force named US Air Force ! USA lied about Iraq, lied about Libya and it is lying about Syria Does bombing Syrian infra structures ( bridges , electricity plants and oil fields . . . ) considered fighting terrorism !!?

NATO and oil-rich Gulf states are just a puppets, tails and slaves to their American master they only implement American orders in collecting,arming ,backing funding mercenaries from all over the world and sending them to fight against Syrians , plus using their media to spread hatred and loathing against minorities (in the are) and distortion facts these rotten chiefdoms want to impose Sharia Law.”

To conclude, Ammar remains defiant.

“Syria remains steadfast facing the worst history wars and became the battleground of the whole world, Aggression against my country is converting from proxy war to originality war represented by Turkish invasion , Israeli airstrikes and US-led coalition airstrikes against Syria all that means that proxies still failing , Syria still winning I say to US and its proxies conquering colonization is the faith of Syria along history you did not read our history ! All previous colonial powers were crashed at the gates of Syria as we put French colonialism and Ottoman colonialism in the dustbin of history, we are going to do the same :-)”

The real story about Syria has been fully documented by Western sources for years.  Ammar’s story brings the truth to the forefront, as it pierces the fog of mainstream media stories, whose sole, unstated purpose, is to create globalized war, misery, and poverty.

California Bernie Sanders Delegate from District 34, Eden McFadden, recorded a video from inside of the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in which she talks about – and shows – how the DNC is rigged against Bernie supporters and delegates, in favor of Hillary Clinton. This was a suspicion held by many on the outside looking in, fueled by Craigslist ads looking for actors to work at the convention to cheer in the audience, but without much more proof than that, which is pretty thin, honestly.

But then, Miss McFadden came along and recorded around 15 to 20 minutes of great video. First, Bernie delegates were held from being seated before others. According to McFadden, they were told that it was not time to seat for anyone yet, and when they were finally let in to seat, there were people already there, seated.

Second, there were white sheets of paper affixed to many seats which were marked “reserved” … for people that she describes as “seat fillers” who were being paid $50 per day. They were being paid to be instructed by pro-Hillary forces to oppose Bernie supporters. When the Bernie supporters cheer, the Hillary people were instructed to cheer louder to drown them out.

Third, there were sound-canceling devices mounted above the sections where Bernie Sanders delegates and supporters were to be sitting. McFadden referred to them as “white noise machines.” The obvious goal here is to silence Bernie Sanders supporters and/or anyone upset with the #DNCLeak situation. Bernie Sanders may have crazy ideas, but the United States is supposed to be a place where even the craziest of people should be allowed to be heard if people want to hear them.

The DNC has, time and time again, shown that their level of corruption has no boundaries. The nomination has already been handed to Hillary, so what else do they want? Maybe they want to paint the illusion of a unified Democrat party, rather than the reality which is a fractured and damaged party, that is in big trouble and will lose come election time in November.

If you want to support me to continue to crank out these videos, please visit my website
http://www.anthonyblogan.com/contact/ and click on that donate button for me!

Bombshell: CDC commits new vaccine-autism crime

CDC won’t allow its own whistleblower to testify in vaccine-damage case

Here are the bones of the story. For the first time in 30 years, a vaccine-damage case has gone before a court judge. Lawyers for a 16-year-old autistic boy are suing a medical clinic for administering vaccines that brought about the autism. The CDC, of course, denies any connection between vaccines and autism. But one of its own long-time researchers, William Thompson, has publicly confessed to fraud in that area. Thompson states that he and his colleagues concealed research data that would have shown the MMR vaccine and mercury-laden vaccines do cause autism. The lawyers for the 16-year-old boy want to bring in Thompson to testify about what he knows. The CDC has said NO. The head of the CDC, Thomas Frieden, states, “Dr. William Thompson’s deposition testimony would not substantially promote the objectives of CDC or HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services].”

Well, he’s right, because the CDC is the PR arm of the vaccine industry. The CDC is a major purchaser of vaccines for the US federal government. If this boy won his case, other cases would follow. The potential monetary exposure in judgments? A trillion dollars or more.

Ecowatch.com has the details:

“The medical malpractice case seeking Dr. Thompson’s testimony is on behalf of 16-year-old Yates Hazlehurst. The lawsuit alleges that Yates is autistic as a result of vaccine injuries, which occurred when the vaccines were improperly administered in 2001. Because of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Act of 1986 (VICA), Hazlehurst v. The Jackson Clinic is the only vaccine injury case that has gone to any U.S. court in 30 years.”

“Dr. Thompson wants to reveal the scientific fraud and destruction of evidence that took place in the studies that he co-authored. However, in accordance with the Whistle Blower Protection Act and other federal regulations, Dr. Thompson can not testify under oath without the permission of the director of the CDC, Dr. Thomas Frieden.”

“The request on behalf of Hazlehurst specifically relates to the issue of causation, i.e. the issue of whether vaccines can cause autism, which the State of Tennessee Circuit Court Judge found to be both relevant and a proper basis for seeking the deposition of Dr. Thompson.”

“Judge Acree ordered on Feb. 5 that Dr. Thompson should be deposed. Following Judge’s Acree’s ruling, Smith [Bryan Smith, the boy’s attorney] filed a formal request to CDC to make Thompson available for deposition and trial testimony.”

“On Sept. 22, in a letter from CDC Director Thomas Freiden, CDC denied Smith’s request. Smith explained that ‘this denial was a disappointment but not a surprise, since the inescapable implication of Dr. Thompson’s testimony is that the agency fraudulently altered the science to undermine autism cases worth potentially $1 trillion in compensation ordered by Congress’.”

“Smith and Kennedy [Robert F Kennedy, Jr., the boy’s other attorney] plan to immediately appeal the CDC’s denial to federal court.”

William Thompson, the CDC whistleblower, is the subject of the film Vaxxed. Thompson has admitted publicly that he and his CDC colleagues literally threw damning data into a garbage can, to avoid reaching the conclusion, in a 2004 study, that the MMR vaccine raises the risk of autism in children.

His testimony in court would be explosive, to say the least.

Since he is still employed by the CDC, his bosses can keep him out of court. They can muzzle him. They can threaten him. No doubt, Thompson has also signed non-disclosure agreements with the Agency.

How far would the federal government go to silence Thompson, who could open a Pandora’s box containing a trillion dollars in potential judgements? All the way is the obvious answer.

The implications of Thompson’s testimony involve much more than money: the massive destruction of lives through vaccinations. That is ultimately the crime of crimes at the bottom of the cover-up.

And the CDC would be rightly seen as a primary agent in both the crimes and the cover-up.

If the US Department of Justice had any sense of honor, or courage, scores of CDC employees would be in jail right now.

And if major media outlets had any sense of honor, or courage, they would be swarming all over the CDC, hammering on many employees and obtaining confessions from them, releasing the rank truth about vaccines from the Agency’s offices and labs of shame.

Jon Rappoport is the author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

The passing of Thailand’s King Bhumibol Adulyadej marks a historical, cultural, and geopolitical event of yet unknown proportions. His time as Thailand’s head of state spanned decades, and the stabilizing progressive nature of his reign has transformed Thailand into an economically and culturally significant center of power within Southeast Asia and in Asia itself.

With his passing, the Western media, long attempting to undermine him in life, took the opportunity to defame him in death, claiming he resided over a “divided” nation bound to unravel with his passing.

They also took the opportunity to defame and distort the character of King Bhumibol Adulyadej’s heir, Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn.  Despite the baseless gossip and speculation about the Prince’s private life, his public life has been marked with distinction in service to the nation, serving as a special forces operator in combat along Thailand’s borders, a trained pilot, and a regular figure presiding over public functions.

Like his father, the Prince’s role in Thai society is not determined by the Western media and the perception they dishonestly try to foster before their intentionally ill-informed audiences, but by the Thai people themselves. And during the days of mourning following the late King’s death, it has become abundantly clear that the vast majority of Thais are committed to preserving their ancient institutions, understanding them by far more deeply than the Western media has presented.

Undeterred, the West, and the United States specifically, seeks an opportunity to disrupt and destabilize Southeast Asia as a means of disrupting China’s growing influence in the region as well as Beijing’s growing ties to its regional neighbors.

Already cultivating opposition fronts and faux-nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) region wide, funded by the US State Department itself, the US believes that Thailand is experiencing a vulnerable moment of weakness it can use to create a domino effect of destabilization across the entire region.

The CFR “Sees” Instability Coming, or Advocates it?   

US corporate-financier funded Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Joshua Kurlantzick fashions himself a geopolitical analyst.  However he has been categorically wrong about virtually every paper he has written while “analyzing” and “predicting” the course of events in his area of specialty, Southeast Asia.

And while he may fashion himself as an analyst for whatever reason, it is clear that he is instead a policy advocate as well as a reliable bellwether for US attempts to destabilize various states in Southeast Asia.

In his most recent paper, “Thailand’s New Uncertainty,” he “predicts” that Thailand’s current transition will lead to wider instability across Asia. In his paper, he claims:

Bhumibol’s death further destabilizes an already unstable region. Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak is mired in a corruption scandal, while former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad recently founded a new political party, which may ally itself with longtime opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim’s party, despite Mahathir having once purged Ibrahim from the government. Until national elections, Malaysian politics will likely get messier, and potentially more repressive.

In the Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte, in power since June, has sent shockwaves across Southeast Asia by denouncing the US, inching closer to China, and calling for the end to American-Philippine joint military exercises. Moreover, Duterte has launched a drug war that has brought on a wave of extrajudicial killings.

Kurlantzick predicates his entire analysis regarding Thailand on the demonstrably false narrative of a “divided” Thailand featuring the” rural poor” constituting an aspiring majority on one side, and an “elitist” minority clinging to power on the other.

Both in 2011 and again in 2013-2014, Kurlantzick’s narrative was put to the test and failed both times. In 2011, elections may have propelled the sister of US-backed, ousted ex-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra into power, but election results revealed that Shinawatra’s party failed to receive even a popular majority, and out of all eligible voters, fewer than 35% of the voting population cast votes in favor of him.

While the Western media repeatedly portrays Thailand’s opposition as a “majority,” in reality, they are a violent, unpopular, but load minority. Without the US financial, political, and media backing, they would not exist.

In 2013-2014 when massive street protests sought the ousting of Shianwatra’s sister who openly ruled as a proxy for her brother, Shinawatra failed to produce an equal or greater number of protesters to secure his sister’s political power.

In reality, Kurlantzick’s “opposition” constitutes a violent, unpopular, but load minority, feared for their proclivity toward terrorism, and reviled for their disruptive behavior. Like other US-backed opposition fronts in the region and around the world, they are only made to appear a “majority” through the influence of the Western media and the financial support of the US government.

It should be noted that Kurlantzick is not a lone voice repeating this narrative. It has been repeated ad naseum for years across the entirety of the Western media, and with the King’s passing, amplified even greater.

Asian Instability, A Parting Gift From a Waning Empire 

If Asia is to be destabilized “serendipitously” in service of American desires to disrupt and roll back China’s growing influence as well as a trend toward greater regional independence from Asia’s Transpacific neighbor, it will be a product of not genuine internal strife across the region, but a manifestation of US-backed political parties, US-funded NGOs and media organizations, and the Western media itself sowing ignorance, fear, and division among all who read and believe their message.

US seeks instability across Southeast Asia as means of serving its larger agenda of undermining and rolling back China’s influence in the Asian Pacific region and in the world.

For Asia to ensure stability to not only preserve economic growth, but as a matter of regional and respective national security, greater effort must be placed in reining in foreign-funded NGOs, regulating a foreign media increasingly engaged in open lobbying rather than journalism, and efforts to displace them with superior, effective media networks serving national and regional interests rather than aspiring toward Western approval and integration.

The United States is engaged in increasingly dangerous behavior worldwide as the boundaries of its global-spanning hegemony chaff against multiple emerging regional and world powers. For Asia, and having witnessed the cost of inviting regional instability in North Africa and the Middle East, there is no choice but to take what steps are necessary to head off this agenda before it is even set in motion.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook”.

Russia has decided to extend the humanitarian pause around Aleppo for another 24 hours, the Russian defense minister said. The move was supported by the Syrian government.

Meanwhile, US-backed oppositioneers shelled humanitarian corridors opened in eastern Aleppo for civilians that want to leave the city. In total, militants killed 14 local officials and wounded three Russian officers on the first day of the pause. There is no confirmed information about the casualties among locals.

After the end of the humanitarian pause in the Syrian city of Aleppo, Moscow and Damascus will continue its military operations in Aleppo.

The Syrian Defense Ministry announced Thursday that it will down any Turkish warplane that enters Syrian airspace without approval from Damascus.

The announcement followed intense Turkish air strikes on Kurdish YPG units in northern Aleppo that allegedly killed some 200 YPG fighters. Firefights are ongoing between Turkish-backed militants and the Kurdish YPG in the area of Tell Rifaat. Both sides are seeking to set a foothold for advance on the strategic ISIS-controlled town of Al-Bab.

Jaish Al-Islam allegedly reached an agreement with the government and will surrender the strategic town of Douma in Eastern Ghouta. These reports appeared amid a series of setbacks suffered by the militants in the region. The Syrian army is now deployed in a striking distance from the town. The situation with the alleged deal will become clear in coming days.

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

The missile attack on a US ship off the coast of Yemen was a major news event, but the subsequent follow up story, that it may never have happened, was either ignored by mainstream media or intentionally covered up. The whole thing has the same odor as the Gulf of Tonkin incident that never occurred.

Does history repeat itself?  Sure does seem like it. That is if you compare America’s entry into the Vietnam civil war, with America’s latest entry into the war in Yemen.

Don’t be mistaken, we have been at war with Yemen for a year now. America sided with the most oppressive government in the world, Saudi Arabia, in attacking and pounding Yemeni schools, funeral parlors, and hospitals, for well over a year.  This war could not have happened without a wink and a nod from the US, and the arming of the Saudis’ with US weapons.

In addition to providing the Saudi’s with weapons, we also provide mid-air refueling and have delivered 40 million pounds of jet fuel over the past 18 months, thus enabling the devastating bombings of civilian facilities. The US used a cease fire in Yemen to re-arm the Saudi’s, who were running out of bombs and weapons, we provided the targeting information, ground maintenance of aircraft, and of course the wink and nod to go ahead, which unleashed this humanitarian disaster.

So here we have Saudi Arabia, one of the wealthiest but most oppressive governments’ in the world, a supporter of terrorists in Syria and around the world, attacking one of the poorest nations on earth. According to a leaked Hillary Clinton e-mail, she is fully aware that Saudi Arabia sponsors terrorists in Syria, but still the go ahead wink to the Saudis.  Now that we and the Saudi’s have destroyed everything in Yemen with bombs, we are helping the Saudi’s maintain a blockade, preventing food and medical supplies from reaching the Yemeni people, which by some estimates, have already cost the lives of 10,000 children under the age of 5.

All that however, was not enough for the US.  Now we have actively entered the shooting war, based on yet another possible ruse by our government. The US Navy claimed they were attacked by Houthi missiles from somewhere in Yemen, and promptly launched Tomahawk missiles at a cost of $1.5 million  per missile, in revenge.  Some suggest we took out radar installations with our Tomahawk missiles.

But hold the phone, two days later the US military very quietly announced they are not sure if there was a missile attack at all. Yup you got it.

Image right: USS Mason

Did you hear that story on mainstream media? Of course not. It appears that no one saw the missiles from Yemen, nothing was hit by missiles, and there was no corroboration from other ships in the area. The Houthis’ denied they had anything to do with the alleged attack.  The US very quietly admitted, perhaps it was all about “ghost radar images”, and there never were any missiles.  This story was completely ignored by mainstream media. Supposedly, whether the attack occurred is being investigated by the military, and there will be a report coming, but don’t wait up for the late-night news to hear the results of the pending report.  It might never come, or if it does, would you believe a report where the military is investigating itself?

So what does this have to do with history repeating itself?

Some may remember the Vietnam War, where the US entered a civil war on the other side of the globe, based on an alleged “attack” by North Vietnam on a US navy ship. There was never any sighting of the attacker, there was never any damage by the attack, and we know now, years later, that there was never any such attack. Sound familiar? It all was due to false readings and ghost images on radar screens. The alleged attack took place in the Gulf of Tonkin. Quickly the US Congress, rushed to get involved in Vietnam’s civil war by seeking revenge for an attack that never happened. It passed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which authorized the US president to get revenge. America’s entry into the Vietnam civil war lasted 10 years, and cost the lives of approximately 55,000 US soldiers, and about 3 million Southeast Asians. That’s correct 3 million lives! We attacked this past week with no discussion, debate, or consent by Congress. Like the cowards they are, Congress never said a word, but stuck their heads deep in the sand. The President, now has the power to do such things, and the Constitution in that regard is irrelevant.

How many years will the war with Yemen last?  How many will be killed?  Why are we fighting Yemen? Why has Saudi Arabia attacked Yemen?  Will there be blowback from Yemen in the future, or do you feel the innocent Yemeni’s will simply lie down and die quietly? And the last quiz question of the day: Name the countries the US is currently bombing.

Joe Clifford lives in Jamestown, RI and writes for several online news outlets. His focus is US foreign policy.

While you slept last night, a draft resolution by the Committee of the European Parliament (EP) foreign Affairs approved on Monday threatens press freedom across Europe. The draft entitled; “Strategic communication of the EU as a counter-propaganda of the third parties,” states that Russia is waging an information war against the EU.

The document goes on to say that aid that Russia:

“Aggressively uses a wide range of tools and instruments, in particular, the special funds (“Russian World”), multilingual TV channels (Russia Today, RIA Novosti), news Agency (Sputnik), social and religious associations (including the Orthodox Church), and social media and Internet trolls to attack Western values, promote disengagement in Europe, and domestic support and create the impression that the Eastern partnership countries are failed.”

Furthermore, the committee suggests a global EU strategy to combat propaganda by the third countries, calling for the EU to incorporate strategic communication into their activities and create the structure of the European external action service, a specialized unit with the “adequate staff and budget resources.” The move essentially calls for steps to create a “counter propaganda” unit replete with propaganda training for journalists and organizations. The move reminds of when Google created the so-called Digital News Initiative (“DNI”), a partnership with the European newspapers; Les Echos, FAZ, The Financial Times, The Guardian, NRC Media,  El Pais, La Stampa and Die Zeit, where $150 million went toward a similar initiative. Of course, Google’s millions were not earmarked “reverse propaganda,” but the end was the same. Looking at how the money dispersed brings to mind George Soros and his various Open Societies programs. Enough about the greater scope, let’s continue with the Poland initiative.

The original draft was prepared by Polish Deputy, Anna Fotyga, who is the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of her country. Interestingly, this is the same person who was dismissed and then reinstated (a trick maneuver) from her post for pursuing a policy of isolation about Russia and Germany back in 2006. Pertinent names and NGOs to associate with her include: Lyudmyla Kozlovska – the founder of Open Dialogue Foundation, which is further linked to  Open Society Foundations; Artur Deska, who participated in both the Orange Revolution and EuroMaidan;

NATO by virtue of her position as chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Security and Defense (SEDE); Bush Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; and many others acutely involved in a protracted Cold War billed as new détente. Whether Fotyga is some hapless “yes girl” for those that control NATO or not, the long-term planning of the overall foreign policy is undeniable. I am of the opinion now, the US and European leadership had no intentions whatever of normalizing relations with Russia. NATO and the US hegemony was full active all along.

This WikiLeaks document sheds light on just who Anna Fotyga is. An assessment sent to the Secretary of State | U.S. Mission to the European Union (formerly EC) (Brussels) describes Fotyga’s office as the “black hole” where decisions go to die, and goes on to frame the diplomat as the incessant suckling to President Lech Kaczynski, for her relentless questioning of every decision.

The overall assessment suggests the ministry was demoralized under her reign. Another cable hints at how the Bush administration may have been using the Polish politicians to play on Russia. This communiqué by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary Rumsfeld shows clearly of the intention to install the U.S. Missile Defense systems in Poland, and how the American administration was monitoring closely the Kremlin’s “temperature” on such matters. The point possibly being, the US wanted ordinary or “soft” Polish FM people in place so that Russia’s Lavrov and others might not focus narrowly there. Of course, this is just a perception, but the title of the cable gives it away.”Russian FM Lavrov in Poland: A Soft Touch, Except for Georgia and Iran”, betrays insolence and diversionary tactics.

As we can begin to see, these policy moves are not overnight decisions based on the Syria situation, nor on events as far removed as the Ukraine-Crimea split. My Dutch colleague, Holger Eekhof explains:

“The decision in Brussels this week has nothing to do with RT & Sputnik. The implementation of such a “civil initiative” follows directly the guideline, for the NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence (Stratcom), and the initiative to reinvent NATO in 2003.”

This action is fast forward in the most recent version Volume 1, Version 1, Winter 2015. As Eekhof suggests, the Pentagon and NATO have planned all this in cooperation with these European leaders for over a decade. Now, as Critics claim the ruling Law and Justice (PiS) Party in Poland is curbing democratic checks and balances and putting Poland’s membership in the European Union at risk, the common enemy has to be Russia.

To break it all down, Brussels is not in deliberations over the next phase of a pan-American plan to further engage Russia by making Europe more dependent than ever. The Chiefs in the Commission are not only planning a civil arm of NATO to create its propaganda arm, Fotyga, and the others have already recommended the European Endowment for Democracy as the source of the new propaganda media. As crazy as that sounds, the fact that the head of the EED, Elmar Brok, and the others will be paying themselves to create their propaganda wing is amazing. You read that correctly, one of the most influential policymakers in Europe is the chief of the entity this draft suggests should create “new propaganda media.” Elmar Brok, for those unfamiliar, is one of the keys to forcing the Ukraine to decide (or not) on the EU association contract.

So, NATO and the US satraps in Europe, along with money interests abroad, are moving into the next phase of warfare against Russia. Furthermore, the unwitting European citizens have absolutely no clue as to how their futures are being inextricably tied to the US once more. A nation nearby is proclaimed the enemy once again, while a far of hegemony exerts immense pressure for gain, both strategically and economically.

Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Nigerians should be very careful with what is being proposed by USAID to Northern governors because USAID is illegally distributing GMO seeds (deceptively called improved seedlings) to IDPs to plant so that Monsanto and its partners will capture the food security of the Northeast of Nigeria.

The GMOs do not replicate (i.e. they undermine the reproduction of the agricultural cycle) so that after the first planting seasons the biotech agribusiness conglomerates will capture the seed chain supply first as aid and then they will own the  entire food security of Nigeria.

The problem is that it has not been understood that the biotechnology companies are the main sponsors of Boko Haram hired to drive away farmers and replace their crops with GMO seeds and permanently enslave and impoverish Nigeria.

USAID Propaganda  at https://feedthefuture.gov/progress2016/timeline

According to the Kissinger Maxim “Control the food and you control the people”.

The ignorance and naivety of some leaders is what is permitting this. There is a realisation of this by the Federal government hence the US government is making desperate efforts to sideline the FG. The Press must inform Nigerians. The Minister of FMARD Audu Ogbeh must be resolute that we do not plant these GMO crops.

In a joint conference of experts of Christian and Islamic Scientists under the Nigerian Inter-Religious Council (NIREC), this matter was declared to be of urgent NATIONAL SECURITY!

Academician Prof Dr Philip Njemanze MD Chairman Global Prolife Alliance. Nigeria

Thanks to Vladimir Ivanenko for bringing this text to our attention
[email protected]

Last weekend, farmers, scientists and activists from all over the world gathered at the Monsanto Tribunal in The Hague, Netherlands, to present the case against destruction caused by one of the corporate giants that promotes industrial farming.

The symbolic Monsanto Tribunal aimed to hold Monsanto—the giant agrochemical company—to account for its alleged atrocities against humanity and the environment.

This event is far from over. It will echo back through the food system as the tribunal’s participants bring home lessons, solutions and renewed hope for change.

 First day of the tribunal, judges Tulkens (left) and Dior Fall Sow.Greenpeace

Five internationally renowned judges heard 30 witnesses. Experts gave their accounts of the environmental damage wrought by Monsanto. One testimony described how monoculture has caused a great loss to seed variety. They compared the patenting of seeds to a new form of colonization.

 Seng Channeang, Cambodian small-scale farmer.Greenpeace

These testimonies will give people all over the world a well-documented legal brief to be used in lawsuits against other similar corporations.

“Although this is not legally binding, it is legally sound,” said Arnaud Apoteker, member of the steering committee of the tribunal. “The witnesses were presenting real cases to real judges. The lessons from this event can be used in ensuing local battles.”

One of the 30 witnesses, Feliciano Ucam Poot, a Mayan farmer from Mexico, submitted evidence to support his allegations that glyphosate and other chemicals are linked to children’s sickness.

“Before the introduction of glyphosate and other agrochemicals, I did not see our people suffer from sickness like this,” he said. “A lot of people are suffering like us and this tribunal will ensure that our stories will be heard around the world.”

 Scene from the Monsanto Tribunal Press Conference on Oct. 15.Greenpeace

Do we need these agrochemicals to feed the world? A question asked of Hans Herren, a renowned scientist and president of the Millennium Institute at the Monsanto Tribunal. “By producing less waste we can feed 10 million people. We need to make more health per acre, not calories per acre,” he said.

Running parallel to the tribunal hearings was a People’s Assembly, where people from around the world discussed solutions to the impacts caused by industrial agriculture. As many of the witnesses pointed out, one of the greatest challenges they face is to make their voices heard. This assembly provided a much needed forum for communities to come together and find sustainable solutions to common problems.

 The People’s Assembly, The Hague.Greenpeace

“We should fight for ourselves. Nobody is free from danger if our food is toxic,” said Farida Akhter of UBINIG (Policy Research for Development Alternatives), Bangladesh.

The stories of people like Feliciano and the concerns of Farida are echoed by millions of voices from across the world; from beekeepers in Mexico to small scale producers in France and farmers in India.

The judges of the tribunal will assess these allegations, examine all evidence put forth and publish their findings in December.

 Judges at the Monsanto Tribunal.Greenpeace

These issues aren’t limited to farmers and environmentalists—they concern us all. We all have a choice: As citizens and consumers, we can all make decisions to shape the future we want.

Here are 12 things you can do to start the eco-food revolution.

Watcharapol Daengsubha is a food and ecological agriculture campaigner with Greenpeace Southeast Asia.

From an interview with the Syrian President Bashar Assad by the Swiss SRF 1 TV Channel published October 19 2016:

Journalist: This young boy has become the symbol of the war. I think that you know this picture.

President Assad: Of course I saw it.Journalist: His name is Omran. Five years old.

President Assad: Yeah.

Journalist: Covered with blood, scared, traumatized. Is there anything you would like to say to Omran and his family?

President Assad: There’s something I would like to say to you first of all, because I want you to go back after my interview, and go to the internet to see the same picture of the same child, with his sister, both were rescued by what they call them in the West “White Helmets” which is a facelift of al-Nusra in Aleppo. They were rescued twice, each one in a different incident, and just as part of the publicity of those White Helmets. None of these incidents were true. You can have it manipulated, and it is manipulated. I’m going to send you those two pictures, and they are on the internet, just to see that this is a forged picture, not a real one. We have real pictures of children being harmed, but this one in specific is a forged one.

Assad was half wrong. The picture, printed on page 1 of newspapers all over the “western” world, was not “forged”. It is a real picture from a White Helmet “rescue” video distributed by the Aleppo Media Center (AMC) (which is funded by the French French Ministry of Foreign Affairs). But the scene was carefully staged and we immediately recognized it as staged when it appeared. It was staged like many other “rescue” scenes with “kids saved” by the U.S./UK/D/J/NL financed White Helmets and their associated media.

Look for yourself, trust your eyes.

The “boy in an ambulance” scene features two identifiable kids. Omran and his sister.

Below are pictures of what we believe are the same kids in different scenes.

Here is the girl at another occasion. We will call this scene 1:

The Houston Chronicle reported about this scene and the picture carries this caption:

An 8-year-old girl named Aya calls out for her father after an airstrike in Syrian on Monday, Oct. 10, 2016.

Another picture from the same Chronicle spread:

This combined one is captioned:

Left: 8-year-old Aya in her everyday life in Syria. Right: 8-year-old Aya after an airstrike in Syria.

Notice the age as well as the girl’s favorite colors – light turquoise and pink. Compared to the left picture the hair on the right looks powdered and artificially teased. While there is trickle of “blood” on her face and on her dress no wound is visible.

The Chronicle story is sourced to CNN which includes a short (staged) video and adds:

The video and images were posted online by a pro-opposition activist group, Talbiseh Media Center.It shows an 8-year-old girl in a medical facility, her hair and body covered with dust. There’s blood tricking down her forehead, her nose. She looks confused and scared and keeps calling out for her father.
…
Aya was pulled from under rubble along with her family members when an airstrike hit their home in Talbiseh on Monday. Talbiseh, a large town in northwestern Syria, is about 10 kilometers north of Homs.

A screenshot detail from the video:

The “blood” looks remarkably glossy, unlike natural blood which dries and looks dull pretty fast. The uni-color shirt the girl wears has no arms.

Now the same girl in a different “rescue” scene. We will call this scene 2.

The truck in the background has a “White Helmets” logo on the door.

A detail of the above picture. It is the same girl as in scene 1. The hair again seems powdered and teased:

Notice: Same habitus, same appearance, same wild hair as in scene 1; no visible wounds; turquoise shirt but with short arms; jeans with glitter

Here is the girl at scene 2 in an ambulance:

Same shirt and pants as above, no wounds, no pain and not attended to by anybody. Compare this with the video capture of scene 1 the Chronicle and CNN reported on. We strongly believe it is the same girl.

Now what seems to be a different take of scene 2. A “White Helmet” carries the girl and a boy. Notice the same clothing as in the other scene 2 pics above. The pic as well as some of the above from scene 2 was running in the Daily Mail on August 27. The incident is claimed to be the aftermath of a “barrel bombing” in the Bab al-Nairab neighborhood in east-Aleppo.

Why would two different men carry and “rescue” the girl. She, like the boy, looks fine – same cloth as above, no wounds, no damage to the extremities, no crying – just curiosity.

A detail of the faces in that picture:

A detail of the boy’s face:

Now to the “boy in an ambulance” scene. The boy and the reportedly 8-year old girl on August 17 in the Qaterji neighborhood in east Aleppo introduced as “Omran Daqneesh and his sister.” (pic source):

The just “rescued” kids sit quietly but completely unattended to in a brand-new €100,000 ambulance. No shock therapy was initiated, no Trendelberg position or at least laying down flat. No one talks to them despite half a dozen photographers being around them.

Details of the kids – here the boy has the powdered and teased “wild hair” look.

Are these the same kids as in scene 2 above?

President Assad believes they are.

We agree. We also believe that all three scenes above are staged. The girl is the same in all three scenes. Her younger brother appears in scene 2 and 3. The White Helmets apparently “rescued” the girl in three different incidents on or about August 17, August 27 and October 10 in three different locations.

Isn’t that a remarkably elysian miracle?

Or is it all part of the serial production of elaborately staged anti-Syrian propaganda? Delivered by a marketing organization (vid) funded by “western” governments and various similar financed opposition “media organizations”.

Trust your eyes.

Khartoum, Sudan.

Do Americans have a memory?  I sometimes wonder.

It is an obvious fact that the oligarchic One Percent have anointed Hillary, despite her myriad problems to be President of the US.  There are reports that her staff are already moving into their White House offices.

This much confidence before the vote does suggest that the skids have been greased.

The current cause celebre against Trump is his conditional statement that he might not accept the election results if they appear to have been rigged. The presstitutes immediately jumped on him for “discrediting American democracy” and for “breaking American tradition of accepting the people’s will.”

What nonsense! Stolen elections are the American tradition.  Elections are stolen at every level—state, local, and federal.  Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley’s theft of the Chicago and, thereby, Illinois vote for John F. Kennedy is legendary.  The Republican US Supreme Court’s theft of the 2000 presidential election from Al Gore by preventing the Florida vote recount is another legendary example. The discrepancies between exit polls and the vote count of the secretly programmed electronic voting machines that have no paper trails are also legendary.

So what’s the big deal about Trump’s suspicion of election rigging?

The black civil rights movement has fought vote rigging for decades. The rigging takes place in a number of ways. Blacks simply can’t get registered to vote.  If they do get registered, there are few polling places in their districts.  And so on.  After decades of struggle it is impossible that there any blacks who are not aware of how hard it can be for them to vote.  Yet, I heard on the presstitute radio network, NPR, Hillary’s Uncle Toms saying how awful it was that Trump had cast aspersion on the credibility of American election results.

I also heard a NPR announcer suggest that Russia had not only hacked Hillary’s emails, but also had altered them in order to make incriminating documents out of harmless emails.

The presstitutes have gone all out to demonize both Trump and any mention of election rigging, because they know for a fact that the election will be stolen and that they will have the job of covering up the theft.

 www.paulcraigroberts.org

“We live in a country where the Hamburglar can freely walk down the street, but Ronald McDonald can’t.” Twitter post by ‘BH’, Oct 12, 2016.

They were always perfect as a foil to the criminal and dysfunctional outsider, with smile grotesque, garish mask, and nose obscenely red. The clown, in history, has often proved to be a fairly revolting creature, acting as both channel and code.

Through history, a vicious clown is an external manifestation of broader ill, a figure whose smile is discomforting rather than reassuring.  Fun, in short, had nothing to do with it.  What mattered was cultural necessity and illumination.  Some Native American tribes, by way of example, adapted the dreaded “white fool” ever in opposition to the venerable Big Chief, a cultural contrast to elevate a necessarily superior position.

In its European context, few come close to the manifestation of modern darkness than Ruggero Leoncavallo’s Pagliacci, which does its best to inscribe the vengeful clown into broader cultural consciousness.  “La commedia è finita!” remains one of the more known lines in any opera, an ironic reflection that the modern clown entertainer should appreciate.  This outburst on the part of the clown Canio takes place after he butchers his wife Nedda and lover Silvio, giving the performance its zesty finality.

Modern working conditions, however, have made the occupation of a clown entertainer a difficult one.  For aficionados of the clown cult, there are rules and guidelines, a necessary code of conduct. Not all can take such a path. Merely putting on a grotesque mask, for instance, is not regarded as passing muster.

As Randy Christensen, president of the World Clown Association explained, “People dressed as horror clowns are not ‘real clowns…’ they are taking something innocent and wholesome and perverting it to create a fear in their audience.”

This erroneous point by Christensen has been challenged by what has become something of a convenient tautology – the “creepy clown craze” which has been reported as leaving “legitimate entertainers short of work and in some cases afraid of leaving the house.”[1]

Having first been reported in the United States during August, the phenomenon of such “scary clowns” was quickly spurred on by the infectious encouragement of social media.  Plant the seed in that particular stream, and it is bound to replicate exponentially. All it took was a group dressed as clowns in South Carolina who supposedly attempted luring children into the woods.  Creepy indeed.

Several countries then had sightings.  From the US, the phenomenon found its way to Brazil and Australia.  In the latter case, the quiet country town of Moe in Victoria witnessed a “creepy clown” at its McDonald’s outlet this month.

Victoria police confirmed to the press that a 23-year old man had been arrested, possibly the same clown who had been waving an axe at cars exiting the drive-through of that particular establishment. Related charges involved the use of weapons, assault, public order and “disguise-related” offences.[2]

Even the police statement would have brought sniggers.  “We understand that some people are getting involved in a bit of fun, however this arrest is a timely reminder that this behaviour is not amusing, and in many instances, it is criminal behaviour.”

A spate of sightings have also been made in the UK.  This has seen a spike of police patrols outside schools, and the prompting of removals of clown masks from fancy dress shops.[3]  The World Clown Association, with a membership of 2,000 in 30 countries, claimed rather gruffly that it had to issue various safety guidelines for those in the business of clowning, fearing vigilante retribution from angry mobs.

Performer Cyrus Zavieh admitted to the AP a certain degree of fear – from mob driven violence.  “It’s definitely a scary feeling leaving your house and you fear you are going to get jumped because you’re dressed as a clown.”  Ever the idealist, Zavieh was hoping to simply make his customers “happy” and “make them have some fun, and now they are saying, ‘Aaaagghh!’”

As a reaction to this particular clown craze, the monster mascot of fast-food fame, Ronald McDonald, has had to minimise his appearances in some countries.  McDonald’s in New York told the Associated Press that it was being “thoughtful in respect to Ronald McDonald’s participation in community events” given the “current climate around clown sightings in communities.”  Opinion on the subject is divided: should Ronald be hidden from view, or be permitted his usual gigs?

Hundreds of professional Latin American clowns have also taken issue with the contagion, with a gathering at an annual convention in Mexico City noisily proclaiming that, “We are clowns, not killers.”

The fear-inducing clowns have seen a global reach of supposed terror for members of the public, and more specifically, those engaged in rather stretched notions of entertainment. The last laugh, it would seem, lies with those who have brought back the historically sinister aspect to clowning, using very conventional devices.  Could it really be said that line of entertainment was ever really funny?

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

 Notes

[3] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-37718587

The 3rd US presidential debate held October 19, 2016 between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton was perhaps the most critically important of the three presidential debates—not so much for what was said, or even how it was said, but for what it portends for US policy in the post-election period regardless which candidate is elected in November.

The 3rd debate began with a reasonably rational discussion covering topics of Supreme Court appointments, 2nd amendment gun rights, abortion and then immigration—each subject revealing the deep differences in positions between the candidates. But then, as in the 1st and 2nd debates, it quickly exploded.

As the debate addressed the topic of immigration, Trump noted that Barack Obama was the biggest deporter of undocumented Latinos in US history—a fact which Clinton has consistently avoided, he charged. Trump then referred to the recent Wikileaks revelations, where Clinton declared she was in favor of ‘open borders’ throughout the western hemisphere and Trump suggested her ‘open borders’ remark referred not only to more free trade but also more cross border labor immigration as well.

The Wikileaks revelations have been a consistent hot ‘third rail’ in the US election and the debates. The revelations have served as a multi-edged sword against Clinton. By revealing her ‘open borders’ remark they contradict Clinton claims that she opposes the Trans Pacific Partnership trade treaty or free trade, while simultaneously suggesting she would accept more immigration to the US as part of a broad hemisphere free trade deal. Wikileaks further touches another Clinton political ‘raw nerve’: her emails cover-up. And they also reveal Clinton’s cynical ‘dual communications strategy’, in which she consciously says one thing to bankers and big business and another to the US public. The Wikileaks revelations are thus a kind of strategic lynchpin for the Trump campaign in the election, raising multiple issues on which Clinton is vulnerable.

It was not surprising therefore that, almost on cue when Wikileaks was first raised by Trump in the 3rd debate, Clinton angrily went on the offensive and diverted the discussion from the revelations. Her offense-defense was to redirect the debate to an attack on Wikileaks itself. From Wikileaks suggesting free trade, open immigration, email cover ups, and double talking to bankers and voters the discussion was diverted to Wikileaks as Russian hacking of senior Democrat party leaders, Wikileaks as Russian vehicle to disrupt US elections, and from there to Russian aggression in Syria, demonizing Putin as war criminal, and then demonizing Trump by association as a friend of Putin.

In redefining the Wikileaks debate, Clinton’s words and her visual countenance response revealed a deep anger. How dare any country interfere with US elections. How ironic, given the US long and consistent interference in other countries’ elections. Clinton’s comments reflected the US elite’s growing frustration with Russia’s recent military offensive and gains in Syria. Clinton’s counter-attack on Wikileaks then set up the segway to Putin as the cause of continuing war in Syria, Putin as Saddam Hussein incarnate, Putin as the source of subversion of US democracy, and, then in turn, to Trump as the buddy of Putin and therefore, by association, all the above as well.

Wikileaks was clearly the nexus point of the 3rd debate. Clinton declared Wikileaks “the most important issue tonight”, charging Trump with “willing to spout the Putin line”, declaring “you continue to get help from him” (Putin) and that “you are his favorite in this race”. Trump countered with the charge Putin has outsmarted her and Obama at every foreign policy turn and that’s why she, Clinton, is trying to attack him by a desperate attempt to associate him with Putin.

The even more disturbing quote from Clinton in the exchange, however, was her repeated call, first raised in the 2nd debate, to establish ‘no fly zones’ in Syria. When the debate moderator noted that US generals have said such zones would likely lead to war with Russia, Clinton suggested ‘no fly’ would correspond to ‘safe zones’ on the ground. But ‘no fly’ was necessary to confront Putin and Russia in Syria. “We have to up our game” there, she concluded.

The debates reveal that, if elected, Clinton and the US war faction are likely to engage in new military adventures in the middle east, in particular in Syria. Or perhaps try to counter Russia with a more assertive military challenge in the Baltics, Eastern Europe or the Ukraine as a bargaining chip with Russia in Syria. The 2nd and 3rd presidential debates indirectly reveal something is afoot in that regard, no matter what the outcome of the election in November, but especially if Clinton is elected.

The debates also reveal a new offensive is brewing, indeed already underway, to shut down Wikileaks and to further restrict free speech and civil liberties. Already, Wikileaks’ internet connection at the Ecuadoran embassy in London has been cut. Concurrently, in recent days British banks have indicated they will no longer service the accounts Russia TV in the UK. This is a ‘shot across the bow’ to Russia media as well. A similar move is likely in the US for Russia TV soon after the elections. US government and US banks have initiated similar financial disruption tactics against Latin American progressive media, as the US renewed neoliberal offensive in Latin American continues to deepen. And should Trump lose the US election, it is likely his voice too will be muffled, if not ‘silenced’, in US media.

That muffling is especially true should Trump refuse to abide by the election outcome in the US. Another Trump ‘verbal bombshell’ in the 3rd debate was his refusal to say whether he would accept the outcome of the US election if he were defeated. Before the debate, Trump also continually raised the charge the election was being ‘rigged’.

That view of media bias and election manipulation resonates with much of the US voting electorate, especially his base of at least 40% of hard core pro-Trump voters. The charge of ‘rigging’ and potential to refuse to accept the election results may prove a ‘game changer’ in US elections. It reflects the deep distrust by broad segments of the US populace of the political elites in the US and their two parties. That distrust is not going away after the election, but will take new forms of protest in 2017 and beyond.

For there is clearly a rebellion underway against the ‘political class’ in the US. That rebellion is not yet reflected in independent political organization and opposition. It is still being expressed through and within the two wings of the Corporate Party of America—Republicans and Democrats. But that may break down, should Trump lose and the US economy continue to falter in 2017. What the debates reflect is growing disenchantment with the two parties’ organizational cocoon. A ‘rebellion within’ those two wings could evolve post-November easily and quickly to a challenge ‘from without’.

Should he lose, Trump will almost certainly launch a new political party. A Trump new party initiative could also stimulate something similar on the left in the US. Bernie Sanders’ millennials are still clearly not in the Clinton corner, despite their erstwhile leader having thrown in with Clinton. The election may come down to whether, in the 8-9 swing states, Trump can turn out more non-college educated white workers than Clinton can turn out educated urban professionals, women, suburbanites, and Latino-African Americans.

Neither candidate has the millennial vote, now the largest population segment. Millennials may in the end vote for ‘none of the above’. Clinton is trailing well behind Obama for the millennials. Trump too is losing their support, at least among the better educated. Polls show only 54% of the under-35 years old group is currently at all interested in the election. And that will not soon change.

Third party candidates, Jill Stein of the Green Party and Gary Johnson of the Libertarians, are polling 22% of likely voters aged 18 to 29. According to a Harvard University survey this past summer, a third of Americans aged 18-29 support Socialism, while not even half back Capitalism. For them, the economy is the main issue and that is going to get worse in 2017 and beyond, not better, regardless who wins in November.

In summary, apart from all the personal mudslinging and the occasional, tangential references to real issues in the debates, what the 3rd—and indeed all three debates—reveal beneath the surface is in 2017 and beyond what’s in store is more military adventures, more limits on civil liberties, a growing loss of legitimacy by the US political elite and their parties among broad segments of the US population, deeper splits and more internecine conflict within the political class and each of their two parties, a growing potential for new forms of independent politics, and more instability within the US political system in general.

Jack Rasmus is the author of the just-released book, “Looting Greece: A New Financial Imperialism Emerges,” and the previous, “Systemic Fragility in the Global Economy.”, both published by Clarity Press, 2016. He blogs at jackrasmus.com.

The threat of the US military intervention in Iraq and Syria erupting into a far wider war has increased sharply in the wake of a series of Turkish air strikes against Syrian Kurdish militia forces that are aligned with Washington.

The Turkish government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has reported that Turkish war planes carried out 26 strikes against 18 separate targets in northern Syria this week, killing as many as 200 fighters of the Kurdish People’s Protection Units, or YPG.

The Kurdish militia, however, said the number killed was 15, including civilians. The bombing raids, which began late Wednesday, continued throughout Thursday.

The air strikes were followed on Friday by an intense Turkish bombardment of Kurdish YPG positions in the northern Aleppo countryside. Kurdish sources reported that more than 150 rockets struck the area, which the YPG had previously taken from the Islamic State (ISIS).

Whatever the real death toll, these attacks mark a major escalation in the Turkish military intervention in Syria, begun in August with an invasion dubbed “Operation Euphrates Shield.”

The air strikes prompted an angry response from the Syrian government, which vowed to shoot down Turkish warplanes should they carry out more raids on Syrian territory. “Any attempt to once again breach Syrian airspace by Turkish warplanes will be dealt with and they will be brought down by all means available,” the Syrian army command warned in a statement Friday.

For his part, Erdogan has indicated that Turkey will continue the cross-border attacks. “We will not wait for troubles to come knocking on our door,” Erdogan declared in advance of the air strikes in Syria. “We will see to it that the threats are destroyed, resolved at their source.”

These developments have ratcheted up international tensions over the Syrian conflict to their highest level since last November, when Turkish warplanes ambushed and shot down a Russian jet carrying out operations against Al Qaeda-linked Islamist militias on the Syrian-Turkish border.

In the event that Syria were to begin shooting down Turkish planes, Ankara could invoke Article 5 of the NATO charter requiring the US and other members of NATO to come to Turkey’s defense, unleashing an international war pitting NATO against not only Syria, but also its ally Russia, the world’s second-largest nuclear power.

At the heart of these tensions lie the fractious set of allies Washington has brought into the simultaneous interventions in both Iraq and Syria. While ostensibly these various state and non-state actors are united in a common struggle to defeat ISIS, in reality they are each pursuing their own mutually antagonistic interests.

US imperialism itself is seeking to carry out regime change in Syria, employing Islamist militias as proxy forces, while utilizing the anti-ISIS campaign in neighboring Iraq to consolidate its control of bases and secure the permanent deployment of US military forces in the oil-rich country.

At the same time, Washington has recruited the assistance of the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia as the main ground force in attacking ISIS positions in Syria. This has antagonized Turkey, which has intervened in Syria on the pretext of combating ISIS, but has directed its main fire against the Kurds.

This week’s attacks are aimed at dislodging Kurdish forces west of the Euphrates River and preventing the linking up of the Kurdish cantons of Afrin in the west and Kobani in the east, which would lay the basis for the creation of a Kurdish autonomous zone along Turkey’s border. The Turkish government has expressed fear that territorial gains by the Syrian Kurdish forces will strengthen the demand of Turkey’s own repressed Kurdish population for autonomy.

In the midst of the deadly combat between Washington’s supposed allies in the struggle against ISIS, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter flew to Ankara on Friday for talks with the Turkish government on both Syria and Iraq. Carter’s remarks in Turkey appeared aimed at smoothing over tensions with Ankara, which have deepened since the abortive July 15 military coup against Erdogan, which many in Turkey believe was supported by the US. Washington, the US defense secretary said, would “continue to stand side-by-side with our NATO ally against shared threats.”

Carter also stated that there was an agreement “in principle” to allow Turkey’s participation in the ongoing siege of Mosul in northern Iraq. “Iraq understands that Turkey, as a member of the counter-ISIL [ISIS] coalition, will play a role in counter-ISIL operations in Iraq, and, secondly, that Turkey, since it neighbors the region of Mosul, has an interest [in] the ultimate outcome in Mosul,” he said.

Erdogan has expressed Turkey’s “interest” in Mosul by invoking century-old Turkish claims of sovereignty over the area.

Carter’s claim of an agreement was countered almost immediately by the Iraqi government, which had earlier indicated that it would attack any Turkish forces attempting to advance on the city. “I am unable to comment on Carter’s statement as we are unaware of any agreement to allow Turkish troops on Iraqi soil until now,” an Iraqi government spokesman said.

This is only one of the many conflicts that are surfacing in the offensive in Iraq, which has brought the mutually hostile forces of the Iraqi army, Shia sectarian militias, the Kurdish Peshmerga, Sunni tribal forces and Turkey onto the same battlefield. The ostensible objective is to drive ISIS out of the city.

There are increasing reports, however, that this is taking place, at least in part, through a deliberate funneling of the Islamist fighters into Syria, where they can be employed in the war for regime-change against the government of Bashar al-Assad. CNN reported that fighters, together with their families, have already begun arriving in the Syrian city of Raqqa.

It appears ever more likely that “victory” in Mosul, to be achieved by reducing the city to rubble and inflicting massive casualties on its civilian population, will only set the stage for a new and even more bitter conflict between the rival forces laying claim to northern Iraq and its oil wealth.

Washington and its allies are preparing for the slaughter with repeated warnings that ISIS is using the population of Mosul as human shields, thereby advancing an alibi for the mass murder of civilians in the bombardment of the city. The kinds of crimes that are being carried out was spelled out Friday with a report from northern Iraq that an air strike killed 15 women visiting a Shia shrine near the city of Kirkuk, which was the scene Friday of a series of terror attacks by ISIS. The US and its allies are the only ones carrying out bombing raids in the vicinity.

While the media parrots the line about human shields in Mosul and ignores the atrocities being carried out in the course of the offensive there, it adopts the exact opposite attitude toward events 300 miles to the west, in Aleppo. Denunciations of Syria and its ally Russia for war crimes in connection with the intense bombardment of eastern Aleppo, which is controlled by Al Qaeda-linked militias, continued even as a suspension of air strikes went into its second day on Friday and eight corridors were set up to allow civilians to leave the besieged neighborhoods.

Exceedingly few people have taken advantage of the opportunity to leave. Those that have report that the Islamist militias have used force, including live fire, to disperse those seeking to escape, and that 14 local officials who urged residents to flee were publicly executed. These reports have evoked no expression of indignation from the Western media, nor any suggestion that Washington’s proxy forces are exploiting the civilian population as human shields.

On October 15, the US artillery and the US-led coalition’s airpower delivered massive strikes allegedly against ISIS targets inside and outside the city of Mosul, de-facto starting a long-awaited operation to “liberate” the last major ISIS stronghold in Iraq.

[There is no firm evidence that the US led airstrikes are directed against ISIS. Recent reports suggest that Washington is committed to allowing the exodus of ISIS fighters on condition that they redeploy in Syria, M.Ch, GR editor] 

The Iraqi military, the semi-autonomous, predominantly Shia, Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), the Kurdish Peshmerga, some pro-government Sunni tribal fighters and US and French Special Forces will participate in the operation.

Up to 40,000 fighters, over 130 artillery guns, few hundreds of military vehicles will participate in the operation. Warplanes and combat UAVs, belonging to the US-led coalition, and US artillery units will provide support to the main forces.

Such a scrappy anti-ISIS force on the ground will create additional troubles during the operation.

Almost all participants are interested to gain political, economic and PR revenue from the operation and to avoid significant casualties as more as it’s possible. Probably, the PMU is the most motivated force to fight ISIS in the modern conditions. However, it’s described by the US as a pro-Iranian entity. So, it will not receive any major support on the ground.

There is no information either regarding the negotiations with local Sunni clans from Mosul in order to ease the liberation of Mosul have succeeded or not. So, probably, the Iraqi forces and its supporters will face stiff counteractions from estimated 10,000 ISIS fighters deployed in the city.

Direct participation in the operation of Turkish military units, deployed northwest of Mosul, also remains unclear. President Tayyip Erdogan announced that Turkey is determined to take part in the operation. However, the move was strongly opposed by Iraq. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has said Turkey risks triggering a regional war by illegal actions in the country. His government has demanded Ankara to withdraw military units from the Iraqi territory and requested an emergency United Nations Security Council meeting to discuss the issue. Turkey ignores the demands of the Iraqi government.

According to unofficial estimates, Ankara has up to 18 military sites in Iraq. They have not been approved by the Iraqi Parliament and leadership of the Iraqi Kurdistan has had no legal right to make any deals to allow this. The Iraqi Parliament has called the Turkish military contingent an occupying force.

Kata’ib Hezbollah, that is a part of the PMU, says that the Turkish military has started massing near Mosul since the start of operations to liberate Anbar province from ISIS. Ankara’s goal, according to the group’s representatives, is to draw PMU forces and Iraqi security forces from parts of Anbar and Mosul in order to complicate the operation against ISIS.

In any case, such an antagonism between Turkey and Iraq will complicate the liberation of Mosul, significantly, and contribute to ISIS in the region, even if Ankara has not attempted to achieve this goal. In the worst scenario, if Ankara tries to participate in the Mosul operation, ignoring Baghdad’s will, this could lead to a new regional conflict.

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

O finlandês Timo Kivimäki, professor de Relações Internacionais e diretor de Pesquisa da Universidade de Bath (Reino Unido), especialista em terrorismo global e um dos poucos acadêmicos sóbrios ao pensar o assunto, concedeu a seguinte entrevista falando sobre suas origens, consequências e as possíveis formas de combatê-lo de maneira eficaz, que proteja civis. Ele também apresenta sua visão sobre os limites entre terror e resistência, esta última legitimada pelas leis internacionais, e a cobertura da mídia de desinformação das massas sobre terrorismo.

“Não há nenhuma Guerra contra o Terror. Se houvesse, não usaria o terror como tática”, enfatiza sem rodeios o analista, quem também recorda personagens “esquecidos” pela mídia e pelos arquitetos da suposta Guerra ao Terror, tais como Julian Assange e Edward Snowden, cujas denúncias trazem revelações que apontam ao sentido totalmente contrário das versões oficiais sobre origens do terrorismo, e das intenções da “Guerra ao Terror” perpetrada pelas grandes potências ocidentais.O professor Kivimäki atuou como consultor de vários governos, bem como de várias organismos da ONU e da União Europeia, sobre conflitos e terrorismo, e já teve a oportunidade inclusive de entrevistar indivíduos suspeitos ou condenados por práticas terroristas. Ele é autor de The Long Peace of East Asia (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014), e de Can Peace Research Make Peace. Lessons in Academic Diplomacy(Farnham: Ashgate, 2012), este último indicado para concorrer ao prestigioso Best Book Prize (Prémio Melhor Livro) pela Sociedade de Pesquisa de Conflito, em 2014.Recentes artigos de Timo Kivimäki sobre paz e conflitos foram publicados na China, em Journal of International Relations, Pacific Focus,The Pacific Review, International Relations of the Asia Pacific, Journal of Peace Research, Asian Security e Middle East Policy.

A seguir, o professor Kivimäki leva à reflexão – rara nos dias de hoje – sobre um dos temas mais importantes da atualidade, saindo, desta maneira, da histeria político-midiática predominante que apenas promove embaralhamento do entendimento coletivo e abre cada vez mais o caminho para uma dominação global apoiada no medo, na intolerância, na indústria da guerra e na diminuição das liberdades civis.

Edu Montesanti: Professor Timo Kivimäki, você tem sido frequente consultor dos governos finlandês, dinamarquês, holandês, malaio, indonésio, sueco, russo, bem como a várias organizações da ONU e da União Eiropeia sobre conflitos e terrorismo. Por favor, Professor Kivimäki, fale um pouco sobre essas consultas.

Timo Kivimäki: Na verdade, não só estes: tenho colaborado amplamente com 11 governos com problemas associados a conflitos. Mas os que você mencionou, tenho ajudado mais que outros. Ajudei a Finlândia, a Dinamarca e, marginalmente, a Suécia também, a fim de projetar estratégias no desenvolvimento de cooperação a fim de ajudar a serem mais sensíveis diante dos conflitos, ou seja, ajudar a prevenir em vez de alimentar conflitos.Para primeiros ministros da Finlândia, Dinamarca e Rússia eu ofereci alguma ajuda para argumentação em política externa, oferecendo comentários sobre como diferentes argumentos relacionam-se aos atuais resultado da investigação. Também tentei ajudar estes três do governo em suas iniciativas de lançar processos de diálogo pacíficos.Orientei a equipe de negociação do governo da Moldávia para suas negociações de paz com os separatistas da Transnístria e também orientei algumas partes em conflito da Indonésia e de Mianmar, em favor das negociações de paz Além disso, ajudei um dos ministros de Defesa da Tailândia a fim de entender algumas das complicações do conflito no sul do país.

Apesar de tudo, percebi que muitos governos estão muito ansiosos em promover a paz, apesar da falta de vontade pública em mostrar quaisquer sinais no sentido de assumir compromissos. Os governos tendem a tentar evitar sinais que poderiam ser interpretados como fraqueza, e por isso, às vezes, é importante aos acadêmicos tomar a iniciativa e ajudar os governos em algo que eles não podem fazer, sem mostrar sinais de fraqueza.

Edu Montesanti: No artigo First Do No Harm: Do Air Raids Protect Civilians? [Middle East Policy 22, no. 4 (2015): 55–64] o senhor revelou que as guerras de proteção, ou seja, as guerras que são justificadas referindo-se ao motivo cosmopolita de proteção aos civis “globais”, matam mais civis que qualquer outro tipo de guerra. Por favor, detalhe isso.

Timo Kivimäki: Há um crescente senso de solidariedade cosmopolita e universalista no mundo hoje, e esta solidariedade dos cidadãos insta os líderes a “fazer algo” quando a mídia revela injustiça e violência contra civis, independente do local onde esses civis estejam. Isso, em geral, é muito bom e oferece oportunidades para construir uma ordem mundial mais justa, e menos violenta.

Se nos próximos 100 anos o sistema de segurança internacional sair da posição de comunidades baseadas no Estado e partir em direção a uma comunidade global, isso poderia ser muito bom. Historicamente, sempre que a segurança governamental é levada a comunidades maiores – de famílias para clãs, de clãs para sociedades sedentárias, de pequenas sociedades para cidades-Estado, de cidades-Estado para Estados-nação -, grande parte da violência desaparece. Assim, o crescimento da solidariedade é potencialmente uma coisa boa.

No entanto, hoje a solidariedade não é seguida por um esforço a fim de permitir uma agência de segurança comum: as nações que têm se preocupado em punir Saddam e os talibans, impondo sua interpretação de normas globais, não têm estado interessadas no fortalecimento da ONU, até agora a única organização verdadeiramente global que poderia representar o mundo na imposição do cumprimento das normas humanitárias globais.

Pelo contrário, esses poderes que estão impondo normas sobre outros países têm estado relutantes em se comprometer com o fortalecimento das normas globais em conjunto com todos os países e, em vez de trabalhar através da ONU, eles formaram coalizões militares ad hoc. Na imposição de justiça e equidade, estes países tornaram-se atores enquanto outros, especialmente os países em desenvolvimento e países muçulmanos, tornaram-se os objetos de disciplina das coalizões militares

Isto causou ressentimento e as operações militares para intervir na violência no Oriente Médio têm aumentado a violência que existe lá, de maneira que a proteção voltou-se contra aqueles que se tem o objetivo de proteger. Se olharmos para os países onde nossa proteção tem operado, podemos ver que mais da metade das mortes em conflitos do mundo é produzida ali.

Edu Montesanti: Como você vê as invasões dos Estados Unidos ao Afeganistão em 2001 e ao Iraque em 2003, do ponto de vista jurídico?

Timo Kivimäki: Acho que, do ponto de vista jurídico, eles têm sido tipos de operações um tanto diferenciadas, já que o Iraque [a invasão norte-americana ao Iraque] tem estado explicitamente fora do mandato da ONU. Ao mesmo tempo, as operações militares continuadas têm sido muito impopulares em ambos os locais, e resultado em uma grande quantidade de sofrimento. Do ponto de vista da proteção de civis, ambas as operação têm sido um desastre.

Washington e seus aliados têm endurecido o discurso e as políticas em relação ao terrorismo, ferindo os direitos humanos e diminuindo as liberdades civis. O regime de Barack Obama tem aumentado drasticamente os ataques aéreos. A “Guerra ao Terror” tem ajudado a manter os Estados Unidos e seus aliados seguros do terrorismo?

A guerra contra organizações terroristas tem sido uma catalizadora de terror, devido ao simples fato de que conflito e terror são sempre uma interação, não apenas ação de uma das partes. Enquanto a razão para o nosso violento contraterrorismo tem sido as ações terríveis dos terroristas, é claro que a razão para a violência terrorista tem sido a nossa violência. A lógica de uma escalada na guerra contra organizações terroristas tem sido sempre interativa, e apenas através de ações interativas de paz e de diálogo, esta espiral de escalada poderia ser encerrada.

Acho que o problema se deve ao fato de que nunca houve, efetivamente, uma guerra ao terror, mas tem havido apenas uma guerra contra terroristas. Isto é muito diferente, já que uma guerra contra o terror estaria focada nos civis como alvo tentando impedir isso, enquanto a guerra contra os terroristas tem como meta matar tantos terroristas quanto possível, mesmo que isso signifique uma série de danos colaterais, ou seja, a perda de vida civil.

Uma guerra contra o terror não seria capaz de usar meios que se aproximam de atos terroristas, como é a contra o terror, enquanto a guerra contra os terroristas tem usado frequentemente meios que possam ser eficazes contra os terroristas, mas aumentam o terror. Concentrando-se em princípios em vez de demonizar os inimigos, seria importante nesta situação aliviar a tensão, e isso também significaria que não devemos apontar os dedos aos Estados Unidos ou a seus aliados, mas, em vez disso, devemos culpar estratégias ruins contra a violência que vemos ao nosso redor.

Deveríamos tentar negociar formas de limitar estas estratégias violentas ao invés de demonizarmo-nos uns aos outros, dado que a conclusão lógica de uma visão que atribui a violência ao “outro” demonizado, apresenta o motivo para destruir este “outro”. Destruição e demonização de nossos inimigos não são um caminho para a paz.

Edu Montesanti: Quais as reais raízes do terror, Professor Kivimäki, e quais seriam as políticas eficientes para combater o terrorismo?

Timo Kivimäki: Acho que não devemos pensar no terror como algo que tem raízes que, simplesmente, causam terror. O terror é uma tática imoral que as pessoas usam, mesmo que não devam, com objetivos políticos. Se olharmos para o terror que tem como base o abuso do Islã, nos parece claro que nas raízes deste tipo de terror está a percepção de que não há opções pacíficas a fim de provocar mudanças.

Mais de dez anos atrás estudei as origens de indivíduos e organizações terroristas estatisticamente, e também autorizei e realizei uma série de entrevistas entre indivíduos suspeitos ou condenados por atos de terror. Desta maneira, trabalhei para as chancelarias dinamarquesas e finlandesas. Descobriu-se que a maioria dos indivíduos terroristas vieram de países onde nenhuma mobilização para mudança pacífica é completamente impossível. A Arábia Saudita foi o local de nascimento de 15 dos 19 autores operativos dos ataques do 11 de Setembro, enquanto que no momento a Argélia é a principal fonte de indivíduos terroristas na lista europeia de terroristas.

Devido ao fato de que qualquer uma dessas organização era impossível nestes países, e no Egito de Hosni Mubarak, muitas dessas pessoas desesperadas mudou-se para os Estados fracassados onde poderiam se mobilizar em resistência. O Afeganistão tornou-se o centro de organização terrorista, apesar do fato de que não muitos terroristas são originários dali.

Nesses estados falidos, indivíduos que foram preparados para a violência para atingir seus objetivos não poderiam encontrar uma agenda comum na resistência a seus próprios governos já que vieram de diferentes países e, consequentemente, o fato de que muitos dos regimes autoritários desses países foram apoiados pelo Estados Unidos e por alguns de seus aliados europeus, tornaram-se alvo do novo alvo comum.

Isso eu acho que é a origem do tipo atual de terrorismo, mas uma vez que o processo de luta contra o Ocidente e a luta do Ocidente contra esses terroristas tinha começado, passou a adquiri novas formas. Algumas margens de comunidades de imigrantes encontraram ressonância para a frustração de sua própria marginalização na retórica anti-ocidental radical desses grupos islamitas originais, e novos tipos de terror começaram a emergir.

As maciças operações militares ocidentais que minaram os direitos soberanos de muitos países muçulmanos e que causaram uma série de fatalidades, deram origem à expansão do radicalismo anti-ocidental no Terceiro Mundo muçulmano. A lógica da escalada, do aprofundamento e da difusão do ódio de ambos os lados se impuseram, e novas formas de terrorismo surgiram.

O que é comum entre todos esses processos, foi que o ódio e a destruição dão origem ao ódio e à destruição, e a única maneira de avançar seria dialética, focando nosso interesse comum na prevenção da violência. O foco mútuo sobre a destruição do seu inimigo, apenas incita a violência.

A Síria tem atraído a atenção do mundo, e dividido a mídia predominante e da mídia alternativa. Como o senhor vê as raízes da guerra civil síria, e como avalia a intervenção dos Estados Unidos e da Rússia naquele país, o primeiro opositor ao presidente Bashar al-Assad, o segundo de apoio ao governo sírio?

Acho triste que temos desperdiçado as oportunidades diplomáticas pacíficas que existiam em 2011. Isso é também o que escrevi em meu artigo First Do No Harm que você mencionou. Não vejo nenhuma oportunidade positiva em direção às soluções sobre o apoio à capacidade de matar envolvendo ambos os lados do conflito: o apoio militar dos Estados Unidos a grupos violentos muito obscuros Síria, e o apoio da Rússia a um regime violento podre são, simplesmente, maneiras de expandir a magnitude da violência na Síria.

Vejo que a única forma de avançar se daria através da negociação inclusiva entre todas as partes em conflito, incluindo o Estado Islamita.

Edu Montesanti: Qual sua visão sobre os limites entre resistência e terror?

Timo Kivimäki: Acredito que a resistência é uma atividade definida pelo objetivo da ação, enquanto o terror deve ser definido como uma tática específica. Resistência é a atividade contra uma regra considerada ilegítima, e pode ser violenta ou não-violenta, terrorista ou não-terrorista dependendo dos métodos que a resistência se utiliza.

Terrorismo, novamente, envolve táticas em que uma pessoa ou um grupo tenta influenciar tomadores de decisão usando as vidas de civis inocentes como barganha. Acredito que é útil aplicar-se, ao conceito de terror, uma distinção entre táticas violentas que têm como alvo civis inocentes, e outros tipos de violência. Sem o conceito, não seria possível definir a norma contra a morte de civis.

No entanto, há um problema até com a definição correta de terror, para nem mencionar as definições politicamente manipuladas. O principal problema que vejo com a definição correta de terror é a natureza “ou-ou” do conceito. Se alguém atinge intencionalmente civis como estratégia de conflito onde alguém seja terrorista, mas e se você tiver partes em conflito que visam alvos militares que, porém, usam armas e áreas-alvo que são conhecidos por resultar em danos colaterais? Consequentemente, essas pessoas são sutilmente terroristas? No conflito palestino há atores que têm civis como alvos intencionais em algumas das operações. Eles são legitimamente chamados de terroristas. Mas também há atores, como o Estado de Israel, que visam militantes mas fazem isso atingindo militantes em centros civis com bombas de fragmentação. Isto também poderia ser chamado de terrorismo? É aceitável o fato de que um militante seja morto em uma operação que mata uma quantidade de civis um pouco menor que uma operação terrorista?

Na Palestina, tenho notado que as estatísticas de mortalidade tornam muito difícil a justificativa do conceito de terrorismo dentro do “ou-ou”: há confrontos com mais mortes de crianças palestinas que as mortes israelenses. Isso significa que mesmo que as operações israelenses consigam matar alguns militantes, elas também tendem a matar mais civis do que militantes. Não deveríamos, então, chamar de terroristas as operações israelenses, mesmo que também tenham como alvo os militantes?

O principal problema com o uso atual da palavra “terrorismo” é que, cada vez mais, o terror é associado a objetivos políticos, muito mais do que alguns terroristas realmente os têm como objetivo. A fim de promover foster uma norma contra o terror, dever-se-ia tentar evitar a associação do terrorismo com objetivos políticos específicos, já que gostaríamos de pensar que a resistência pacífica e a promoção de objetivos políticos é legítimos, ainda que haja terroristas que também promovem esses mesmos objetivos, usando táticas terroristas imorais.

Demasiadas vezes usamos o conceito “terrorismo” para descrever atividades que promovem objetivos políticos islamitas, mesmo que não tenham sido perpetradas por meios terroristas. Esta prática, obviamente, desgasta a legitimidade da norma contra a morte de civis entre as comunidades que gostariam de ver a ordem política islamita, se o termo reservado para a morte de civis é confundida com ações para promover a política islamita. Esta prática conceitual de associar terrorismo com islamismo, também faz com que a Guerra do Terror ataque civis mais facilmente, se o terrorismo é associado com o islamismo. Assim, não devemos ser enganados sobre essa manipulação do conceito de “terrorismo”.

Edu Montesanti: Charles Krauthammer escreveu no jornal The Washington Post: “[Estados Unidos deve criar] A Psicologia do Medo”, a fim de garantir o “profundo respeito ao poderio norte-americano”. Como o senhor vê essa posição?

Timo Kivimäki: Reconheço, de verdade. que o controle do poder mantém oportunidades violentas sob controle. Conflitos em Estados fracos e frágeis provam esta questão: sem aplicação da lei vigente, haverá anarquia.No entanto, quando há vontade, há caminho: se os Estados Unidos se utilizam de muita violência para criar tal medo, isso também vai gerar o desejo de resistir a essa ordem. Sou mais a favor da conclusão de Henry Kissinger em seu livro World Order, segundo o qual o poder tem de estar associado à legitimidade a fim de gerar estabilidade e paz.Agora, parece que a legitimidade, e não o poder, é o que está faltando na governança global dos Estados Unidos. É a imposição norte-americana de sua ordem, e a resistência a essa ordem, a fonte de tanta violência em áreas onde os Estados Unidos operam militarmente. Mais medo não resultará em mais legitimidade da instituição norte-americana de sua ordem, muito pelo contrário. Assim, acho que a receita de Krauthammer está errada.

Edu Montesanti: Quanto a “Guerra ao Terror” tem ampliado o preconceito contra islâmicos ao redor do mundo?

Timo Kivimäki: O problema tem sido a escalada da tensão e a violência entre os terroristas que utilizam indevidamente o Islã como base, e a violenta Guerra aos Terroristas. Não há nenhuma Guerra contra o Terror. Se houvesse, não usaria o terror como tática.

Esta escalada criou o preconceito contra os muçulmanos no mundo ocidental, e contra os norte-americanos e ocidentais no mundo muçulmano. Esta escalada é algo que devemos tentar reverter por meio do diálogo e de negociações, ao invés de matar nossos adversários.

Edu Montesanti: Como o senhor avalia a cobertura da grande mídia em relação ao terrorismo global?

Timo Kivimäki: A propalada mídia ocidental livre na verdade tem, ocasionalmente, sido surpreendentemente não-livre nas práticas de repetir termos, rótulos e narrativas de políticos ocidentais e da “segurocracia”. Quando um grupo é chamado de terrorista por causa de seus objetivos por parte de políticos que se opõem a esses objetivos, os meios de comunicação, com demasiada frequência, simplesmente divulgam o rótulo.

Uma mídia crítica deve estar sempre atenta aos interesses dos políticos para evitar servi-los acriticamente. Às vezes acho incrível o que lemos até nos jornais mais respeitados sobre terror global, mesmo depois de ter tido acesso às revelações de Chelsie Manning, WikiLeaks, Glenn Greenwald e Edward Snowden. Às vezes, é como se nenhuma dessas revelações tivessem, jamais, sido feitas.

Edu Montesanti

Edu Montesanti é comunicador, escritor, professor de idiomas e tradutor. Autor do livro Mentiras e Crimes da “Guerra ao Terror” (2012), escreve para a revista Caros Amigos, para Jornal Pravda e Pravda Report (Rússia), para Global Research (Canadá), Truth Out (Estados Unidos). É tradutor do sítio na Internet das Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo (Argentina), e foi tradutor do sítio na Internet da escritora, ativista pelos direitos humanos e ex-parlamentar afegã injustamente expulsa do cargo, Malalaï Joya. Escreveu para Diário Liberdade (Galiza), Observatório da Imprensa (TV Brasil) e Nolan Chart (Estados Unidos). Contato: [email protected] / www.edumontesanti.skyrock.com

Edu Montesanti

edumontesanti.skyrock.com 

—

It has become crystal clear.

For the record, here it is.

She has big ambitions, which she does not spell out for fear of frightening part of the electorate, but which are perfectly understood by her closest aides and biggest donors.

She wants to achieve regime change in Russia.

She enjoys the support of most of the State Department and much of the Pentagon, and Congress is ready to go.

The method: a repeat of the 1979 Brezinski ploy, which consisted of luring Moscow into Afghanistan, in order to get the Russians bogged down in their “Vietnam”.  As the Russians are a much more peace-loving people, largely because of what they suffered in two World Wars, the Russian involvement in Afghanistan was very unpopular and can be seen as a cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

This led to the temporary reign of the drunken Boris Yeltsin who – as recounted in Strobe Talbott’s memoirs – was putty in the hands of Bill Clinton.  Hillary would like to renew that sort of relationship.  Putin is an obstacle.

The new version of this old strategy is to use Russia’s totally legal and justifiable efforts to save Syria from destruction in order to cause enough Russian casualties to incite anti-Putin reaction in Russia leading to his overthrow. (Note State Department spokesman John Kirby’s recent warning that Russia will soon be “sending troops home in body bags”.)

That is the prime reason why the United States is doing everything to keep the Syrian war dragging on and on.  The joint Syrian-Russian offensive to recapture the rebel-held Eastern sections of Aleppo might lead to an early end of the war.  U.S. reaction: a huge propaganda campaign condemning this normal military operation as “criminal”, while driving ISIS forces out of Mosul with attacks from the East, so that they will move westward into Syria, to fight against the Assad government.

Ukraine is another theater for weakening Putin.

Hillary Clinton’s ambition – made explicit by her own and her close aides’ statements about Libya in emails at the time – is to gain her place in history as victorious strategist of “regime change”, using open and covert methods (“smart power”), thus bringing recalcitrant regions under control of the “exceptional, good” nation, the United States.

This ambition is backed by possession of nuclear weapons.

I am by no means saying that this plan will succeed. But it is very clearly the plan.

The electoral circus is a distraction from such crucially serious matters.

Unknown to most people, the White Helmets brand was conceived and directed by a marketing company named “The Syria Campaign” based in New York. They have managed to fool millions of people. Walt Disney might have made a great movie about this: unarmed volunteers fearlessly rescuing survivors in the midst of war without regard to religion or politics. Like most other “true life” Disney movies, it is 10% reality, 90% fiction.

Due to its success, Western countries are dedicating ever larger amounts of funding. The White Helmets were the 17 October TIME magazine cover story. Nikolas Kristof at the NY Times has gushed over them for years. They recently won a 2016 Right Livelihood Award. Netflix has recently released a special ‘documentary’ movie about the White Helmets.  With impeccable timing, the mainstream media acclaim reached a crescendo with both the UK Guardian and The Independent calling on the Nobel Committe to award this year’s Nobel Peace Prize to the White Helmets.

It’s not just establishment that has gushed over the White Helmets. Codepink recommended the Netflix movie and DemocracyNow! ran a puff piece interview with the infomercial directors. The Intercept published an uncritical promotion of the White Helmets and their dubious leader. (CodePink received a lot of criticism and later issued a correction.)

The Reality Behind the White Helmet Image

In contrast with the uncritical promotion of the White Helmets, there have been some investigations of their reality during the past 1.5 years. This timeline shows the early investigations. In April 2015 Dissidentvoice published an expose of their actual creation and purpose. Since then there have been an increasing number of articles and videos revealing what is behind the ‘feel good’ veneer.  Vanessa Beeley has produced numerous articles including documentation of the REAL Syrian Civil Defense which was founded six decades ago. She initiated an online Change.org petition which gathered 3.3 thousand signatures to NOT GIVE THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE to the WHITE HELMETS.  That was twice as many signatures as the petition to GIVE the Nobel Prize to them. Apparently that fact upset someone influential because Change.org removed the petition without explanation.  Did it violate “community standards”?  You can judge for yourself because the petition is shown here.

Another online petition, also at CHANGE.ORG, is still up and running.  It calls on the Right Livelihood Foundation to RETRACT their award to the White Helmets. The petition includes ten reasons they do not deserve the prize and are not what they are presented to be. They stole the name Syria Civil Defense from the real Syrian organization. They appropriated the name “White Helmets” from the Argentinian rescue organization Cascos Blancos/White Helmets. They are not independent; they are funded by governments. They are not apolitical; they actively campaign for a No Fly Zone. They do not work across Syria; they ONLY work in areas controlled by the armed opposition, mostly Nusa/Al Qaeda. They are not unarmed; they sometimes do carry weapons and they also celebrate terrorist victories. They assist in terrorist executions.

In recent weeks, information about the true nature of the White Helmets has been spreading. Max Blumenthal has a two part expose at Alternet: “How the White Helmets became International Heroes while Pushing US Intervention and Regime Change in Syria”  and “Inside the Shadowy PR Firm that’s Lobbying for Regime Change in Syria”

Scott Ritter has written an article which critically looks at the White Helmets’ “lionization”.  Internationally, the Israeli TV station I24 ran a special report with the title “White Helmets: Heroes or Hoax?”, giving equal coverage to supporters and critics. Even “The National” out of United Arab Emirates has documented the controversy around the White Helmets.

Franklin Lamb Lashes Out at White Helmet Critics

Some supporters of the White Helmets have lashed back. The British military contractor who initially set up the organization has accused his critics of being ‘proxies’ for the Syrian and Russian governments. And in recent days, Franklin Lamb leaped to the defense of the White Helmets with an article titled “Political Defamation Campaign targets Rescue Workers in Syria”.

Lamb’s critique is almost as misleading as the group he defends. It appears he has not read many of the serious criticisms and exposes of the White Helmets. He does not provide references or sources so that a reader can compare his description with what critics actually said.

Lamb accuses critics of waging a “malicious campaign” against the Syrian Arab Red Crescent and International Committee of the Red Cross as well as the White Helmets. That is false.  Here is what has been actually said: “Unlike a legitimate rescue organization such as the Red Cross or Red Crescent, the “White Helmets” only work in areas controlled by the armed opposition.” The online petition to RETRACT the Right Livelihood Award says “The NATO White Helmets actually undermine and detract from the work of authentic organizations such as the REAL Syria Civil Defense and Syrian Arab Red Crescent.”

Lamb echoes White Helmet propaganda by repeatedly referring to them as volunteers. But they are not. They are all paid–with the White Helmet media managers in Brooklyn New York, Gaziantep Turkey and Beirut Lebanon making sizable salaries. As to the on-the-ground ‘White Helmets’ based Nusra territory in Aleppo and Idlib, they are paid much more than full time Syrian soldiers for their part time real and staged rescue operations.

Lamb laments the fact that MSF (Medicins Sans Frontiers /Doctors without Borders) has been criticized. However MSF has shown itself to be politically biased. The organization has no staff inside Syria yet continues to issue statements as if they had clear compelling evidence when it seems they do not.

Recently MSF claimed that four hospitals in terrorist controlled sectors of East Aleppo had been bombed and two doctors injured. They do not identify the names or locations of the hospitals or the names of the doctors. The report is apparently based on hearsay. Perhaps MSF does not identify the name or location of the hospitals because when they did report names and locations, such as with Al Quds Hospital in April 2016, it was found that their report was inconsistent and full of contradictions.

MSF claimed “According to hospital staff on the ground, the hospital was destroyed by at least one airstrike which directly hit the building, reducing it to rubble.”Photographs from before and after the event showed this assertion to be untrue. The so called “Al Quds Hospital” was an unidentified largely vacant apartment building with sandbags at the ground floors. MSF’s bias is also shown by the fact they refuse to provide any services or support to the 90% of the Syrian population which is in government controlled areas. MSF has not responded to a previous open letter questioning their bias. Nor have they responded to invitations to visit government controlled Aleppo to evaluate the reality versus the claims of their allies in Nusra/Al Qaeda territory.

Lamb says “The White Helmets are being attacked with all sorts of unfounded accusations and conspiracy theories”. On the contrary, the evidence is overwhelming. White Helmets are funded by Western governments which want ‘regime change’. White Helmets pick up bodies after execution. White Helmets carry weapons and celebrate jihadi victories. White Helmets ONLY work in areas dominated by Nusra or an ally. White Helmets actively campaign for a No Fly Zone. These are not “conspiracy theories”; they are facts easily proven in the videos and articles about them.

Lamb says, “White Helmet rescuers are much like Syria’s population in general, including most of the 12 million refugees, who have come to abhor politics.” It is true that nearly all Syrians abhor the war that has been imposed on them. However, the vast majority of Syrians also hate the terrorists while most ‘White Helmets’ are allied with them.  Lamb is also wrong on the refugee count. There are about 12 million internally displaced persons but the number of refugees is closer to 4 million. Two thirds of the internally displaced persons are living inside Syria in areas under government control.

The White Helmets were “branded” by a marketing company called The Syria Campaign which itself was “incubated” (their term) by a larger marketing company called Purpose. Along with managing the online and social media promotion of the White Helmets, the Syria Campaign has parallel efforts in support of “regime change” in Syria. One of these efforts has been to criticize United Nations and humanitarian relief organizations which supply aid to displaced persons living in areas protected by the Syrian government. This situation is documented in an editorial here where the author says “The allegations made by the Syria Campaign and others were written by people who know nothing about the UN and how it must work.” Apparently unaware of the facts about The Syria Campaign, the outraged Franklin Lamb calls this “defamatory nonsense!”

Lamb echoes the White Helmet propaganda that they have saved “65,000 Syrian citizens, many being their neighbors, families and friends”.  This is extreme exaggeration. The areas controlled by the terrorists have very few civilians living in them. A medical doctor visiting east Aleppo two years described it as a ‘ghost town’.  When cat videos were popular on social media, the White Helmet video team produced their own fake cat video.  It showed White Helmet members playing with stray cats in empty neighborhoods. They say, “The homeowners abandoned this district and its kittens.” Yes, most of the civilians abandoned it because the terrorists invaded it. In short, this number of rescues is an extreme exaggeration. The real number is probably just a few percent of that.

Lamb believes the critics of the White Helmets are ‘defaming” them. It’s almost laughable except it’s bitterly ironic. The REAL Syrian Civil Defense works on a shoestring budget with REAL volunteers without a video  team accompanying and promoting them. Most in the West are unaware they even exist. The situation for the Syrian Arab Red Crescent, which is a genuinely neutral and independent relief organization, is similar although they at least have a good website.

Lamb complains about “the massive use of pejorative language to smear rescue workers”. The reality, of course, is the precise opposite in the case of the “White Helmets”.  There has been a flood of uncritical praise for this three year old organization created by the West and for goals of the West. On the contrary, they have not been sufficiently examined and exposed. Lamb’s heartfelt concernt about the poor White Helmets being unfairly criticized is bizarre.

Franklin Lamb claims to have filed his article from Aleppo University Hospital. This is located in government protected Aleppo. Why does he make no reference to the victims of terrorist bombings, sniping and attacks who fill the Aleppo Univesity Hospital?  Why does he make no reference to the REAL Syrian Civil Defense which brought to the hosptial many injured victims. In his closing, Franklin invites anyone interested to visit the White Helmets with him. Is he serious? Very few journalists or Western ‘observers’ have been in terrorist controlled Aleppo for years. Two of the last batch were James Foley and Stephen Sotloff, subsequently murdered by ISIS. Franklin needs to provide some evidence that he actually was in East Aleppo with the Nusra and the White Helmets. Otherwise one might question whether his conversations with White Helmet ‘volunteers’ were actually in Gaziantep Turkey.

The Controversy Continues

As the Syrian government and allies try to finally crush or expel the terrorists from Aleppo, the White Helmets have become a major tool in the West’s propaganda toolchest. The image of the White Helmets deflects attention from the sectarian violent and unpopular nature of Nusra and other armed opposition groups. This is used in parallel with accusations that Syrian and Russian attacks are primarily hitting civilians. Western media gives an image that there are only civilians and White Helmets under attack in east Aleppo; the terrorists have been whited out of the picture.

White Helmets have gone from being talked about to the ones doing the talking. News stories increasingly use White Helmet witnesses as their theme or source.  One day CNN says a White Helmet aid center has been hit.  Another day it is claimed that White Helmet individuals are being “hunted”.  A White Helmet performs the role of journalist not first responder as he claims to be “eye witness” to Syrian barrel bombs destroying the humanitarian convoy and warehouse on September 19 in Orem al Kubra.

There are reasons to be suspicious.  For example, in the case of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent (SARC) convoy that was attacked in Orem al Kubra:

* This is the same town where the documentary “Saving Syria’s Children” was filmed. A detailed investigation has shown that sequences in that BBC movie were largely if not entirely staged.

* This town is controlled by the infamous Nour al Din al Zinki terrorist group which recently filmed itself beheading a young Palestinian Syrian boy.

* It is illogical that Syrian or Russian planes would attack a SARC convoy. They could have stopped the convoy when it was in government held territory. The Syrian government works together with SARC. Why would they attack the convoy?

* The one to ‘benefit’ from the atrocity is the US Coalition and those supporting the regime change project. The attack took attention away from the US killing of 70+ Syrian soldiers on Sept 17 and facilitated the resumption of accusations against Syria and Russia. More contradictions and inconsistencies regarding the White Helmet witness are pointed out in this incisive analysis.

* The Russian and Syrian governments called for an independent investigation of the attack site but this has not been done, presumably because the terrorists controlling the area have not allowed it.

With massive publicity, there is now greatly increased public awareness of the three year old White Helmets. Ironically SARC, which works with neutrality, have been largely ignored. And the original 60+ year old Syrian Civil Defense continues to work with absolutely no recognition in the West.

Are the White Helmets heroes or politically motivated hoax?  The time to investigate is now.  It does little good to uncover falsehoods and manipulations years later.  This is especially true because the people who created and uncritically promoted previous hoaxes such as Nayirah and the Kuwaiti incubators, Curveball and the Iraqi WMD have gone without penalty or punishment despite the enormous cost in lives and resources. The White Helmets should be seriously investigated lest they be used to promote more war in Syria.

Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist. He can be reached at [email protected]

Canada’s Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, recently stated at the UN General Assembly plenary meeting on Syria that

“Canada is taking a stand at the United Nations General Assembly today to protect vulnerable Syrians and help find a solution to the conflict engulfing that country.

With the support of 70 other UN countries, Canada is applying as much diplomatic pressure as possible on the UN Security Council to break their impasse on Syria.

On behalf of the government, Minister Dion called today for an immediate cessation of hostilities, the provision of unhindered humanitarian access to the victims of the conflict – including children and women – and the resumption of political talks.

I am very proud that our mission at the United Nations, spearheaded by Ambassador Marc-André Blanchard, is leading the charge to protect the many victims of this tragic conflict.

I encourage other countries to help generate forward momentum on Syria, given UN members have a collective responsibility to protect the world’s vulnerable and weak when others cannot or will not.”

What Trudeau did not say is more important.

He did not say that the illegal regime change operation, sold under the guise of the “Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) doctrine, completely destroyed Libya and made it into a hotbed for terrorists, including ISIS.

He did not say that Canada necessarily advances the reach and scope of terrorism by publicly supporting illegal regime change, by implementing illegal sanctions, by bombing and/or supporting bombing missions in Syria; by supporting all of the terrorists in Syria; by supporting the Wahhabi ideology and terror financiers, and by supporting all other countries, including NATO, that are trying to destroy Syria.

The list of omissions demonstrates the lie of Trudeau’s statement.

Trudeau ignored the reality that “cessations of hostilities” provide the terrorists with opportunities to regroup and rearm, and he ignored the fact that his words offer support to Canada’s terrorist proxies, and that they strengthen the West’s propaganda apparatus which presents the terrorists as the “good guys”, as amply documented by the West’s support and adoration of the terrorist-embedded White Helmets.

His words also ignore the fact that the terrorists use captive citizens as human shields.  Syrian Lilly Martin Sahounie reports the following, from Syria:

“Breaking news from East Aleppo: Oct 21, 2016: a family were able to get out to safety! Yes, I watched the interview with them on local TV. The wife said they got tired of waiting so many days to evacuate to safety. They knew that snipers were shooting at people trying to leave, but decided they would take their chances, because he husband was ill and needed medicine and food. They noticed a group of likewise civilians waiting to make a dash for it. They all started running. During their sprint out, 10 civilians with her were shot dead, including a pregnant woman! Her husband said he had been 85 kilos weight, but was now 65 kilos. He was haggard and ill looking, and using one walking cane. The children also stated that they lived in fear of the terrorists. They would not allow children to attend school, they would shoot kids if they stood in the streets and stared at them. Bread had been 25 lira a packet, and was now 1,000 lira. Unbelievable hardships and suffering. I believe these stories because they were coming right out of the mouths of the people, just minutes after running to safety. If it was a reporter recounting stories, I could doubt it, but you can’t doubt their stories. I always said to myself, that once the people get out of East Aleppo, you will hear horror stories, and these stories will directly reflect on these American backed and supported terrorists. You will also hear the TRUE story later of the White Helmets, it will all be revealed.”

To be blunt, the script that the Prime Minister read advances the cancer of terrorism in the Middle East, and sets the stage for more war crimes, beneath the lie of “collective responsibility”.

Canadian citizens have the “collective responsibility” to learn the truth, and to hold our apparently propagandized politicians to account.

Canada should send a non-partisan fact-finding delegation to Syria; we should make amends for our government’s criminality; we should cease our alliance, and arms trade, with Wahhabi Saudi Arabia; we should end our illegal sanctions against Syria; we should leave NATO; and we should denounce all countries that willfully support terrorism.

Syrians have suffered enough.

‘CETA is a TTIP in Disguise’: The Canada-EU Trade Deal is a US Hegemonic Project

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky and Sputnik, October 21 2016

Belgium’s region Wallonia has dealt a severe blow to European Union’s hopes to sign a free trade deal with Canada. The region’s President-Minister said he would not support the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement or CETA by the Friday deadline. Radio Sputnik discussed the CETA agreement with Michel Chossudovsky Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Is Washington “False Flagging” The New Russia-Iran-Syria-China “Axis of Evil”, Into Nuclear War?

By Peter Koenig, October 21 2016

There is a massive orchestrated build-up of potential false flags around the globe that would allow a first strike nuclear attack on several fronts against Russia, Syria, Iran and China, by the US armed forces, NATO and the European vassals’ own armies.

Video: President al-Assad: “Fighting Terrorists is the Way to Protect Civilians in Aleppo”. Vicious, Shabby Interview by Swiss SRF-TV

By Bashar al Assad, October 21 2016

This interview by Swiss TV SRF Channel 1 is in many regards despicable, idiotic and unprofessional. The answers of president Assad fully reveal the lies and fabrications of the Western media. This is Must Watch.

American Journalist Killed in Turkey for Revealing the Truth Regarding ISIS-Daesh

By Eva Bartlett, October 21 2016

Although all signs point to foul play, indeed murder, by Turkish intelligence, until now the US government has neither conducted nor demanded an inquiry into the events of the alleged car accident which Turkish officials say was the cause of Serena Shim’s death, let alone offer condolences to the family.

Final Trump-Clinton Debate: A Bankrupt Political System Staggers Toward the Finish Line

By Patrick Martin, October 21 2016

The third and last of the Clinton-Trump presidential debates was just as false and intellectually degraded as the first two, characterized by lying by both candidates and mutual mudslinging. The American political system, in which two right-wing corporate-controlled parties have long enjoyed a monopoly, is staggering toward the finish line under conditions of a global crisis so deep that no one can be certain what the world will look like when the votes are counted on November 8.

It is a perverse irony that as video war games move into 3-D reality on our computer screens, the real war games that are playing with people’s lives around the world become one-dimensional, presented in black and white packaging without proper context.

So it is that the recent atrocity committed with extreme malice against Yemeni civilians in their capital Sana’a with bombs dropped by Saudi war-planes had to vie for attention in the Western media alongside the deaths of similar numbers of Haitians struck at random by Hurricane Matthew.

The vital context missing from the reports on the Sana’a massacre – which said that at least 140 people were killed and over 500 hundred injured by four bombs dropped minutes apart – was any explanation, not of who was responsible, but of why they would do something so unbelievably barbaric.

There was never any question of who was responsible for the attack, because video of the burning building following the first strike recorded the next bomb-drop as well as the roar of the war-plane that dropped it. (There have been a number of dreadful car-bomb attacks on mosques in Sana’a before, so this might otherwise have been a possibility)

In the hours after the strike, the Saudis first refused to acknowledge responsibility – a preposterous claim which only confirmed not just their responsibility but their malicious intent – on which more shortly. Their guilt and that of their partners was further emphasized by a short-lived threat from the US to suspend arms shipments to Saudi Arabia.

And on this threat we must suspend disbelief!

The US is not just some sleeping partner in the Saudi coalition, or in the ongoing war to reinstall the illegitimate Saudi-supported exile ‘government’ of Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi. Indeed, given the overwhelming US military presence in Yemen’s region, including the centre for East African operations in Djibouti, we might conclude that this is really just another US coalition – operating under the Saudi ‘flag of convenience’. Not only are the Saudi planes supplied and presumably maintained by the US, but all the missiles and bombs – cluster bombs and bunker busters and who knows what else – have been supplied by the US, and even re-supplied during the course of the war on Yemen. In addition to that is the ‘assistance with targeting’ provided by US and UK personnel both on the ground in the Saudi peninsula and through multiple surveillance platforms.

This interdependency between the US and the Saudis can hardly be concealed, yet its true nature cannot be admitted. Even more taboo is the evident close cooperation between the Saudis and Israel, who have recently found shared interests in Syria and a common enemy in Iran.

Given these links it was impossible to believe the US would really ‘review its cooperation’ with the ‘Saudi Coalition’ – or should have been. But no matter – within days of the review the US found a reason to renew arms supplies to fight the Houthis when missiles were fired at the USS Mason in the Red Sea from Yemen. Or this is what they said.

Some astute observations were made by the ‘Off-Guardian’, suggesting not only that Houthi forces were extremely unlikely to have been responsible for the missile attack, but that the US ‘response’ – launching cruise missiles at ‘Houthi Radar installations’- was actually the intended action for which the ‘Houthi missile attack’ was the necessary pretext. As they also observed, the atrocity just committed against Yemenis in Sana’a was a rare opportunity to turn international sympathy in their direction, and they would have been unlikely to squander it with a useless provocation against a US navy vessel.

At about the same time as this direct entry into the Yemen conflict by the US, the results of an internal Saudi enquiry into the funeral bombing were released, finding that the strike was ‘not authorised’ and ‘based on false information from a Yemeni army source’. It is hard to get your head around the double-think and mendacity of these claims, and it was clearly beyond the mental capacity of some mainstream Western media reporters.

This was despite these media having themselves revealed the true motive behind the Saudi’s murderous attack. In its first report on the bombing, Australia’s SBS news showed the footage mentioned above of the airstrike with its giveaway sound track, but also and rather unusually speculated on a possible motive for the attack, showing a list of names of a dozen military chiefs and government members killed in the airstrike. The funeral was for a respected tribal leader and so the attendance of these important figures in the Ansarullah government was to be expected.

The problem for SBS was that the Saudis’ ‘false information’ was exactly what SBS had shown to be true only a few days earlier – that top figures in the Houthi military leadership were present at the funeral as claimed by their source, and the strike – a perfect opportunity to ‘decapitate’ the new Yemeni government – was quite clearly not ‘un-authorised’.

But SBS baulked at this chance to finally start reporting news instead of just passing on US/NATO propaganda about the ‘Iranian-backed Houthi rebels’ fighting a ‘civil war’ against the ‘internationally-recognised’ Mansour Hadi government.

Perhaps it had no choice, after passing on a carefully woven but completely false narrative about Yemen for the last five years. No regular listener to SBS, or any other Western media station could have much idea that of all the countries upset by the contrived ‘Arab Spring’, Yemen’s ‘revolution’ remained the most genuine and the most promising for her people. And as such was as threatening as Syria to the agenda and interests of the US-UK-Saudi coalition that has been trying to destroy it.

Most of those hapless followers of the Western MSM would have no idea that Yemen has a functioning government based in the capital Sana’a and supported by the vast majority of Yemenis, and that the ‘internationally recognized’ government is not actually recognized by Yemenis because they had no part in electing it.

Yemen has a functioning government based in the capital Sana’a and supported by the vast majority of Yemenis.

Just before the Saudi-led bombing campaign began in March 2015, talks on a ‘power-sharing agreement’ between the Houthis, former President Saleh’s faction and the now-exiled leaders finally collapsed, with the resignation of the UN mediator Jamal Benomar.  Hadi – who was never elected but merely appointed following the ousting of Saleh – was long past his mandate, but his Saudi backers refused to concede to the Houthis.

There have been periodic breaks in the bombing campaign, with UN-mediated talks on a ‘peace agreement’, but which never go anywhere. As with other asymmetric conflicts in the region – notably in Palestine and Syria – the ‘peace’ sought by the aggressors is one where the victims are asked to put down their weapons and concede defeat, submitting to the ‘international community’s’ choice of leadership and political alignment.

The most recent talks to solve Yemen’s political crisis, which finally involved representatives from Ansarullah and Ali Abdullah Saleh’s group, took place in Kuwait in August – and failed. Following this failure, Yemeni leaders decided to declare a formal alliance and government. Close observers of the Western MSM would have seen video of the rally which followed this declaration, and may have been impressed by its size – an estimated million-plus Yemenis came out to celebrate, despite the risk of a Saudi attack. And warning of something worse to come, an airstrike nearby after the leaders’ speeches sent people running from the rally and demonstrated the Saudis’ anger at the Yemenis’ defiance.

There have been daily developments following the ‘internationally’ sponsored atrocity of last week’s Sana’a ‘decapitation’, but one failed to make the news from SBS Australia – an update on the death toll. Thanks to the absence of proper hospital facilities in the dire conditions caused by the ‘internationally’ assisted blockade of Yemen, many of those seriously injured have now died.

A report from Yemen, relayed here by Vanessa Beeley, states that:

Yesterday, the under secretary of the Public Health Ministry in Yemen told journalist and Middle East commentator, Marwa Osman, the death toll had risen to 458 and hundreds more injured.  In an interview with RT, Osman went on to describe, 213 bodies were reported as charred, burned beyond recognition, 67 bodies were completely dismembered and 187 bodies torn apart by shrapnel.  The brutality of this attack is evident from the horrific photos that appeared on social media very quickly after the event, as Yemenis were reeling from the scale of the massacre.

Presumably there will be some people in Riyadh, Washington and London, who will be saying ‘the price was worth it’ – even though it cost them nothing. That price was paid by Yemenis, who may have little money but for whom life and independence is priceless.

Today, October 20, 2016, is the fifth anniversary of the murder of Muammar Gaddafi by forces organized and unleashed by US President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  Remember the killer bitch’s performance, with gleeful laughter, on CBS “News”:  “We came, we saw, he died.” 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y  

Muammar Gaddafi was the most progressive political leader in the world.  Gaddafi used Libya’s oil wealth for the benefit of the Libyan people. 

He lived in a tent, a nice tent, but not in a palace, and he did not have collections of European exotic cars or any of the other paraphernalia associated with the ruling families in Saudi Arabia and the oil emirates that are Washington’s Middle Eastern allies.

In Libya, education, medical treatment, and electricity were free. Gasoline was practically free, selling for 14 US cents per litre.  Women who gave birth were supported with cash grants and couples received cash grants upon marriage. Libya’s state bank provided loans without interest and provided free startup capital to farmers.

Gaddafi’s independence from Washington is what brought him down. Earlier in life Gaddafi’s goal was to organize Arabs as a bloc that could withstand Western depredations.  Frustrated, he turned to Pan-Africanism and refused to join the US Africa Command.  He wanted to introduce a gold-based African currency that would free Africans from American financial hegemony.

Gaddafi had Chinese energy companies developing Libya’s energy resources. Washington, already upset with Russian presence in the Mediterranean, was now faced with Chinese presence as well.  Washington concluded that Gaddafi was playing ball with the wrong people and that he had to go.

Washington organized mercenaries, termed them “rebels” as in Syria, and sicced them on Libya.  When it became clear that Gaddafi’s forces would prevail, Washington tricked naive and gullible Russian and Chinese governments and secured a UN no-fly zone over Libya to be enforced by NATO. The express purpose of the no-fly zone was to prevent Gaddafi from attacking civilian targets, which he was not doing.  The real reason was to prevent a sovereign state from using its own air space so that the Libyan Air Force could not support the troops on the ground.  Once the gullible Russians and Chinese failed to veto the Security Council’s action, the US and NATO themselves violated the resolution by using Western air power to attack Gaddafi’s forces, thus throwing the conflict to the CIA-organized mercenaries.  Gaddai was captured and brutally murdered.  Ever since, Libya, formerly a prosperous and successful society, has been in chaos, which is where the Obama regime wanted it.

All sorts of lies were told about Gaddafi and Libya, just as lies were told about Saddam Hussein and are told today about Syria and Russia.  A British Parliamentary Report concluded unambigiously that the Western peoples were fed lies by their governments in order to gain acceptance for the destruction of Libya, and that Libya was destroyed because Gaddafi was regarded as an obstacle to Western hegemony.

Note that none of the presstitutes have asked the killer bitch about her guilt under the Nuremburg laws for this war crime prepared on her watch.  Note that the oligarchs who own the killer bitch and their press prostitutes intend to make this war criminal the next president of the United States.

www.paulcraigroberts.org

This essay examines why nationalism seems to be on the rise in Asia and beyond at a time when globalization is also becoming more salient, by focusing on the political dynamics that propelled both changes in Japan in the post-Cold War era. The more open and liberal type of nationalism that appeared in Japan in the 1980s to the mid-1990s was followed by an abrupt revisionist backlash beginning in the late 1990s. This illiberal, authoritarian turn in contemporary nationalism was confirmed and accelerated during the premiership of Koizumi Jun’ichiro (2001-06), when further neoliberal reforms were simultaneously implemented. I argue that the New Right transformation of Japanese politics –the combined ascendancy of economic liberalism and political illiberalism—is the driving force of contemporary nationalism in Japan.

Jingoism and Revisionism

According to annual surveys conducted by the Cabinet Office, in recent years negative sentiments vis-à-vis China and South Korea have risen sharply in Japan. The 2014 survey revealed that 93% per cent of the Japanese respondents have negative sentiments towards China, as it appears to be a growing threat to Japan. The rise took place in two stages, first in the mid-2000s, during the government of Koizumi, when he made annual pilgrimages to Yasukuni Shrine that derailed bilateral relations, and then further in the early 2010s as tensions rose over the Senkaku/Diaoyu territorial dispute in the East China Sea.

Regarding Japanese sentiments vis-à-vis South Korea, there was a sharp drop in positive feelings in 2012 as bilateral relations deteriorated following President Lee Myung-bak’s visit to Takeshima/Dokdo islets also subject to competing claims of sovereignty similar to the standoff with China, allegedly out of frustration with the lack of progress in dealing with the “comfort women” (the women who were subjected to sexual slavery in wartime military brothels at the behest of Japanese military authorities) issue. The same 2014 Cabinet Office survey indicates that 66.4 per cent of Japanese harbor negative sentiments towards South Korea.

Considering the fact that negative sentiments against China were consistently around 20 per cent until the June 4^th Incident in 1989, while those against South Korea less than 40 per cent until as recently as 2011, these are worrisome developments that raise concerns about the future of Northeast Asia.

Moreover, a study of influential conservative monthly magazines, Shokun! and Seiron, also confirms similar trends of growing antipathy in the media. Articles with titles that include such words as han-nichi (anti-Japan), invariably in relation to China and Korea, dramatically increased in the late 1990s, and continued to rise sharply through the 2000s (Jomaru, 2011, 390-392). The popular Manga Ken Kanryu (Hating the Korean Wave Manga) published in 2005 broke the hate-mongering taboo, and spawned a countless number of similar publications, whose principal message was hatred of Korea and China. Today, sensationalist books and magazines that fan anti-China and/or anti-Korea sentiments have become an alarmingly ubiquitous feature of Japanese bookstores, and indeed, commuter trains, where the adverts of populist weeklies persistently exhibit hate messages targeting these two nations.

.

Zaitokukai Demonstrations Target ethnic Koreans in Japan

While there has been no violence or riots against the Chinese or the Koreans in Japan in recent years, hate demonstrations against the Zainichi Korean population have become a prominent social issue, particularly since the establishment of Zaitokukai (short hand for Zainichi Tokken o Yurusanai Shimin no Kai, Citizens’ Group Against Special Rights for Koreans in Japan in 2007. “Ordinary” Japanese, who previously were content to consume hate-mongering publications and spread jingoistic messages on the Internet against the Zainichi population subsequently took to the streets and spewed invective while terrorizing ethnic Korean permanent residents of Japan (Noma 2013; Sakamoto 2011). Zainichi are targeted based on groundless beliefs that they are accorded special privileges and because they are the collateral damage of worsening relations with South Korea over unresolved historical grievances and clashing territorial claims, anger over North Korea’s abduction of Japanese nationals, and anxieties generated by Pyongyang’s missile and nuclear weapons program.

Secondly, there has been a spectacular ascent of historical revisionism in mainstream politics and media. The sharp rise in hate-mongering articles in conservative media mentioned above was directly triggered by reports in 1996 that all Ministry of Education approved history textbooks for use in junior high schools from 1997 included references to “comfort women.” In a virulent reaction to this development, revisionist nationalists in politics and in the media launched an organized revisionist counterattack. Revisionists champion an exculpatory and valorizing narrative of Japan’s wartime actions and seek to revise the prevailing mainstream consensus that they condemn as ‘masochistic’ for being too critical of Japan’s conduct.

Thus, in January 1997, Tsukurukai (short hand name for Atarashii Rekishi Kyōkasho o Tsukurukai, Japan Society for History Textbook Reform) was launched by rightwing media figures and academics, while in February, the late Nakagawa Shoichi and Abe Shinzo led a group of junior revisionist politicians to launch the Young Parliamentarians Association that Consider Japan’s Future and History Education, and in May, Japan Conference (Nippon Kaigi) was established as a powerful lobby group that brought together neonationalist intellectuals and business leaders with the religious right (Shintoist groups as well as new religions). Nippon Kaigi also has a parliamentary arm with members mostly hailing from the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), the party that has dominated Japanese politics since it was established in 1955. This flowering of the revisionist movement on multiple fronts came to a head in 1997. From the very beginning, such rightwing/conservative media conglomerates as Fuji-Sankei group (that publishes Seiron as well as Sankei newspaper) and Bungei Shunju (that used to publish Shokun! among others) provided a media platform for these concerted efforts (Tawara 1997; Sasagase et al 2015; McNeill 2015).

Although serious scholars in the late 1990s dismissed revisionist claims as baseless, and in conflict with available evidence, by the time Abe succeeded Koizumi as Prime Minister in 2006, all reference to the “comfort women” disappeared from the main texts of the government-approved textbooks.

One key point that needs to be made at this juncture is that these two phenomena—jingoism and revisionism—are essentially elite-driven processes rather than reflecting grassroots sentiments or public opinion. Political and media elites took the lead in fanning negative sentiments against Japan’s neighbors, often, of course, in response to what they considered to be provocations by their Chinese and Korean counterparts. However, when we look at the chronology of these developments, it is evident that xenophobia among the Japanese people was instigated by the political and media elites

While it is entirely appropriate to ask in what sense the “top-down” xenophobia (anti-China and anti-Korea sentiments in particular) and historical revisionism discussed here constitute “nationalism,” these are clearly worrisome trends that stoke risings tension between Japan and its East Asian neighbors, where anti-Japanese sentiments are a touchstone of “nationalism.”

Neo/liberal Path to Nationalism

The rise of contemporary nationalism since the late 1990s is all the more curious once we consider how it all came about in the first place. After all, Japan was seemingly set on a steady path to neoliberal internationalism since the 1980s.

Image Revisionists seek to rehabilitate the inglorious wartime past

When the Basic Treaty with South Korea was signed in 1965, the Joint Communiqué noted the “regrets” (ikan) and “deep remorse” (fukaku hansei) expressed by the Japanese side and similarly, when diplomatic ties between the People’s Republic of China and Japan were established in 1972, the Joint Communiqué stated that, “The Japanese side is keenly conscious of the responsibility for the serious damage that Japan caused in the past to the Chinese people through war, and deeply reproaches itself” (sekinin wo tsukanshi, fukaku hansei suru) (Hattori 2015, 9-10; Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan 1972).

While leaders of the countries at the time considered these expressions sufficient and appropriate, the issue of war memory gained in salience and became a diplomatic issue in the shape of the history textbook controversy that erupted in 1982 over alleged changes in the wording of Japanese descriptions of its invasion of China (that turned out to be incorrect). In response, Japan issued the 1982 Miyazawa Statement on History Textbooks by Chief Cabinet Secretary Miyazawa Kiichi noting that the “spirit in the Japan-ROK Joint Communiqué and the Japan-China Joint Communiqué naturally should also be respected in Japan’s school education and government textbook authorization. Recently, however, the Republic of Korea, China, and others have been criticizing some descriptions in Japanese textbooks. From the perspective of building friendship and goodwill with neighboring countries, Japan will pay due attention to these criticisms and make corrections at the Government’s responsibility” (Chief Cabinet Secretary of Japan 1982).

This led to the adoption of the so-called “neighboring countries” clause in the Ministry of Education criteria for textbook approval that stipulates that “due consideration should be made from the point of view of international understanding and international cooperation when dealing with modern history issues that involve neighboring Asian countries.” Improvements have since been made in history textbooks, but in contemporary Japan this clause is hotly contested by the revisionist right; by 2015 PM Abe has all but abandoned it.

On August 15, 1985, marking the 40^th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, then Prime Minister Nakasone Yasuhiro paid an official visit to the Yasukuni Shrine. The Chinese government protested his visit, noting that the Class-A war criminals that were found guilty of orchestrating Japan’s rampage in Asia are enshrined there. By 1986, Nakasone decided to suspend future visits to the shrine in consideration of the Chinese criticisms and subsequently admonished Prime Minister Koizumi not to visit, arguing that doing so undermines national interests.

What is crucial to understand here is that Northeast Asia, and indeed, the whole world, was going through a period of liberal opening in the 1980s as the Cold War was nearing its end. China embarked on its extensive economic reforms in 1978, and they were further accelerated by the mid-1980s. This led to a somewhat more pluralistic society and political leadership—a country that was now rather different from the time when Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai held power. Similarly, the democratization movement was flaring up in Korea throughout the 1980s, resulting in the June 29 Declaration of democratization in 1987, as the military dictators lost their grip on power. Even in the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in 1985 and began the process of perestroika (restructuring) and glasnost (opening, transparency) that ushered in the dissolution of the Soviet Union. China, however, crushed the Tiananmen Square pro-democracy movement in 1989 as its leaders resorted to violence in a bid to prevent a Soviet-type scenario, deny popular demands for representative government and preserve the communist party’s monopoly of power. These developments indicate that even in authoritarian regimes, the government was no longer able to fully control popular demands and address public concerns, and that their polities were becoming more pluralistic, and thus, less stable.

It was in this context that Japan under Nakasone was also pushing through neoliberal reforms with the professed ambition to play a stronger leadership role in the liberal economic order. Japan was part of the 1985 Plaza Accord that triggered the rapid appreciation of the yen (which in turn unleashed the bubble economy in Japan), and a key participant in the Uruguay Round of multinational trade negotiations since 1986. Following the June 4^th Incident, Japan joined the western sanctions against China, but it also became the first country to lift them, with Prime Minister Kaifu Toshiki visiting Beijing in 1991, followed by the Emperor’s visit in 1992.

Beyond the economy, the 1990-91 Persian Gulf Crisis tested Japan’s liberal internationalist orientation as Iraq invaded Kuwait. Japan’s “checkbook diplomacy,” contributing $13 billion towards the coalition campaign but committing no troops, drew U.S. criticism for ducking the risks of combat due to constitutional constraints on its military forces. As the Cold War was coming to an end, there was growing pressure from the U.S. and its European allies for Japan to play a leadership role not merely in the global economy, but also in the security arena. Overcoming strong political opposition, the government succeeded in enacting the Peacekeeping Operation Law in 1992 allowing the dispatch of military forces in UN-sanctioned peacekeeping efforts.

Japanese political leaders at the time, including the nationalist Nakasone, thought that Japan’s prestige would benefit significantly from military normalization. They also understood that reconciliation with the former victims of Japan’s militarist past, most particularly, China and South Korea, was an absolute prerequisite to realize those ambitions. This is why they were prepared to go a long way in trying to come to grips with the past. It is possible to say that even ardent nationalist sentiments during this period displayed distinctly liberal characteristics.

Thus, when the first victim of Japan’s comfort women system appeared in front of the TV cameras in 1991 calling for the Japanese state to assume its responsibility, the government conducted an investigation including interviews with former comfort women that led to the 1993 Kono Statement (Kono Yohei was Chief Cabinet Secretary of Japan in 1993) and subsequently established the Asian Women’s Fund in 1995 to provide redress to these aging victims. Also in 1993, Prime Minister Hosokawa Morihiro became the first Japanese prime minister to publicly acknowledge that Japan was engaged in a “war of aggression” in the Second World War (Hosokawa 2010, pp. 30-31). This liberal trends regarding war responsibility culminated in the Murayama Statement of 1995 acknowledging and apologizing for Japanese wartime aggression (Murayama Tomiichi was the socialist Prime Minister in 1995 in a coalition government with the LDP).

Illiberal, Revisionist Turn

The liberal opening up of societies around the world continued in the post-Cold War era, and it seemed as if the vexing history issues that emerged were going to be resolved by the same liberal political elites. Liberalization of political systems, however, also meant that liberal elites were no longer in full control of social demands, or in fact, even of government policies. The quest for international reconciliation over history issues turned into an unpredictable process involving multiple actors that are not neatly divided across national lines. As mentioned in section 1 above, certain political and media elites manipulated anti-China/anti-Korea sentiments and historical revisionism for their own purposes from the late 1990s. Indeed, nationalists’ grandstanding in the late 1990s onward has intensified tensions across borders, reinforcing nationalist discourse in their respective countries at the expense of moderates.

Several different factors coalesced to further the illiberal, revisionist turn. First, after more than fifty years since WWII, the late 1990s saw a rapid generational turnover among political elites, with those with direct personal experience of the war replaced by younger politicians with no such experience who were building political careers in the post-Cold War era in which there was no apparent rival ideology to neoliberalism. In many cases, they were also born and raised in privilege as hereditary scions of political dynasties. These new elites often opposed expressions of war guilt and contrition, and disavowed the reconciliation initiatives of previous generations. They are also prone to exhibit a rather more cynical, neoliberal worldview, according to which self-interested actors vie to get ahead at the expense of each other in domestic politics as well as international relations.

Tellingly, while Miyazawa in 1991 was the first postwar prime minister to hail from a political dynasty (he had also served as an elite bureaucrat like many of his predecessors), since 1996 to date no less than seven of the ten prime ministers came from political dynasties.² The oligarchic tendency becomes even more striking when one considers the fact that of these hereditary prime ministers, Abe, Fukuda Yasuo, Asō Tarō, and Hatoyama Yukio are, in fact, sons or grandsons of postwar prime ministers. While not all of the hereditary politicians share a revisionist outlook, their predominance, particularly at the very top, does point to the emergence of a privileged ruling class. In fact, it is highly ironic that in Northeast Asia, where “nationalism” has raised regional tensions to unprecedented levels, Japan and its neighbors, China, South Korea, and North Korea, are all currently led by hereditary politicians.

Significantly, the rightward political shift in Japan in the 21^st century coincides with economic decline, creating a volatile context for a rising tide of nationalism. Japan faces prolonged economic stagnation, relative decline, and mushrooming public debt, in addition to growing disparities between rich and poor that undermine the norms and values that have been a foundation of postwar national cohesion. In other words, the oligarchic political tendency is also evident in the economic sphere, in a country known for, and proud of, its egalitarian society. Insecurity and precarity hit the lower strata of society and youth especially hard, leading to increased suicide, divorce, non-marriage, deflation and lower productivity because firms no longer invest in training disposable workers. In this acute social crisis, political leaders sought to divert attention to “external enemies.”

.

poster for the Rally Against Precarity

Again, on this front Japan was not alone or unique, as the predominance of neoliberal economic policies everywhere meant that the social fabric was torn apart as oligarchic governments often lacked the fiscal resources, or indeed political will, to ensure minimum standards of national wellbeing. “Nationalism” or xenophobic campaigns provided a “no-cost” alternative to provision of adequate social security, enabling the ruling elites to dodge their responsibilities and offer a false sense of national unity that elided the marginalization and expansion of the “have-nots.” As Dr. Samuel Johnson famously remarked as early as 1775, patriotism is ‘the last refuge of a scoundrel’ while in contemporary Japan it constitutes conservatives’ palliative for what ails the nation.

Last, but not least, these processes were accelerated by neoliberal internationalist policy orientation that we noted earlier. There are four key elements in this process. First, since the First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) electoral system was introduced in 1994, the LDP became a much more centralized party. Diversity of internal opinions that used to moderate (or dilute, depending on one’s point of view) the overall party stance, and thus, offered a thriving environment for consensus-seeking moderates, was replaced by the predominance of uncompromising conservatives with extreme views. Second, electoral system reform was soon followed by administrative reform that centralized power in the prime minister’s office. This confluence of developments facilitated the emergence of a “top-down” style of governance that was inspired by the neoliberal, corporate model. Third, electoral system reform and the party realignment that ensued brought about the demise of the Left, namely the Japan Socialist Party, that used to provide effective opposition and served as a check on the reactionary inclinations of LDP governments. When Murayama, the Socialist prime minister, stepped down in 1996, moderates in the LDP also lost their pivotal position in the evolving coalition politics. Fourth, by 1998, it became evident that the new main rival for the LDP-led government was the neoliberal Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ); overall, these rivals for power occupy the same ideological niche. After Prime Minister Obuchi Keizō failed to spend his way out of economic stagnation, a new neoliberal consensus emerged between the DPJ and Koizumi’s LDP that signaled the beginning of an era of ideational politics. This marked the end of the era of interest politics in Japan, when the government had ample resources to satisfy its supporters and silence opponents. The ideas, ideologies, and identities that the LDP would effectively mobilize in the new era were nationalistic, revisionist, and even xenophobic to a degree.

The late 1990s thus served as a transition period when these changes in the illiberal, revisionist direction were emerging, but it was not until the 2000s under Koizumi that these changes accelerated.

Xenophobia, Revisionism, and Authoritarianism under Koizumi and Abe

While there is no denying Koizumi’s strong charisma and mastery of political theatrics, it would be a mistake to overlook the institutional underpinning that was put into place by his predecessors in analyzing the sources of his effectiveness as a political leader. Koizumi was fortunate in being able to make use of the newly concentrated power afforded him as the leader of the LDP and as prime minister to marginalize critics, promote loyal followers, and propel his agenda. His neoliberal agenda of “structural reform with no sacred cows” was not always popular within the party, but he shrewdly made up for it by fanning and exploiting “nationalistic” sentiments. His annual visits to the Yasukuni Shrine were a case in point. There is no record of interest on his part in Yasukuni before or after he served as prime minister (unlike Abe, who deeply cares about it). Koizumi nevertheless claimed that the visits were a matter of his “heart” and dismissed Chinese and Korean criticisms as domestic interference. He thus shrewdly invoked nationalist symbols to appear as a resolute leader and advance his economic program, a marked contrast to PM Abe who invokes economic reform to divert criticism from his revisionist agenda targeting wartime history and the constitution along with ramping up Japan’s security profile.

Koizumi’s “Children”-1^st time elected politicians-obediently follow him to Yasukuni Shrine

The hardcore nationalists, who disliked Koizumi’s privatization and deregulation reforms that they viewed as a sellout to U.S. corporate interests, nevertheless cheered him as he stubbornly refused to cave in to Chinese and Korean criticisms and continued to visit Yasukuni (Nakano 2006, 403). The New Right technique Koizumi employed replicates Margaret Thatcher’s mobilization of nationalist support for the Falklands War when her monetarist economic policies were proving deeply unpopular in the early 1980s. Ultimately, as Koizumi’s signature reform project of postal privatization encountered stiff opposition from within the LDP, he took the unusually authoritarian route of firing uncooperative ministers from the cabinet, expelling from the party Diet members opposed to his scheme, and called a snap election for the lower house to counter the upper house’s rejection of his bill. Such a move on his part would not have been possible without the centralized power conferred on him by the political and administrative reforms of the 1990s.

One should note here also that under Koizumi there was a decisive shift away from the internationalist foreign policy orientation that Japan adopted since the 1980s. The Koizumi premiership in Japan overlapped with the presidency of George W. Bush in the U.S. In a striking departure from prevailing assumptions that Japan needs to reconcile with China and Korea as a pre-condition for military normalization, Koizumi even went so far as to claim that “There is no such thing as U.S.-Japan relationship that is too close. Some people maintain that maybe we should pay more attention to other issues and that it would probably be better to strengthen relations with other countries. I do not share such views. The U.S.-Japan relationship, the closer, more intimate it is, the easier it is for us to establish better relations with China, with South Korea, and other nations in Asia” (Prime Minister of Japan 2005). The Bush Administration perceived Koizumi’s instrumental use of revisionism as “healthy nationalism” allowing Japan to assume a greater, if subordinate, military role in the alliance framework, damaging the prospects for reconciliation with its former victims.

Given the loss of economic opportunities, however, the Japanese business community ensured that when Koizumi finally stepped down, his successor, Abe, would work to rebuild Japan’s ties with China by refraining from visiting Yasukuni Shrine. Abe duly acted pragmatically at the time (though he later said that he regretted not having visited Yasukuni as prime minister), and in any case, his first stint at the premiership lasted only for a year as he suffered a humiliating upper house election defeat in 2007 at the hands of the then ascendant DPJ. Within that year, however, Abe changed the Basic Law on Education to include “love of country” as a goal of education, upgraded the Defense Agency to a full-fledged ministry, and set the rules for conducting an eventual referendum for constitutional revision.

When Abe returned to power in December 2012, he faced a rather different set of political conditions. The rival DPJ suffered a catastrophic defeat, while there were a couple of new parties that were positioning themselves even further to the right of the LDP on many issues and were indeed willing to collaborate to advance this agenda. Abe also successfully silenced potential dissent from big business by giving a boost to stock prices with the reflationary policies of “Abenomics,” devaluing the yen to make Japanese exports more competitive, and advocating restarts of Japan’s idled nuclear reactors.

Abe also gained the enthusiastic backing of the Sankei and Yomiuri newspapers, which acted as media cheerleaders for his policies and pit bulls for his critics. Having suffered from negative media coverage in his first premiership, Abe sought to tighten his grip on the media, placing a trusted henchman with no media experience as the head of Japan’s flagship public broadcaster, NHK.

Once the upper house election of summer 2013 was out of the way, with a handsome victory for Abe’s ruling coalition, he revealed his true colors by setting up the National Security Council, pushing through the highly controversial Designated Secrets Law that gave largely unchecked discretionary power to government officials to designate documents as state secrets, and visiting Yasukuni Shrine on the first year anniversary of his second premiership. In July 2014, he further revised the official government interpretation of the constitution to enable Japan to exercise the right of collective self-defense by a mere cabinet decision – something that successive postwar LDP governments had repeatedly acknowledged would require constitutional amendment.

The prospects for revision have been strengthened by Abe’s 2016 electoral victory, but there are no longer doubts about Abe’s real agenda as Abenomics increasingly seems to have promised more than it has delivered and, because its main success is boosting stock market prices, critics dismiss it as welfare for the wealthy. Abe has also tried to position himself as an advocate for womenomics, but here again the rhetoric exceeds the reality. He reshuffled his cabinet in September 2014 with his media spin masters emphasizing the record number of five women ministers (plus a woman policy chief for the LDP)³, but nearly all of these women politicians were better known for their far-right revisionist views than for their feminist policy orientation. Indeed, Yamatani Eriko (National Police and Disaster Management Minister), Takaichi Sanae (Internal Affairs and Communications Minister), and Inada Tomomi (LDP Policy Chief), in particular, were notorious for their anti-feminist and extreme revisionist views, in addition to dubious ties to Neo-Nazi and/or xenophobic activists.

The revisionists launched orchestrated, vitriolic attacks in 2014 against the liberal-leaning Asahi newspaper after it retracted a handful of articles on the “comfort women” from the 1990s that were based in part on false testimony. Abe also seized the opportunity to attack the critical newspaper and served as cheerleader-in-chief even as emboldened extremists issued death threats against a university that employed one of the former Asahi journalists who wrote some of the “comfort women” stories that were not in fact based on the false testimony. This McCarthyism-style campaign by reactionary nationalists threatens press and academic freedoms in Japan while intimidating moderates. (Uemura with Yamaguchi 2015).

When Abe called a snap election in December 2014 to consolidate his hold on power, the LDP’s official campaign pledge included a passage that said, “We shall act to restore Japan’s honor and national interest by presenting firm counterarguments against groundless accusations based on falsehood through external communication to the international community,” a thinly veiled reference to its plan to use the Asahi retraction to challenge the consensus that the “comfort women” were sex slaves (Liberal Democratic Party 2014). This revisionist campaign aims to convey the misleading impression that the whole of the sex slave system was an Asahi fabrication, and rewrite Japan’s shared history with Asia in ways that imperil Japan’s regional interests.

Moreover, Abe pursues this revisionist agenda internationally, as Japanese diplomats in New York sought unsuccessfully to have McGraw-Hill revise its description of the comfort women in an American history textbook (Fackler 2015). This provoked a public relations disaster for Japan and publication of a letter by a group of US-based historians (including eminent scholars such as Carol Gluck and Sheldon Garon) expressing “dismay at recent attempts by the Japanese government to suppress statements in history textbooks both in Japan and elsewhere about the euphemistically named ‘comfort women’ who suffered under a brutal system of sexual exploitation in the service of the Japanese imperial army during World War II” in the newsmagazine of the American Historical Association (Dudden et al. 2015, 33). Since the U.S. government remains firmly opposed to revision of the Kono Statement, Abe and his supporters have conducted hit-and-run attacks against it in the Diet to discredit this mea culpa while denouncing the 1996 UN Coomaraswamy Report on “comfort women” (UN Commission of Human Rights 1996). Revisionists are thus waging a campaign to deny that Japan was responsible for forced recruitment of young women and that the “comfort women” system constituted sexual slavery, again tarnishing the dignity of the nation and its victims.

Choreographing Closer US-Japan Security Ties 2015

Abe’s self-righteous nationalism and strong revisionist streak has alienated neighbors and made Washington increasingly abashed. Even if the Pentagon thinks of Abe as their man in Japan because he has delivered more on America’s longstanding security requests than the rest of Japan’s post-WWII prime minsters combined, he is making himself an awkward partner because nobody can pretend that shirking the burdens of the past is anything but narrow-minded and counterproductive nationalism.

This article is adapted from Nakano Koichi, “Political Dynamics of Contemporary Japanese Nationalism” in Jeff Kingston, ed., Asian Nationalisms Reconsidered (Routledge, 2016).

Bibliography

Cabinet Office of Japan (various years). Gaiko in kansuru Yoron Chosa (Public Opinion Survey concerning Diplomacy). http://survey.gov-online.go.jp/index-gai.html (Last retrieved on February 9, 2015).

Chief Cabinet Secretary of Japan (1982). “Statement by Chief Cabinet Secretary Kiichi Miyazawa on History Textbooks.” August 26, 1982. http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/postwar/state8208.html (Last retrieved on February 9, 2015).

Chief Cabinet Secretary of Japan (1993). “Statement by the Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono on the result of the study on the issue of ‘comfort women.’” August 4, 1993. http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/women/fund/state9308.html (Last retrieved on February 9, 2015).

Dudden, Alexis et al. (2015). “Letter to the Editor: Standing with Historians of Japan,” Perspectives on History, March 2015, p. 33.

Fackler, Martin (2015). “U.S. Textbook Skews History, Prime Minister of Japan Says,” New York Times, January 29, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/30/world/asia/japans-premier-disputes-us-textbooks-portrayal-of-comfort-women.html?_r=1 (Last retrieved on February 9, 2015).

Gluck, Carol (2013). “Change in Japan is a long-distance run” (Interview), Asahi Shimbun, September 17, 2013. http://ajw.asahi.com/article/views/opinion/AJ201309170004 (Last retrieved on February 9, 2015).

Government of Japan (2013). National Security Strategy of Japan. December 17, 2013. http://www.cas.go.jp/jp/siryou/131217anzenhoshou/nss-e.pdf (Last retrieved on February 9, 2015).

Hattori, Ryuichi (2015). Gaiko Dokyumento Rekishi Ninshiki (Diplomatic Document History Recognition) (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten).

Hosokawa, Morihiro (2010). Naishoroku (Diary) (Tokyo: Nihon Keizai Shimbun Shuppansha).

Jomaru, Yoichi (2011). “Shokun!” “Seiron” no Kenkyu: Hoshu Genron wa dou Henyo shitekitaka (A Study of “Shokun!” and “Seiron” Magazines: How did the Conservative Opinions Change?) (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten).

Liberal Democratic Party (2014). “Jiminto Juten Seisaku 2014 (LDP Key Policies 2014).” December 2014. http://jimin.ncss.nifty.com/pdf/news/policy/126585_1.pdf Last retrieved on February 9, 2015).

McNeill, David. (2015) “Nippon Kaigi and the Radical Conservative Project to Take Back Japan”, The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol. 13, Issue 48, No. 4, December 14, 2015.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (1972). “Joint Communiqué of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People’s Republic of China.” September 29, 1972. http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/china/joint72.html (Last retrieved on February 9, 2015).

Nakano, Koichi (2006). “Yasukuni Mondai to Mukiau (Facing Up to Yasukuni Issue)” in Nakano, Koichi et al. (2006), Yasukuni to Mukiau (Facing Up to Yasukuni) (Tokyo: Mekong Publishing).

Noma, Yasumichi (2013). “Zainichi Tokken” no Kyoko (Lies about “Zainichi Privileges”) (Tokyo: Kawade Shobo Shinsha).

Prime Minister of Japan (1995). “Statement by Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama ‘On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the war’s end.’” August 15, 1995. http://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/press/pm/murayama/9508.html (Last retrieved on February 9, 2015).

Prime Minister of Japan (2005), “The President’s News Conference With Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan in Kyoto, Japan.” November 16, 2005. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=63396 (Last retrieved on February 9, 2015).

Sakamoto Rumi (2011),‘Koreans, Go Home!’ Internet Nationalism in Contemporary Japan as a Digitally Mediated Subculture,The Asia-Pacific Journal Vol 9, Issue 10 No 2, March 7.

Sasagase Yuji, Hayashi Keita and Sato Kei (2015) Introduction to Nippon Kaigi, The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol. 13, Issue 48, No. 5, Dec 14. (translated by J. Victor Koschmann)

Tawara, Yoshifumi (1997). Dokyumento “Ianfu” Mondai to Kyokasho Kogeki (Document “Comfort Women” Issue and Textbook Offensives) (Tokyo: Kobunken).

Uemura, Takashi with Tomomi Yamaguchi (2015). “Labeled the reporter who ‘fabricated’ the comfort woman issue: A Rebuttal,” The Asia-Pacific Journal, vol. 13, issue 2, no. 1, January 12, 2015. http://www.japanfocus.org/-Uemura-Takashi/4249 (Last retrieved on February 9, 2015).

UN Commission on Human Rights (1996). “Addendum Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy, in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1994/45 Report on the mission to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea and Japan on the issue of military sexual slavery in wartime.” January 4, 1996. http://www.awf.or.jp/pdf/h0004.pdf (Last retrieved on February 9, 2015).

Notes:

¹  Neoliberalism refers to a set of “small government” policies, including privatization, deregulation, elimination of trade barriers, and cuts in public expenditure, that generally result in a widening gap between the rich and the poor.

² Only Mori Yoshirō (who comes from a family of local politicians) in the LDP, and Kan Naoto and Noda Yoshihiko from the Democratic Party of Japan served as prime ministers despite lacking family connections in national politics. Abe is counted once even though he served on two separate occasions, 2006-07 and 2012- present.

³ Koizumi’s first cabinet also had five women ministers. 

On Tuesday, September 27, women peace activists held a press conference at the Interchurch Center across from the United Nations Headquarters building in NYC. They announced that they had delivered a letter signed by more than 100 women asking UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to initiate a peace process which will lead to a peace treaty between the US and the DPRK by 2020.

They explained that with 100 days left before the UN Secretary General completes his second five year term at the head of the UN Secretariat, he has an obligation to fulfill on a promise he made in a speech in 2007 where he stated: “Beyond a peaceful resolution of the nuclear issue with North Korea, we should aim to establish a peace mechanism, through transition from armistice to a permanent peace regimen.”

In their letter the peace activists reminded the UN Secretary General, “We look to you to leave behind a legacy of diplomacy for peace in Korea, Northeast Asia and the World.”

In the past few weeks, journalists who are part of the UN press corps have asked the Secretary General if he has any intention of using his little time left as Secretary General to do something to work toward a peaceful resolution of the tension on the Korean Peninsula. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s term in office will expire on December 31, 2016.

In response to the questions posed by these reporters, the Secretary General replied that he has no special plans.

It is to the credit of these women peace activists that they continue to call on the Secretary General to fulfill on the obligation of his office to work to lessen the tension on the Korean Peninsula. But whether their efforts will lead to any action on the part of the Secretary General or not does not detract from the importance of such efforts on the part of journalists and peace activists.

The peace activists holding the press conference pointed out that currently tensions are especially high on the Korean Peninsula. The combination of military exercises by US and South Korea, the US bringing B1 bombers to South Korea, and the North Korean nuclear tests leave the situation on the Korean Peninsula as one with no obvious means of lessening the tension.

During the press conference, one of the speakers, Suzy Kim, described a meeting held by the peace activists in February 2016 in Bali, Indonesia.

The International peace activists group Women Cross the DMZ (WCDMZ) had invited a South Korean women peace delegation and a North Korean women peace delegation to meet with them to discuss how to work toward the signing of a peace treaty between the US government and the North Korean government that would end the Korean War. In order to make the arrangements for their meeting, there was a need to get permissions from the South Korean government and the North Korean government for the women from their respective countries to meet with each other. While the delegation of WCDMZ peace activists got the needed permission from the North Korean government for the proposed meeting, the South Korean government would not approve such a meeting. Therefore, the international peace activists decided to hold separate meetings with the North Korean women and the South Korean women.

The WOMENCROSSDMZ.org web site includes a summary which describes the Bali meetings and includes a statement of principles created by the North Korean women and the international peace activists. Following is the statement:

MEETING AGREEMENT,
Bali Indonesia February 10, 2016
(Between WCDMZ International Delegation and DPRK Delegation)

“1. We will make active efforts for public education and awareness raising regarding the situation on the Korean Peninsula, and the need for an end to military action that further aggravates the situation.

2. We will work together as Korean and international women, in efforts to improve inter-Korean relations and achieve peaceful reunification of Korea, in the spirit of prior inter – Korean agreements such as the June 15 North and South Joint Declaration, 2000.

3. We will carry out work toward the achievement of lasting peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. This includes the removal of various political and physical hindrances to peace and reunification, replacement of the Armistice Agreement with a peace treaty, and the eventual denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the entire world.

4. We will promote women’s leadership at all levels of peacebuilding, including preventing armed conflict and participating in peace negotiations. International women will actively work to urge each government to support women’s involvement in the Korean peace process, as provided for in UN Security Council Resolution 1325.”

Such a statement provides a guide for a transnational peace building campaign. The statement is an expression of the need for peace negotiations toward replacing the Korean War Armistice Agreement with a peace treaty and the eventual denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the rest of the world.

The summary of the February Bali meeting offers a demonstration of the value of including women in line with UN Security Council Resolution 1325 in peace negotiations for the Korean Peninsula.

The importance of implementing UN Resolution 1325 in the conflict on the Korean Peninsula was also raised at an October 3, 2016 press conference at the UN marking the Russian Federation assuming the October 2016 rotating presidency of the UN Security Council. On the agenda for the October 2016 schedule is a UN Security Council meeting on October 25 which will be an open debate on UNSC Resolution 1325.

A question raised by a journalist and the response from Ambassador Vitaly Churkin at the October 3 press conference helps to support the need for women peace activists to be part of the peace process in difficult conflict situations like the Korean conflict:

Following is the slightly edited transcript of this question and Ambassador Churkin’s response:

(Journalist): “Yes, I have a question about (Security Council Resolution-ed) 1325. There are women, international women peace activists who went from North Korea and South Korea, and met with women in both countries. And now they sent a letter to Ban Ki-moon asking him for a process towards a peace treaty (between the US and North Korea-ed) and also to involve women in the process. And here we have the situation with North Korea where the Security Council has not made any progress. And they (the international peace activists-ed) are saying we need women involved in doing this, women working for peace.

Is there any way you see of doing this, any way you see to have 1325 actually implemented so you get some help toward having a peace development?”

Response from Ambassador Churkin:

“Well, You know what we believe is that, this is an extremely difficult situation. And the cycle of action and counter action which we have seen in the past few years, actually since 2005 when this deal of September 19 fell through, it is not working.

So we do believe we need to try some creative thinking. We don’t have some specific immediate proposals, but certainly, DPRK testing and then US and others conducting some higher level military maneuvers there, you know, beefing up their military presence, that does not help at all.

In that creative thinking, it may well be the greater involvement of women could be one of the elements that might move the situation forward.” (1)

By recognizing the need for and importance of contributions for the peace process mandated by UNSC Resolution 1325, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon would do well to favorably respond to the letter from the international women peace activists.

Notes

1) See webcast for Oct 3, 2016 press conference with Ambassador Churkin:

http://webtv.un.org/media/watc h/ambassador-vitaly-churkin- of-the-russian-federation- president-of-the-security- council-of-october-2016-press- conference/5153898747001

(at 33:08-33:58, and 33:59-34:42)

Global Research Editor’s Note:

This interview by Swiss TV SRF Channel 1 is in many regards despicable, idiotic and unprofessional. 

The answers of president Assad fully reveal the lies and fabrications of the Western media.

This is Must Watch

*      *      *

President Bashar al-Assad stressed that protecting civilians in Aleppo necessitates getting rid of the terrorists.

Speaking in an interview with the Swiss SRF 1 TV channel, the President said “Of course, it’s our mission according to the constitution and the law. We have to protect the people, and we have to get rid of those terrorists in Aleppo. That’s how we can protect civilians.”

He added that it goes without saying that the way to protect the civilians in Aleppo is to attack the terrorists who hold the civilians under their control and are killing them.

Following is the full text of the interview:

Journalist: Mr. President, thank you very much for having welcomed Swiss Television and our program Rundschau here in Damascus.

President Assad: You are most welcome in Syria.

Question 1: First, please, allow me to clarify one thing: may I ask you every question?

President Assad: Every question, without exception.

Question 2: I’m asking because one of your conditions is that interview is being broadcast in its full version. Are you afraid that we might manipulate your statements?

President Assad: You should answer that question, but I think we should build this relation upon the trust, and I think you are worried about the trust of your audience, so I don’t think so. I think you have good reputation in conveying the truth in every subject you try to cover.

Question 3: Do you see it as a lie, that the world considers you as to be a war criminal?

President Assad: That depends on what the reference in defining that word. Is it the international law, or is it the Western agenda or the Western political mood, let’s say, that’s being defined by vested-interests politicians in the West? According to the international law, as a President and as government and as Syrian Army, we are defending our country against the terrorists that have been invading Syria as proxies to other countries.

So, if you want to go back to that word, the “war criminal,” I think the first one who should be tried under that title are the Western officials; starting with George Bush who invaded Iraq without any mandate from the Security Council. Second, Cameron and Sarkozy who invaded and destroyed Libya without mandate from the Security Council. Third, the Western officials who are supporting the terrorists during the last five years in Syria, either by providing them with political umbrella, or supporting them directly with armaments, or implementing embargo on the Syrian people that has led to the killing of thousands of Syrian civilians.

.

Question 4: But we are here to talk about your role in this war, and the US Secretary of State John Kerry called you “Adolf Hitler” and “Saddam Hussein” in the same breath. Does it bother you?

President Assad: No, because they don’t have credibility. This is first of all. Second, for me as President, what I care about first and foremost is how the Syrian people look at me; second, my friends around the world – not my personal friends as President, I mean our friends as Syrians, like Russia, like Iran, like China, like the rest of the world – not the West, the West always tried to personalize things, just to cover the real goals which is about deposing government and getting rid of a certain president just to bring puppets to suit their agenda. So, going back to the beginning, no I don’t care about what Kerry said, at all. It has no influence on me.

Question 5: You’re the President of a country whose citizens are fleeing, half of your fellow citizens. The people are not only fleeing because of the terrorists, of ISIS, or the rebels, but also because of you.

President Assad: What do you mean by me? I’m not asking people to leave Syria, I’m not attacking people; I’m defending the people. Actually, the people are leaving Syria for two reasons: first reason is the action of the terrorists, direct action in killing the people. The second one is the action of the terrorists in order to paralyze the life in Syria; attacking schools, destroying infrastructure in every sector. Third, the embargo of the West that pressed many Syrians to find their livelihood outside Syria. These are the main reasons. If you can see that the second factor and the third factor are related, I mean the role of the terrorists and the West in undermining and hurting the livelihoods of the Syrians, is one and, let’s say, is commonality between the terrorists and Europe.

Question 6: When you speak of terrorists, who do you mean by that? Surely ISIS, but also the “Free Syrian Army” or the Kurds?

President Assad: What I mean is like what you mean as a Swiss citizen, if you have anyone who carries machineguns or armaments and killing people under any titles, and committed vandalism, destroying public or private properties; this is a terrorist. Anyone who adopts a political way in order to make any change he wants, this is not a terrorist. You can call him opposition. But you cannot call somebody who is killing people or holding armaments, you cannot call him opposition, in your country, in my country as well.

Question 7: Well, you don’t have any free opposition in your country.

President Assad: Of course we have, of course we have. We have real opposition, we have people who live in Syria, whom their grassroots are the Syrian people, they’re not opposition who were forged in other countries like France or UK or Saudi Arabia or Turkey. We have them, and you can go and meet them and deal with them with your camera. You can do that yourself.

Question 8: How do you explain to your three children what is happening in Aleppo? I’m sure that you are discussing about it at the family table.

President Assad: Yeah, of course if I’m going to explain to them, I’m going to explain about what is happening in Syria, not only in Aleppo, taking into consideration that my children are full-grown now, they understand what is going on Syria. But if you want to explain to them or to any other child what is happening, I’m going to explain about the role of the terrorists, about the role of Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia in supporting those terrorists with money, with logistic support, and the role of the West in supporting those terrorists either through armament or through helping them with the propaganda and the publicity. I’m going to explain to them in full what’s going on.

Question 9: Do you, as a father, also say that you have nothing to do with the bombardments of the hospitals in Aleppo?

President Assad: Look, when they say that we are bombarding the hospitals, it means that we are killing civilians. That is the meaning of the word. The question is why would the government kill civilians, whether in hospitals or in streets or schools or anywhere? You are talking about killing Syrians. When we kill Syrians, as a government, or as army, the biggest part of the Syrian society will be against us. You cannot succeed in your war if you are killing civilians. So, this story, and this narrative, is a mendacious narrative, to be frank with you. Of course, unfortunately, every war is a bad war, in every war you have innocent victims, whether children, women, elderly, any other civilian, any other innocent who is not part of this war, he could pay the price, this is unfortunately. That’s why we have to fight terrorism. When we don’t say that, it’s like saying – according to that question or that narrative, that you may reflect in your question – that the terrorists, Al Qaeda, al-Nusra, ISIS, are protecting the civilians, and we as government are killing the civilians. Who can believe that story? No one.

Question 10: But who else got airplanes or bunker-busting bombs besides your army?

President Assad: It’s like you’re saying that everyone who is killed in Syria was killed by the airplanes or aircrafts, military aircrafts! The majority of the people were killed by mortars shelled by the terrorists on them while they’re at schools, in their hospitals, in the streets, anywhere. It’s not related to the aerial bombardment. Sometimes you have aerial bombardment against the terrorists, but that doesn’t mean that every bomb that fell somewhere was by airplane or by the Syrian Army. If you are talking about a specific incident, let’s say, we have to verify that specific incident, but I’m answering you in general now.

Question 11: But you have the power to change the situation also for the children in Aleppo.

President Assad: Of course, that’s why-

Journalist: Will you do that?

President Assad: Exactly, that’s our mission, according to the constitution, according to the law; that we have to protect the people, that we have to get rid of those terrorists from Aleppo. This is where we can protect the civilians. How can you protect them while they are under the control of the terrorists? They’ve been killed by them, and they’ve been controlled fully by the terrorists. Is it our role to sit aside and watch? Is that how we can protect the Syrian people? We need to attack the terrorists, that’s self-evident.

Question 12: May I show you a picture?

President Assad: Of course.

Journalist: This young boy has become the symbol of the war. I think that you know this picture.

President Assad: Of course I saw it.

Journalist: His name is Omran. Five years old.

President Assad: Yeah.

Journalist: Covered with blood, scared, traumatized. Is there anything you would like to say to Omran and his family?

President Assad: There’s something I would like to say to you first of all, because I want you to go back after my interview, and go to the internet to see the same picture of the same child, with his sister, both were rescued by what they call them in the West “White Helmets” which is a facelift of al-Nusra in Aleppo. They were rescued twice, each one in a different incident, and just as part of the publicity of those White Helmets. None of these incidents were true. You can have it manipulated, and it is manipulated. I’m going to send you those two pictures, and they are on the internet, just to see that this is a forged picture, not a real one. We have real pictures of children being harmed, but this one in specific is a forged one.

Question 13: But it’s true that innocent civilians are dying, in Aleppo.

President Assad: Of course, not only in Aleppo; in Syria. But now you are talking about Aleppo, because the whole hysteria in the West about Aleppo, for one reason; not because Aleppo is under siege, because Aleppo has been under siege for the last four years by the terrorists, and we haven’t heard a question by Western journalists about what’s happening in

Aleppo that time, and we haven’t heard a single statement by Western officials regarding the children of Aleppo. Now, they are talking about Aleppo recently just because the terrorists are in a bad shape. This is the only reason, because the Syrian Army are making advancement, and the Western countries – mainly the United States and its allies like UK and France – feeling that they are losing the last cards of terrorism in Syria, and the main bastion of that terrorism today is Aleppo.

Question 14: Everything is allowed in this war for you.

President Assad: No, of course, you have the international law, you have the human rights charter, you have to obey. But in every war, every war in the world during the history, you cannot make sure a hundred percent that you can control everything in that direction. You always have flaws, that’s why I said every war is a bad war. But there’s difference between individual mistakes and the policy of the government. The policy of the government, to say that we are attacking civilians, we are attacking hospitals, we are attacking schools, we are doing all these atrocities, that’s not possible, because you cannot work or go against your interests. You cannot go against your duty toward the people, otherwise you are going to lose the war as a government. You cannot withstand such a ferocious war for five years and a half while you are killing your own people. That’s impossible. But you always have mistakes, whether it’s about crossfire, it’s about individual mistakes… bring me a war, a single war in the recent history, that it was a clean war. You don’t have.

Question 15: Do you have made any mistakes too in this war?

President Assad: As President I define the policy of the country, according to our policy, the main pillars of this policy during the crisis is to fight terrorism, which I think is correct and we will not going to change it, of course, to make dialogue between the Syrians, and I think which is correct, the third one which is proven to be effective during the last two years is the reconciliations; local reconciliations with the militants who have been holding machineguns against the people and against the government and against the army, and this one has, again, proven that it’s a good step. So, these are the pillars of this policy. You cannot talk about mistakes in this policy. You can talk about mistakes in the implementation of the policy, that could be related to the individuals.

Question 16: You still believe in a diplomatic solution?

President Assad: Definitely, but you don’t have something called diplomatic solution or military solution; you have solution, but every conflict has many aspects, one of them is the security, like our situation, and the other one is in the political aspect of this solution. For example, if you ask me about how can you deal with Al Qaeda, with al-Nusra, with ISIS? Is it possible to make negotiations with them? They won’t make, they’re not ready to, they wouldn’t. They have their own ideology, repugnant ideology, so you cannot make political solution with this party; you have to fight them, you have to get rid of them. While if you talk about dialogue, you can make dialogue with two entities; the first one, political entities, any political entities, whether with or against or in the middle, and with every militant who is ready to give in his armament for the sake of the security or stability in Syria. Of course we believe in it.

Question 17: There are news from Russia about a short humanitarian pause in Aleppo on Thursday, what does it mean this humanitarian pause, can you explain?

President Assad: It’s a short halting of operations in order to allow the humanitarian supply to get into different areas in Aleppo, and at the same time to allow the civilians who wanted to leave the terrorist-held areas to move to the government-controlled area.

Question 18: This is really a step, an important step?

President Assad: Of course, it is an important step as a beginning, but it’s not enough. It’s about the continuation; how can you allow those civilians to leave. The majority of them wanted to leave the area held by the terrorists, but they won’t allow them. They either shoot them or they kill their families if they leave that area.

Question 19: Russia is on your side, what does it mean for you?

President Assad: No, it’s not on my side. It’s on the international law’s side.

It’s on the other side which is opposite to the terrorists’ side. This is the position of Russia, because they wanted to make sure that the international law prevails, not the Western agenda in toppling every government that doesn’t fit with their agendas. They wanted to make sure that the terrorism doesn’t prevail in that area, that would affect negatively the Russians themselves, Russia itself as a country, and Europe and the rest of the world. That’s what it means for Russia to stand beside the legitimate Syrian government and the Syrian people.

Question 20: Mr. President, you use chemical weapons and barrel bombs in Syria against your own population, these are UN reports, you can’t ignore it.

President Assad: You are talking about two different issues. The chemical issue, it was proven to be false, and they haven’t a shred of evidence about the Syrian Army using chemical weapons, particularly before we give up our arsenal in 2013, now we don’t have it anyway. Before that, it was fiction because if you want to use such mass destruction armaments, you’re going to kill thousands of people in one incident, and we didn’t have such incidents. Beside that, we wouldn’t use it because you’re going to kill your own people, and that’s against your interest. So, this is a false allegation. We don’t have to waste our time with it. You live in Syria, there is a traditional war, but there is nothing related to mass destruction armaments.

Journalist: But the UN report is not a fiction.

President Assad: The UN report never has been credible, never, and because they put reports based on allegations, based on other reports, on forged reports, and they say this is a report. Did they send a delegation to make investigation? They sent one in 2013, and it couldn’t prove at all that the Syrian Army used chemical weapons. This is first. The second, which is more important, the first incident happened at the beginning of 2013 in

Aleppo, when we said that the terrorists used chemical weapons against our army, and we invited the United Nations to send a delegation. We, we did, and at that time, the United States opposed that delegation because they already knew that this investigation – of course if it’s impartial – is going to prove that those terrorists, their proxies, used chemical armaments against the Syrian Army. Regarding the barrel bombs, I want to ask you: what is the definition of barrel bomb? If you go to our army, you don’t have in our records something called “barrel bomb,” so how do you understand – just to know how I can answer you – what a barrel bomb is? We have bombs.

Journalist: The destruction… it’s the destruction, and it is against humanitarian law.

President Assad: Every bomb can make destruction, every bomb, so you don’t have bomb to make nothing. So, this is a word that has been used in West as part of the Western narrative in order to show that there is an indiscriminate bomb that has been killing civilians indiscriminately and that opposes the Western narrative, I’ll show you the contradiction: in other areas they say that we are bombarding intentionally the hospitals, and you mentioned that, and they are targeting intentionally the schools, and we targeted intentionally the convoys to Aleppo last month, those targets need high-precision missiles. So, they have to choose which part of the narrative; we either have indiscriminate bombs or we have high-precision bombs. They keep contradicting in the same narrative, this is the Western reality now. So, which one to choose? I can answer you, but again, we don’t have any indiscriminate bombs. If we kill people indiscriminately, it means we are losing the war because people will be against us; I cannot kill the Syrian people, either morally or for my interest, because in that case I’m going to push the Syrian community and society towards the terrorists, not vice versa.

Question 21: I would like to mention the subject of torture prisons, Mr. President. Amnesty speaks of seventeen thousands dead. Regarding the prison of Saidnaya, there are still horrible reports. When will you allow an independent observer into that prison?

President Assad: Independent, and Amnesty International is not independent and it is not impartial.

Journalist: ICRC?

President Assad: We didn’t discuss it with the Red Cross, we didn’t discuss it. It should be discussed in our institutions, if you want to allow… if there is allegation, it could be discussed. We don’t say yes or no, but the report you have mentioned, it was a report made by Qatar, and financed by Qatar. You don’t know the source, you don’t know the names of those victims, nothing verified about that report. It was paid by Qatar directly in order to vilify and smear the Syrian government and the Syrian Army.

Journalist: But there are a lot of eyewitnesses.

President Assad: No one knows who are they. You don’t have anything clear about that. It’s not verified. So, no.

Journalist: Then open the door for organizations like Red Cross.

President Assad: It’s not my decision to tell you yes or no. We have institutions, if we need to discuss this part, we need to go back to the institutions before saying yes or no.

Question 22: Why are you sure that you are going to win this war?

President Assad: Because you have to defend your country, and you have to believe that you can win the war to defend your country. If you don’t have that belief, you will lose. You know, part of the war is what you believe in, so, it’s self-evident and very intuitive that you have to have that belief.

Question 23: If you walk through Damascus, your picture is everywhere, in every shop, in every restaurant, in every car, a symbol for a dictator, is this your way to fix your power?

President Assad: There is a difference between dictator and dictatorship.

Dictator is about the person. I didn’t ask anyone to put my picture in Syria, I never did it. This is first. Second, to describe someone as a dictator, you should ask his people, I mean only his people can say that he is a dictator or he is a good guy.

Journalist: Thank you Mr. President for having answered our questions for Swiss Television and the Rundschau.

President Assad: Thank you for coming to Syria.

150 Ahrar al-Sham members evacuated from Bustan Al-Qasir Neighborhood of Aleppo city under the deal with Moscow and Damascus. There are no doubts that this incident will weaken the terrorists’ positions in the area and create a precedent for further withdrawal of militants from the city.

Over 30 ISIS terrorists were killed in air strikes by the Russian Aerospace Forces and the Syrian Arab Air Force in the Syrian province of Deir Ezzor on October 18. The air power supported the Syrian army’s operations against ISIS in the area of the Deir Ezzor airbase. Syrian troops also attacked ISIS units near the Panorama checkpoint. Air strikes on ISIS targets were also reported in the areas of al-Huweijeh al-Sakar, al-Sina’ah, al-Jafreh and al-Mura’yeh. In total, some 45 air strikes were delivered.

The intensification of air raids in eastern Syria came amid reports that ISIS terrorists are massively fleeing from the Iraqi city of Mosul to Syria.

Sources in the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) say The US-led coalition’s warplanes avoid to bomb military convoys of the terrorist group moving from Iraqi to Syria.

We recall, over dozen of villages have been liberated in the Mosul countryside since the start of the battle for this strategic city by the Iraqi forces, supported by the US-led coalition. 5,000 soldiers of the Special Forces, mainly American, support the Iraqi Security Forces, the PMU and the Kurdish Peshmerga in the ongoing operation on the ground.

The modern course of events shows that ISIS is not going to conduct massive counter-attacks until the Iraqi forces have reached Mosul. The main clashes will likely take place during the storm of the city itself.

Experts argue Washington is using this time to allow ISIS terrorists redeploy from Iraq to Syria where the terrorists would use fresh reinforcements to intensify operations against the Syrian government in the provinces Deir Ezzor and Homs.

Moscow has reportedly responded to this threat, reconstructing the T-4 Military Airport in eastern Homs. The Russian military had already used the airport as a forward staging post for its helicopter gunships during the operation in Palmyra and the nearby areas. However, the airfield was damaged with ISIS attacks later.

If the reconstruction is confirmed, the T-4 will become an important outpost that will allow the Syrian army and the Russian Aerospace Forces to counter the growing ISIS threat in eastern Syria.

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

US-backed moderates from Jabhat al-Nusra and other ‘opposition groups’, which operate inside and outside Aleppo, are not going to participate in the humanitarian pause announced by the Syrian and Russian militaries. On October 19, Syria and Russia reopened corridors in Aleppo, giving militants a chance to leave the city during mini-ceasefire scheduled for October 20. In turn, Jabhat al-Nusra (or Jabhat Fatah al-Sham) and its allies relaunched offensive operations in southwestern Aleppo and seized the main part of 1070 Apartment Project. On October 20, militants continued attacks in the area.

Turkish-backed militants and the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) are clashing over the Syrian town of Tell Rifaat.

An alliance of Turkish-backed militant groups, operating under the banner of Ankara-led Operation Euphrates Shield, declared Tell Rifaat, 40km north of Aleppo, a military zone and gave the YPG 48 hours to leave the town on October 18. It was seized by the YPG from Turkish-backed militants in February 2016. On October 19, the so-called ‘FSA’ started shelling of YPG positions in Tell Rifaat while the Turkish Armed Forces’ artillery hit other YPG positions in Hasajik, Hasieh, Shahba Dam and Um Hosh. In turn, pro-Kurdish sources started disseminate info that the Russian airpower had bombed FSA militants south of Mare and at Tell Malid. On October 20, firefight and artillery strikes continued.

The reason of tensions is the recent YPG advance in the direction of strategic town of Al-Bab. The YPG took control of few villages located at the important roads heading to the ISIS-controlled town. In turn, to take control of Al-Bab and prevent the YPG’s chances to link up the Kurdish-controlled areas in Syria are one of the main goals of Turkish military operations in Syria.

On Wednesday, over 600 militants withdrew from the Mo’adhimiyah Al-Sham suburb of Damascus, passing its control to the Syrian army. The militants were transferred to Idlib province.

The Syrian Air Force delivered a series of airstrikes on Jabhat Fatah al-Sham positions in the provinces of of Latakia and Idlib, bombing terrorists near Zohra Katab Sandou and Tardin in northern Latakia and Hallouz and Um al-Qar in southwestern Idlib. The air raids resulted in elimination of 5 Jabhat Fatah al-Sham tactical units, 1 ammunition depot and at least 3 vehicles equipped with machine guns.

The Russian-made TOS-1A ‘Solntsepyok’ Heavy Flamethrower System was spotted among the Iraqi Federal Police’s artillery units shelling ISIS units deployed in the Shura area near the ISIS-controlled city of Mosul on October 18. TOS-1A systems were successfully used by the Iraqi army during the storm of Fallujah. Now, they are participating in the battle for Mosul.

On October 20, the Iraqi Air Force’s airstrike killed Wa’ad Youness, ISIS Governor in the Sahl region of Nineveh province. The event took place in the area northeast of the ISIS stronghold of Mosul. At the same day, the Iraqi military announced that the joint anti-ISIS forces have liberated 18 villages since the start of operation in Mosul countryside. Over 100 ISIS militants were killed during the operations.The main gains were achieved southeast of the ISIS stronghold. The ISIS-controlled towns of Bartallah and Bakhida are now the main priority of the Iraqi forces.

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

The cold, hard reality of the war in Syria is that the violence, bloodshed, and chaos continues unabated while the Left, such as it is, continues on in a state of schizophrenic madness. Different points of view, conflicting ideological tendencies, and a misunderstanding of the reality of the conflict are all relevant issues to be interrogated, with civility and reasoned debate in short supply. But those issues are not the urgent task of this article; the Left does need to seriously self-reflect though about just how it responds to crises of imperialism and issues of war and peace.

However, what is urgently needed at this moment is a clear and unequivocal position on the future of this war, and the lives of all Syrians – political allegiances notwithstanding – as the escalation of the war approaches. There is little doubt that Hillary Clinton will win the crown of ringmaster of the political circus that is the US election. And, as she eases her freshly osculated behind into the leather captain’s chair in the Oval Office, it is only a matter of time before she ratchets up US military involvement in Syria, with a full US war, and attempted regime change, becoming all but a certainty.

And where will the Left be then? This question is not merely rhetorical as the Left has found itself in the usual circular firing squad predicament over the war in Syria. And though the issue continues to be debated, what should be beyond dispute is what the position on intervention into the war should be.

And as I brace for the predictable barrage of hate mail and name-calling from both sides of this debate – I’m mostly inured to that sort of thing after years of it – I want to make one point that should be obvious, and yet has become somehow controversial: opposing the war is the duty of all true anti-war activists.

But what does it mean to oppose the war? Does it mean that we should be opposing just Russian and Syrian bombs being dropped? Does it mean that only US-Saudi-Turkey-Israeli supplied weapons are doing the killing? Sadly, these too are not rhetorical questions as so many on the Left, including many self-described anti-imperialists, have positioned themselves as hawks in a war that has utterly devastated the country. It seems that many, myself included up to a point, have gotten so enveloped in the embrace of partisanship in this war that we have forgotten that our responsibility is to the people of Syria and to peace and justice.

Some on the pro-Assad side of the argument will correctly note that the role of the anti-war activist in the West is, above all, to oppose the imperialism of the West itself. And indeed, that is a primary responsibility. Others on the Left will argue that the responsibility of activists is to support liberation struggles of fellow revolutionaries. And while the revolutionary content of the rebel side in Syria has been sidelined by a hodgepodge of Saudi and Qatari-financed jihadists – the uprising began as a response to the Syrian government’s neoliberal policies and brutality, among other things – this cannot be taken to mean that countless innocent men, women, and children have not been maimed and killed by Syrian and Russian weapons, jets, and fighters.

Be that as it may, the question now before us is this: where do you stand on direct US intervention?

In the long and convoluted history of this war there have been precious few moments of clear and unmistakable moral judgment. If anything, the portrait of the war in Syria is colored in shades of gray, with little black and white to be found.

If you’re supportive of the anti-Assad forces, then it’s quite likely you’ve chosen to ignore the mountains of evidence that there is no “revolution” in Syria but rather a vicious contra-style war being fomented by US-NATO and its toadies in the Gulf, Turkey, and Israel. If you’re supportive of Assad then it’s a certainty that you’ve chosen to ignore or downplay the horrific violence of the bombings, the brutality of the torture chambers, and other unspeakable atrocities (I admit that I have often strayed too far into the latter) out of a desire to uphold the nominally anti-imperialist position.

And where has this left Syria? Where has it brought the Left? We’re no closer to an end to this horrific war, nor are we any closer to a resolution to the cancerous spread of terrorism in the region. Maybe just a few more US-supplied weapons and US-funded fighters will do the trick? Maybe a few more Russian and Syrian bombs will solve the crisis? Well, if you’ve been paying attention, neither one of those has brought Syria any closer to peace. And isn’t that what we’re allegedly supposed to be upholding?

And how about the refugees? I’ve seen the fascist talking points spouted by many fake “anti-imperialists” who with one breath proclaim their commitment to peace and justice, and with another demonize and scapegoat Syrian refugees whose politics don’t align with the pro-Assad position. Words like “traitors,” “cowards,” and “terrorists,” are shamefully applied to ordinary Syrians fleeing to Europe and elsewhere in hopes of saving their families. Indeed, it is precisely this narrative that is at the core of the white supremacist, fascist ideology that underlies a significant amount of the support base for Assad and his allies (see David Duke, David Icke, Alexander Dugin, Brother Nathanel, Alex Jones, Mimi al-Laham, Ken O’Keefe, and on and on and on). I’m sorry to say it, but it’s true, and too many of the pro-Assad camp have willfully ignored this fundamental point.

On the other side though, the unwillingness of the “Syrian revolution” camp to face up to the fact that they have unwittingly made themselves into the left flank of US interventionism and imperialism is cause for public shaming as well. Were this the 1980s one wonders whether they’d be saying the same things about the “revolutionary” contras in Central America who, like the so-called rebels in Syria, were also backed with US weapons, money, and training. How about the mujahideen in Afghanistan? Has the collective memory of the Left gotten so short? And what about those foreign fighters fleeing Syria? Are they revolutionaries when they go back to Libya and engage in human trafficking for profit? Or to Chechnya to smuggle Afghan heroin? Or to Saudi Arabia or anywhere else?

Undoubtedly there are people on both sides of this debate who, if they’re still reading (doubtful), are frothing at the mouth with rage as they prepare to send their hate mail or attack this article and me on social media. All of that is perfectly fine by me as my feelings are of little consequence in this war that has killed hundreds of thousands, and displaced millions.

But the conversation I’m hoping to spur here is not about the past, but about the future.

And so I put out the call, here and now, to all people of the Left and all those who wrap themselves in the shroud of revolution and anti-imperialism: where do you stand on intervention?

To the anti-Assad camp, I ask: What will you be doing when Hillary’s fire burns and cauldron bubbles? Will you continue to ignore the material reality of this war in favor of the chimera of a revolution betrayed? Put simply: will you be supporting US imperialism in the name of the “revolution”?

To the pro-Assad Syria fetishists, I ask: Will you continue to pretend that the only crimes and atrocities being committed are those veiled behind Old Glory? Are you comfortable in the knowledge that this war will continue on indefinitely so long as all outside actors continue to use Syria as merely a square on their respective geopolitical chessboards? Will you continue to delude yourselves by refusing to accept the plainly obvious truth that no state or group has the best interests of Syrians at heart? Will you allow yourselves to be the useful idiots of carefully calculated political maneuvering?

I ask these questions as someone who took a firmly pro-Assad position from the very beginning, someone who felt (as I, and many others, still do) that Syria, like Libya, was a victim of US-NATO-GCC-Israel imperialism and that, as such, it should be defended. And while I still uphold that resistance, I also have enough humility to know that, in doing so, I abandoned other core beliefs such as defense of ALL oppressed people, including the ones with politics I reject.

I ask these questions as someone who takes the very notion of anti-imperialism seriously, and who is dismayed by the disgusting cooptation of that word by fascists, chauvinists, white supremacists, and neocolonial degenerates who use it for political expediency. This cannot be allowed to stand.

The direct US war in Syria is coming. Russia’s war in Syria is already active. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Israel have been fomenting war in Syria from the beginning, all in support of the Empire’s strategic goals. And hundreds of thousands of bodies have been buried in the sand and soil.

How many more bodies are we comfortable burying? How much longer before peace is once again on the table? How many more years before we realize that this war will never end on a battlefield?

Either way, I’ll see anyone who wants to join me on the front lines of protest when the Queen of Chaos launches her war. That’s where I’ve been many times before, and will be for years to come.

And that’s where the Left ought to be.

Gold Price Forecast 2017/2016

The gold bull market is still very much intact. In fact, it appears that the all-time high could be taken out real soon.

However, on the chart there is an obstacle that the gold price has to overcome. Another failure at this obstacle, and we could have a bigger drop than the one of a few weeks ago.

Below, is a chart of the gold price (from tradingview.com):

The top line is that obstacle that has to be overcome. Another failure at that line, and we could see price drop even more than it did two weeks ago, even to the $1000-level or below. However, although such a drop is possible, it appears very unlikely at this point.

Furthermore, there would be clear indicators in the market (in particular, the stock market) that such a move is about to happen.

On the flip side, a breakout at that obstacle line, and we could see the greatest gold rally of all time. This is mainly because other factors would create a panic that would make gold and silver more sought after than any good in this world.

In other words, the significant breakout of gold (at the obstacle line above), could occur around the same time as other significant collapses in the stock market and the bond market. Collapses don’t come bigger than a bond market collapse or stock market collapse (in that order), so expect an extreme panic when these happen.

A breakout at the line, shown above, would be similar to the 1978/1979 breakout, before gold exploded to a high of $850. However, in 1979, it did not align properly with a debt-collapse as well as a stock market collapse. This time it could very well align perfectly to deliver a fatal blow to the international monetary system.

For more on this and this kind of fractal analysis, you are welcome to subscribe to my premium service. I have also recently completed a Silver Fractal Analysis Report as well as a Gold Fractal Analysis Report. You can also subscribe to this blog (enter email at the top right of this page) to get my regular free gold and silver updates.

Palestine Advocacy Project (PalAD) has launched a dynamic new ad campaign “Israel’s Leaders: In Their Own Words,” directly quoting prominent Israeli officials’ extremist and bigoted rhetoric.

The In Their Own Words series was created to spark conversation on U.S. college campuses seldom featured in the mainstream media. Thus far nine college campuses, including University of California-Berkeley, have agree to publish ads in their campus newspapers.

Image: Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman “Those who are against us, there’s nothing to be done – we need to pick up an ax and cut off his head” (Graphic: Palestine Advocacy Project)

PalAd intern Maggie Liu said, “As a college student living on a politically-active campus, I know firsthand how little young people know about the reality of the situation. I hope these ads will bring some much-needed dialogue to campuses across the country.” 

Image: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: “We must defend ourselves against wild beasts” (Graphic: Palestine Advocacy Project)

Palestine Advocacy Project notes that during this election cycle American politicians have condemned Donald Trump’s racist, inflammatory rhetoric but they let Israeli politicians off the hook time and again because both the Democratic and Republican establishments pander to the Israel lobby:

Because, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu put it, “I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction.”

One of the ads features Israel’s explicitly racist Minister of Justice, Ayelet Shaked. Liu points out, “If you do your own research, you’ll quickly find many more hateful quotes.” She’s absolutely right.

Image: Israeli Minister of Justice Ayelet Shaked “They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there.” (Graphic: Palestine Advocacy Project)

One of the ads features Israel’s deputy defense minister, Rabbi Eli Ben Dahan, who heads the army’s “Civil Administration” (occupation) of the West Bank supervising the theft of Palestinian land as well as granting and revoking entry and travel permits for Palestinians. He says Palestinians are beasts:

Image: Israeli deputy defense minister Rabbi Eli Ben Dahan “[Palestinians] “are beasts, they are not human.” (Graphic: Palestine Advocacy Project) 

Farida El Hefni, a student at University of Rochester in New York states, “It is beyond disturbing that someone in a position of power can say these things and not even flinch,” and asks “How are these politicians that are so quick to accuse people of being anti-Israel or anti-Semitic the same ones using fascist language to describe an entire group of people?”

Image: Miri Regev, Israeli Minister of Culture and Sport: “I am happy to be a fascist” (Graphic: Palestine Advocacy Project) 

Remember former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon’s inflammatory reference to amputating organs“?:

Image: Former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon: “The Palestinian threat harbors cancer-like attributes that have to be severed. There are all kinds of solutions to cancer. Some say it’s necessary to amputate organs but at the moment I am applying chemotherapy.” (Graphic: Palestine Advocacy Project)

PalAd intends to continue exposing the hypocrisy surrounding the U.S.’s relationship with Israel. Their 2014 “One Word” campaign showcased the daily violence Palestinians are subjected to. PalAd’s recent poetry campaign brought Palestinian Poet Laureate Mahmoud Darwish’s work into public spaces. And their new campaign, focusing on the violent rhetoric of upper echelons of Israeli political leadership — backed by US politicians — synchronizes with our election cycle. There’s no better time to have a national dialogue about our relationship with Israel.

Check out more of these violent statements here. The campaign is also accepting donations here.

Image: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “beat them up, not once but repeatedly, beat them up so it hurts so badly, until it’s unbearable” (Graphic: Palestine Advocacy Project)

Top defense officials from Hanoi and Washington met Monday to discuss the role of the US in the region and how Vietnam would respond to American “intervention” in Asia and the Pacific.

As the presidency of Barack Obama winds down, there are lingering concerns over whether the new administration will give proper attention to the US’ Asian pivot — notably, the increasingly aggressive posture taken by Beijing in the South China Sea.

Cara Abercrombie, US deputy assistant secretary of defense for South and Southeast Asia, met with Vietnamese Senior Lt. Gen. Nguyen Chi Vinh, who told Ambercrombie that Vietnam would support a positive US presence in the region.

In August Vietnam quietly outfitted several of its islands within the embattled South China Sea area with mobile rocket launchers poised to strike Chinese military installations, if necessary.

Deputy Defence Minister, Senior Lieutenant-General Nguyen Chi Vinh said at the time, “It is within our legitimate right to self-defense to move any of our weapons to any area at any time within our sovereign territory.”

The US tried to cool tensions and encourage diplomacy, with one defense official saying, “We continue to call on all South China Sea claimants to avoid actions that raise tensions, take practical steps to build confidence, and intensify efforts to find peaceful, diplomatic solutions to disputes.”

The Japan Times quotes a statement released by the Vietnamese Defense Ministry after the meeting, saying that Vinh “affirmed that Vietnam will support the US and other partners to intervene in the region as long as it brings peace, stability and prosperity,” adding that the US does not intend to shift its “rebalance” efforts which seeks to expand Washington’s presence in the Pacific.

Some the traditional US partnerships in the region are also in flux, as President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines has been vocally critical of Washington, and relations with Thailand have been strained since the 2014 coup.

Meanwhile the relationship between Washington and Hanoi has become closer since May, when the US lifted its lethal arms embargo on the southeast Asian country. BBC quoted Obama remarking at the time that the embargo decision was “based on our desire to complete what has been a lengthy process of moving towards normalisation with Vietnam… this change will ensure that Vietnam has access to the equipment it needs to defend itself.”

School districts are notoriously short of funding – so short that some California districts have succumbed to Capital Appreciation Bonds that will cost taxpayers as much is 10 to 15 times principal by the time they are paid off. By comparison, California’s Prop. 51, the school bond proposal currently on the ballot, looks like a good deal. It would allow the state to borrow an additional $9 billion for educational purposes by selling general obligation bonds to investors at an assumed interest rate of 5%, with the bonds issued over a five-year period and repaid over 30 years. $9 billion × 5% × 35 equals $15.75 billion in interest – nearly twice principal, but not too bad compared to the Capital Appreciation Bond figures.

However, there is a much cheaper way to fund this $9 billion school debt. By borrowing from its own state-chartered, state-owned bank, the state could save over $10 billion – on a $9 billion loan. Here is how.

A Look at the Numbers

First it would need to charter a bank. In California this can be done with an initial capitalization of $20 million; but for our purposes, assume an initial capitalization of $1 billion.

Where to get this money? The state’s public pension funds are always seeking good investments. Today they are looking for a return of about 7% per year (although in practice they are getting less), and they have wide leeway in the sorts of things in which they can invest. So assume the capital comes from the pension funds, which are promised a 7% annual dividend and the return of principal after 35 years.

At a 10% capital requirement, $1 billion in capitalization is sufficient to back $10 billion in new loans, assuming the bank has an equivalent sum in deposits to provide liquidity.

Where to get the deposits? One possibility would be the California Pooled Money Investment Account (PMIA), which contains $68.3 billion earning a modest 0.61% as of the quarter ending September 30, 2016. This huge pool of rainy day, slush and investment funds is invested 46% in US Treasuries, 20% in certificates of deposit and bank notes, 11% in commercial paper, and 8% in time deposits, along with some other smaller investments. $10 billion of this money could be deposited into a savings account at the state-owned bank, on which the bank could pay 0.61% interest, the same average return the PMIA is getting now.

At a 10% reserve requirement, $1 billion of this money would need to be held by the bank as reserves. The other $9 billion could be lent or invested – a sufficient sum to provide the funds sought by Prop. 51.

The annual cost of financing this $9 billion loan would thus be $1 billion × 7% = $70 million for the pension funds, and $10 billion × 0.61% = $61 million for the PMIA. So the total cost of funds would be $131 million annually × 35 years = $4.585 billion. That is less than one-third of the $15.75 billion in interest anticipated under Prop. 51 – a savings of $11.165 billion over 35 years on a loan of $9 billion.

If at the end of the 35 year period, the bank repays the pension funds their $1 billion initial capital investment, the net savings will be $10.165 billion – a huge sum.

What about the other costs of setting up a bank – buildings, staff and the like? These would actually be minimal. Like the Bank of North Dakota (BND), currently the nation’s only state-owned depository bank, the California state bank would not need to advertise, would not need multiple branches or tellers, and would not need ATMs. It would be a “bankers’ bank” or “money center bank,” providing capital and liquidity for local banks and large institutional investors.

For purposes of funding this one infrastructure loan, the bank could arguably be run by one man sitting in an office in the statehouse, shuffling numbers around on a computer screen. Bonds would not even need to be issued. The state could just make the loan to itself.

What about Risk?

The objection typically raised by legislators is, “We can’t afford to lend our deposits. We need our revenues for our state budget.” But those concerns assume that banks actually lend their deposits. They don’t. In March 2014, in a bombshell report titled “Money Creation in the Modern Economy,” the Bank of England officially set the record on this issue straight. The BOE economists wrote that many common assumptions about how banking works are simply wrong. Banks are not merely intermediaries that take in money and lend it out again. They actually create the money they lend in the process of making loans:

The reality of how money is created today differs from the description found in some economics textbooks: Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits.

. . . Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money. [Emphasis added.]

The BOE report said that private banks now create nearly 97 percent of the money supply in this way. David Graeber, writing in The UK Guardian, underscored the dramatic implications:

. . . [M]oney is really just an IOU. The role of the central bank is to preside over a legal order that effectively grants banks the exclusive right to create IOUs of a certain kind, ones that the government will recognise as legal tender by its willingness to accept them in payment of taxes. There’s really no limit on how much banks could create, provided they can find someone willing to borrow it.

If money is just an IOU, governments do not need to sell off public assets and slash public services in order to pay their debts. They can create money in the same way private banks do, simply with accounting entries on their books. That is the secret power of banking, a power that governments to date have given away to a private banking cartel. Federal governments could reclaim this power by simply issuing the money they need, as the American colonists did in the 18^th century. State and local governments could reclaim the money power by forming their own banks and creating the money they lend on their books, as all depository banks do.

When deposited in its own state-owned bank, the state’s revenues would be just as safe, liquid and available as they would be if deposited in a Wall Street bank. All banks attempt to be “fully loaned up,” lending a sum equal to 90% of their deposits – or they did before the central bank started paying interest on “excess reserves” held on their books. The way they deal with a lack of liquidity when depositors and borrowers all come for their money at once is to borrow “wholesale” deposits from other banks or the money market. This borrowing is quite cheap – currently 0.39% from other banks overnight – and the loans can be rolled over and over until new deposits are acquired to balance the books.

In the case of our proposed California state-owned bank, if it comes up short of liquidity, a portion of the remaining $60 billion in the PMIA fund could be shifted into the bank as deposits. The bank could again pay 0.61% interest on these funds, the same return the PMIA is getting now.

The Model of the Bank of North Dakota

This proposal is not pie-in-the-sky. North Dakota has been doing it for decades, very profitably. In November 2014, the Wall Street Journal reported that the BND was more profitable even than J.P. Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs. The author attributed this remarkable performance to the state’s oil boom; but the boom has now become an oil bust, yet the BND’s profits continue to climb. In its 2015 Annual Report, published on April 20th, it boasted its most profitable year ever. In fact the BND has had record profits for the last 12 years, each year outperforming the last. In 2015 it reported $130.7 million in earnings, total assets of $7.4 billion, capital of $749 million, and a return on equity of a whopping 18.1 percent. Its lending portfolio grew by $486 million, a 12.7 percent increase, with growth in all four of its areas of concentration: agriculture, business, residential, and student loans.

By increasing its lending into a state struggling with a collapsing oil market, the BND helped prop the economy up. In 2014, it was lending money for school infrastructure at 1%. In 2015, it introduced new infrastructure programs to improve access to medical facilities, remodel or construct new schools, and build new road and water infrastructure. The Farm Financial Stability Loan was also introduced to assist farmers affected by low commodity prices or below-average crop production, and the BND helped fund 300 new businesses.

Those numbers are particularly impressive considering that North Dakota has a population of only about 750,000. California, the largest state in the nation, has 50 times that many people and 50 times the profit potential.

A general rule for government bonds is that they double the cost of projects, once interest has been paid. By leveraging its massive revenue base through its own state-owned bank, California could fund its infrastructure needs at half the cost.

Another Look at Prop. 51

The San Jose Mercury News says of Prop. 51:

The $9 billion initiative would lock in a costly, outdated and inequitable program that benefits builders at taxpayers’ expense. . . . Bankrolled by $7 million mostly from the construction industry, Prop. 51 is an end run around calls from Jerry Brown and the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office to reform school bond provisions.

While waiting for those reforms, voters could encourage their representatives to back a bill for a state-owned bank. Several California legislators are working on that possibility now.

Ellen Brown is an attorney and author of twelve books, including the best-selling Web of Debt. Her latest book, The Public Bank Solution, explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Her 300+ blog articles are at EllenBrown.com. She can be heard biweekly on “It’s Our Money with Ellen Brown” on PRN.FM.

During the final Presidential candidates’ debate, on October 19th, Hillary Clinton said that workers’ “social security payroll contribution will go up” if she becomes President, and she went on to add, “as will Donald’s — assuming he can’t figure out how to get out of it.”

The “Social Security payroll contribution” is the phrase policymakers customarily use to refer to what ordinary people refer to simply as “the Social Security tax,” which is currently 6.2% of the employee’s wages, and an additional 6.2% of the employer’spayment of those wages, thus amounting to 12.4% of total payroll (wages) that are paid by the employer.

Trump ignored what she had just said there, and responded simply with “Such a nasty woman” — referring to her demeaning reference to himself: he utterly failed to indicate what he would do as President in order to, as Clinton had stated her reason for hiking those taxes: “replenish the Social Security Trust Fund.”

The way that the former candidate Bernie Sanders had proposed to deal with this problem was to eliminate the Social Security payroll cap, which is $118,500, above which amount any income is received free of any Social Security tax — on either the worker or the employer.

Trump has never, on any occasion, said what his policy on this matter would be, other than a vague “It’s my intention to leave Social Security the way it is. Not increase the age and to leave it as is.” In other words: he has no proposal to address the long-term problem of Social Security.

So: Hillary Clinton has already said that she will raise Social Security taxes on people who make less than $118,500 per year, but Donald Trump has not indicated whether he will impose Social Security taxes on income above $118,500 per year.

Other proposals that have been pushed in order to “replenish the Social Security Trust Fund” — or to achieve the long-term stability of the Social Security system — mainly focus on three approaches:

One is privatizing Social Security, as Wall Street wants, and which proposal is based on private gambles that the assets that are purchased by the Wall Street firm for the individual investor will continually increase in value, never plunge, and never be reduced by annual charges to pay Wall Street’s fees for management and for transactions, throughout the worker’s career until retirement.

Another approach is gradually reducing the inflation-adjuster for benefits, the inflation-adjusted value of the benefits that Social Security recipients will be receiving. President Obama had been trying to get congressional Republicans to agree with him to do that (which some call “the boiling-frog approach” because it’s applied so gradually), but they continued to hold out for privatizing Social Security, and thus nothing was done.

And the third option is to increase the retirement-age, as Obama also wanted to do (and which is really just another form of “boiling-frog approach”), but also couldn’t get congressional Republicans to accept that. (Trump’s comment to “Not increase the age and to leave it as it is” is a clear repudiation by him of this approach. And his promise to not increase taxes would, if taken seriously, also prohibit him from endorsing Hillary Clinton’s approach.)

Consequently, if Trump is a traditional Republican, then his policy would be to privatize the Social Security system, but if he is a Bernie Sanders progressive — someone in the pre-Bill-Clinton, FDR Democratic Party, mold — then his policy would instead be to eliminate the Social Security payroll cap. Those two are really his only major options.

Trump had the opportunity during the debate to make clear what his own policy would be on this important matter, and whether (and presumably that) it would be different from Clinton’s, and if so, how and why it would be different; but, instead, he ignored what she had said her policy as President will be on this matter, and he responded only to her demeaning personal reference against himself. He could have gone in for the policy-kill against her proposal on this, but instead took her personalizing bait and merely insulted her personally right back.

That was one of the two major opportunities Trump had in this debate to attack Ms. Clinton’s positions on the issues. The other was when she said, “I’m going to continue to push for a no-fly zone” in Syria. She has stated this position consistently throughout her campaign, and it would mean that she would warn both the Syrian government and the Russian government that unless they halt, by some specified date, their bomber-flights over Syrian territory, the United States will shoot those planes out of the sky, and the U.S. will then be at war against both Syria and Russia, over Syrian territory — a U.S. invasion. This does not necessarily mean that the war there would escalate to nuclear conflict, but it does mean that in order to avoid such World War III, either the U.S. or else both Syria and Russia would need to capitulate to the opponent (U.S. capitulate to Russia and Syria, or else Russia and Syria capitulate to U.S.) — which is highly unlikely to occur (probably less likely than nuclear war would be).

In other words: Trump also missed his opportunity — which he has had many times throughout his campaign against her — to point out that, if Ms. Clinton becomes the U.S. President, then nuclear war, WW III, will be the likely outcome of her election.

Instead, the main issue that likely will determine the outcome of this Presidential election is rape — the personal charges that have been alleged against (this time not Bill Clinton, but) Donald Trump. The fate of our planet, within just a year or two, might depend on whether the U.S. electorate focus mainly on that issue, in 2016. Consequently: the long-term problem of Social Security might actually be a moot point, anyway.

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.

The third and last of the Clinton-Trump presidential debates was just as false and intellectually degraded as the first two, characterized by lying by both candidates and mutual mudslinging.

This latest chapter in the spectacle of reaction of the 2016 elections had a certain aura of political exhaustion.

The American political system, in which two right-wing corporate-controlled parties have long enjoyed a monopoly, is staggering toward the finish line under conditions of a global crisis so deep that no one can be certain what the world will look like when the votes are counted on November 8.

In the 2016 elections, the US two-party system has achieved a certain negative culmination: in Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump, it has presented the American people with a choice between not only the two most unpopular candidates, but also the two most reactionary candidates in modern history.

Trump, the billionaire product of the semi-criminal world of New York real estate speculators, promoted and cultivated for decades by the corporate media and the political establishment, appeals to widespread economic distress only in order to direct social anger into the channels of racism, anti-immigrant bigotry, economic nationalism and militarism.

Clinton has become the consensus candidate of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus, and, increasingly, of the Republican as well as the Democratic wing of the political establishment. It is significant that Trump never identified himself as a Republican or made any reference to the Republican Party during the debate, while Clinton repeatedly invoked the names of Republican presidents, including Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, and contrasted them to Trump.

Clinton’s apparent aim in the third debate was to keep totally concealed what is coming after the election if, as polls now suggest, she wins the vote on November 8 and becomes the next president in January 2017.

On every issue of domestic policy raised in the course of the 90-minute debate—democratic rights, immigration, economic policy, social spending—Clinton employed liberal rhetoric, claiming to defend abortion rights, the legalization of most undocumented workers, government-funded job-creation, a rise in the minimum wage, equal pay for women workers, and an increase in Social Security benefits.

Neither Trump nor Fox News moderator Chris Wallace pointed out that in the flood of documents released by WikiLeaks over the past week, Clinton aides openly discuss the need to make such bogus promises in order to fool the American people and stave off the primary election threat of the Bernie Sanders campaign, and Clinton herself reassures her Wall Street paymasters that they should take her campaign promises with a very large grain of salt.

As she told a landlords association, which coughed up her usual six-figure speaking fee, “you need both a public and a private position” to be effective in politics. The public position, of course, is pie in the sky for the voters, while the private position, delivered to one’s financial backers, is what really counts.

It was only on national security issues that she gave a glimpse of the genuine Clinton, the arch militarist who sought to close the deal with the US ruling elite by demonstrating her hard-line defense of imperialist interests around the world.

When questioned about the WikiLeaks revelations concerning her remarks to private meetings of bankers, Clinton launched a calculated diversion, declaring that the central issue raised by the WikiLeaks documents was “Russian espionage,” and citing claims by US intelligence agencies that the Russian government had hacked Democratic Party emails and supplied them to WikiLeaks.

She then demanded that Trump admit the Russian role—for which no actual evidence has been presented—and condemn it, calling the supposed intervention by Putin “unprecedented in an American election” and declaring that Trump would be “a puppet for president” who would “spout the Putin line.” Moderator Wallace joined Clinton in this neo-McCarthyite smear, demanding, “Do you condemn this interference by Russia in the US elections?”

Clinton went on to advocate a wider war in the Middle East while concealing her plans after taking office, claiming she would “not support putting American troops back into Iraq as an occupying force.” This leaves the door wide open for the dispatch of American troops for some other purpose—i.e., fighting ISIS—rather than as an “occupying force.”

For the first time in any of the debates, the question of a US-Russian conflict in Syria was broached when Wallace asked Clinton directly about her support for a no-fly zone over Aleppo and other contested Syrian cities. He pointed out that General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had said a no-fly zone meant war with Syria and Russia, then asked, “If a Russian plane violates the no-fly zone, does President Clinton shoot it down?”

Clinton simply ducked the question, claiming that the no-fly zone, an act of war against Syria and its allies, Russia and Iran, would be the subject of “negotiation.” Trump said nothing about either ground troops or more aggressive intervention in Syria, contenting himself with denunciations of Iran and the deal between the Obama administration and Iran on its nuclear program.

Both candidates gave themselves the widest possible latitude for escalating the US military aggression throughout the Middle East in the name of fighting “terrorism.”

Trump touched a number of ultra-right talking points in the course of the debate, calling for the appointment of Supreme Court justices who would reverse Roe v. Wade and outlaw abortion, reiterating his signature demand to build a wall along the US-Mexico border and deport millions of undocumented workers, and pointing out, correctly, that the Obama administration has deported many millions already.

He appealed to the economic grievances of working people only to give them a right-wing expression, declaring that expelling immigrant workers, renegotiating trade agreements to bar foreign imports and slashing taxes on the wealthy and the corporations would generate an unprecedented economic boom, with annual GDP growth of six or seven percent. At the same time, he rejected suggestions that cuts were required in Social Security or Medicare, because this runaway economic growth would supposedly resolve all federal budget issues.

The political perspective underlying Trump’s effort to combine appeals to economic distress and ultra-right, nationalistic policies emerged most clearly in the section of the debate devoted to each candidate’s “fitness to be president,” as Wallace put it.

Trump and Clinton replied with mutual mudslinging, first about the allegations of sexual harassment by Trump which have been the focus of a week-long media barrage, then the charges of “pay to play” at the Clinton State Department, with donors to the Clinton Foundation receiving special access.

It was at this point that Wallace raised Trump’s claim that “the election is rigged and Clinton is trying to steal it.” Pointing out that Mike Pence, Trump’s running mate, and even his daughter Ivanka Trump, had said they would respect the outcome of the vote on November 8, Wallace asked for a similar assurance from Trump himself.

The candidate flatly refused, saying he would wait to decide until the results were in. He declared that “millions of people are registered to vote that should not be allowed to vote,” then added that Clinton herself “should never have been allowed to run for president because of what she did with emails and so many other things.”

While media commentary after the debate declared that Trump had irrevocably lost the election by telling voters he would not respect their decision, there was no discussion of the real significance of this statement. It only underscores that Trump’s purposes go beyond the election: he is laying the basis for the development of a fascistic movement.

The final election debate only confirmed the fact that, whatever happens on November 8, the next administration will be the most right-wing in American history, and will take office under conditions of unprecedented economic, social and geopolitical crisis.

Hideousness is only one word that covers the third and last presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. But prior to that, as a warm up of mischief, Trump was insisting that he would find accepting a public vote for Clinton hard to stomach at the electoral level.  The only way he would accept any electoral result would be, in fact, if he won.

The Trump train is already finding tasks to occupy itself in that direction, promising to garner its own exit polls to combat the “rigging” disease.  Roger Stone has been crowned with that role, hoping to focus on 600 different precincts in nine Democrat cities with considerable minority populations.  He will have the assistance of 1,300 volunteers from the Citizens for Trump coalition.[1]

Visions of political spoliation more commonly associated with burdened African powers or unstable pacific states come to mind: well fought over electoral result, followed by a swift, incisive coup, and banishment of the elected leader.

The point was already alluded to by Zimbabwean opposition leader Tendai Biti in the aftermath of Trump’s pseudo-dictatorial marks.  On questioning the 2008 election result that yielded President Robert Mugabe yet another victory, Biti was detained for a month and charged with treason for questioning the result. He duly suffered a good bout of deprivation and hardship.

“Donald Trump is a gift to all tin-pot dictators on the African continent. He is giving currency and legitimacy to rigging because if it can exist in America, it can exist anywhere.”  Trump, in other words, had “no idea what he’s talking about, absolutely no idea.”[2]

While idealising the US electoral system as a wonder to emulate, Biti had missed the more sophisticated features in its limiting features.  Trump’s remarks remind one, rather than deflect interest, from the fundamental rot at the centre of US politics, and the system that assures the perpetuation of special interests.

The “rigging” notion was certainly familiar to the rhetoric of Bernie Sanders, and it was one that Clinton was desperate to stomp upon. What has happened is a blurring of the rigging debate with that of fraud, which not necessarily the same thing.

The point about rigging is its permanent political appeal, and central to any political system that treats plutocrats, or some variant of elitism, as essential to stability.  Democracy, ripe and raw, is always feared for its lynching excesses, a point made with clinical clarity at numerous points by the Founding Fathers.  The American colonies may well have rid themselves of a monarch, but retained an aristocratic form which elevated private property, including slaves, to the levels of the sacred.

Alexander Hamilton, that great centralist of the union, provided food for thought in a June 1788 speech defending the necessary ratification of the US Constitution: “That a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government.  Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government.  Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity.”[3]

James Madison, who did the most cerebral ventilating on the Constitution, considered that a “pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and minister the government in person, can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction.  A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party.”[4]

The nature of the US political system is to ensure a decent, governing class jigging of the vote.  Representative democracy – or as we tend to see these days, distinctly unrepresentative questionably democratic figures – came to be the hallmark, monitored and tinkered with by party machines and the cohorts of pollsters and focus group priests.  Electioneering became more science fiction than science, occasionally tempered by rhetorical flourishes.

So Trump is not far off in his bellyaching observations, even if they have a characteristic crudeness that denies political sophistication.  The system is rigged, but not merely against him. Nor is it because of his folly, carelessness and buffoonery in letting his competition, Hillary Clinton, get away with some of the more notable smudges on the US republic.

No other candidate has been permitted a sliver of debate at the national level, despite the real prospect of Jill Stein of the Greens gaining a share of the Bernie Sanders vote, or a confused, news-averse Gary Johnson of the Libertarians causing some disruption.  Since the infant days of the Republic, impediments against having such alternatives reach what constitute the self-appointed mainstream of media and public discussion have been in place.

Stacked the presidential system is: against anybody not favoured by the coalescing connivance of the establishment, the same establishment, more empire than democracy, that indulges in the whims and fancies of wars, financial collapses and, shall we say, ruin?

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

Notes

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/20/citizens-for-donald-trump-exit-poll-roger-stone-rigged-election-claim
[2] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-rigging-africa-idUSKCN12K23D
[3] http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/alexander-hamilton-speech/
[4] http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

One of the strangest incidents of the Syrian conflict took place on 18th October 2016.

According to the Russians two Belgian F-16 aircraft, after having taken off from an air base in Jordan, and after having been refuelled in the air over Syria by US aircraft, carried out a bombing raid on the Kurdish village of Hasajek in Syria’s northern Aleppo province, killing 6 civilians.

On the same day there were reports that the ‘Syrian Defence Forces’ – an umbrella organisation dominated by the Kurdish militia the YPG – has captured this village from ISIS.

The Russians say that they were not told of this bombing raid by the US led anti ISIS coalition despite the agreement between the US and Russian militaries that they would inform each other of such raids.

The Belgians categorically deny that the raid took place.  In order to lend force to their denials, they summoned the Russian ambassador to the Belgian Foreign Ministry to complain personally to him about the Russian claims.

Given the routine way allegations go continuously backwards and forwards in this conflict, this Belgian reaction in a situation where a mere denial would have sufficed, looks hyper-sensitive and strange in itself.

The Russians have responded to the Belgian denials by claiming that they have radar data which proves conclusivelythat the raid took place, and that it was carried out by the Belgian F16s as they say.

CLICK TO VIEW

I do not know the truth about this affair.  I would however say that it is not on the face of it implausible that NATO aircraft, whether from Belgium or from some other NATO country, carried out a raid on Hasajek on 18th October 2016.

Hasajek is located in territory contested in a bitter three-cornered fight by ISIS, the Turkish military and the YPG.  On 20th October 2016 the Turkish air force also carried out bombing raids on Kurdish militia in this area, provoking threats from Damascus to shoot down Turkish aircraft intruding into Syrian air space to carry out such raids.

It is certainly possible that Belgian aircraft forming part of the anti-ISIS coalition might have carried out a bombing raid in this area.  Possibly the raid was carried out to support the attack on Hasajek by the YPG, with NATO wanting to avoid disclosing the fact so as not to anger the Turks, who are in conflict with the YPG.

Assuming that the raid actually took place, that still does not explain why the Russians are making such a fuss about it, when it was by the standards of the Syrian war only a small raid, and one which did not involve the Syrian army.  Nor does it explain why the Belgians in turn are reacting so strongly.

A guess is that the Russians want the West to know that with the advanced radar and surface to air missiles now they now have in Syria they can track the movement of all NATO aircraft flying there. In that way the Russians are able to show the extent of their knowledge of what is going on – and by extension the extent of their control – of Syrian air space.  Indeed General Igor Konashenkov, the Russian Defence Ministry’s spokesman, has actually said as much

“Russia has effective air defence measures capable of round-the-clock monitoring of the sky above almost all of Syria. In addition to ours, the airspace is also controlled by Syrian air defences, which have been restored during the past year.”

That however may not be the only or even the major reason for the Russian action.

Russian disclosure that they are able to track the movement of every NATO aircraft in Syrian airspace may be intended to show to the West that the Russians can disprove Western claims of Russian responsibility for civilian deaths when these were actually caused by raids carried out by NATO aircraft.

Importantly the Russians are now saying that they know of many raids carried out in Syria by NATO aircraft which have gone unreported, and which have caused civilian casualties.  This is what Konashenkov is reported to have said about that

“I’d like to stress that this was not the first time when the international coalition conducted airstrikes against civilian targets and later denied responsibility for them,” he said. “Coalition warplanes have hit weddings, funerals, hospitals, police stations, humanitarian convoys and even Syrian troops fighting Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL] terrorists.”

This is a strong clue of what this incident is probably all about.  It looks like a warning to NATO that the Russians will in future start publishing details of NATO bombing raids, and will start identifying the nationality of the aircraft carrying them out, if blanket attributions of Russian responsibility for civilian deaths in Syria and of Russian war crimes continue.

Moreover if both the Russians and the Belgians know of unreported bombing raids carried out by Belgian aircraft in the past which resulted in heavy civilian loss of life, that might explain Belgium’s sensitivity, and the strength of the Belgian reaction.

There’s no question Baghdad needs to take back Mosul from ISIS/ISIL/Daesh. It could not do it before. In theory, the time is now.

The real question is the conflicting motivations of the large “who’s who” doing it; the Iraqi Army’s 9th Division; the Kurdish Peshmerga, under the baton of wily, corrupt opportunist Barzani; Sunni tribal lords; tens of thousands of Shi’ite militias from southern Iraq; operational “support” from US Special Forces; “targeted” bombing by the US Air Force; and lurking in the background, Turkish Special Forces and air power.

Now that’s a certified recipe for trouble.

Much like Aleppo, Mosul is – literally – the stuff of legend. The successor of ancient Nineveh, settled 8000 years ago; former capital of the Assyrian Empire under Sennacherib in the 7th century B.C.; conquered by Babylon in the 6th century B.C.; a thousand years later, annexed to the Muslim empire and ruled by the Umayyads and the Abbasids; the key hub, from the 11th to the 12th century, of the Atabegs medieval state; a key Ottoman hub in a 16th century post-Silk Road spanning the Indian Ocean all the way to the Persian Gulf, the Tigris valley, Aleppo and Tripoli in the Mediterranean.

After WWI, everyone craved Mosul – from Turkey to France. But it was the Brits who managed to dupe France into letting Mosul be annexed to the British Empire’s brand new colony: Iraq. Then came the long Arab nationalist Ba’ath party domination. And afterwards, Shock and Awe and hell; the US invasion and occupation; the tumultuous Shi’ite-majority government of Nouri al-Maliki in Baghdad; and the ISIS/ISIL/Daesh takeover in the summer of 2014.

Mosul’s historic parallels could not but have a special flavor. That 11th/12th century medieval state happened to have roughly the same borders of Daesh’s phony “Caliphate” – incorporating both Aleppo and Mosul. In 2004, Mosul was de facto ruled by disgraced, failed “presidential material” Gen. David Petraeus. Ten years later, after Petraeus’s phony “surge”, Mosul was ruled by a phony Caliphate born in a US prison near the Kuwaiti border.

Since then, hundreds of thousands of residents fled Mosul. The population may be as much as halved compared to the original 2 million. That’s a mighty lot to be properly “liberated”.

Aleppo “falls”

The hegemonic narrative about the ongoing Battle of (East) Aleppo is that an “axis of evil” (as coined by Hillary Clinton) of Russia, Iran and “the Syrian regime” is relentlessly bombing innocent civilians and “moderate rebels” while causing a horrendous humanitarian crisis.

In fact, the absolute majority of these several thousand-strong “moderate rebels” is in fact incorporated and/or affiliated with Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (Conquest of Syria Front), which happens to be none other than Jabhat al-Nusra, a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria, alongside a smatter of other jihadi groups such as Ahrar al-Sham (Al-Nusra’s goals – and who supports them – are fully documented here).

Meanwhile, few civilians remain trapped in eastern Aleppo – arguably no more than 30,000 or 40,000 out of an initial population of 300,000.

And that brings us to the crux of the matter explaining the Pentagon sabotage of the Russia-US ceasefire; those fits of rage by Samantha Batshit Crazy Power; the non-stop spin that Russia is committing “war crimes”.

If Damascus controls, apart from the capital, Aleppo, Homs, Hama and Latakia, it controls the Syria that matters; 70% of the population and all the important industrial/business centers. It’s practically game over. The rest is a rural, nearly empty back of beyond.

For the headless chicken school of foreign policy currently practiced by the lame duck Obama administration, the ceasefire was a means to buy time and rearm what the Beltway describes as “moderate rebels”. Yet even that was too much for the Pentagon, which faces a determined Syria/Iran/Russia alliance fighting all declinations of demented Salafi-jihadis, whatever their terminology, and committed to keep a unitary Syria.

So reconquering the whole of Aleppo has to be the top priority for Damascus, Tehran and Moscow. The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) will never have enough military to reconquer the rural, ultra hardcore Sunni back of beyond. Damascus may also never reconquer the Kurdish northeast, the embryonic Rojava; after all the YPG is directly backed by the Pentagon. Whether an independent Rojava will ever see the light of day is an interminable future issue to be solved.

The SAA, once again, is tremendously overextended. Thus, the method to reconquer East Aleppo is indeed hardcore. There is a humanitarian crisis. There is collateral damage. And this is only the beginning. Because sooner or later the SAA, supported by Hezbollah and Iraqi Shi’ite militias, will have to reconquer East Aleppo with boots on the ground as well – supported by Russian fighter jets.

The heart of the matter is that the former “Free Syrian Army”, absorbed by al-Qaeda in Syria and other Salafi-jihadis, is about to lose East Aleppo. Regime change and/or “Assad must go” – the military way – in Damascus is now impossible. Thus the utter desperation exhibited by the Pentagon’s Ash “Empire of Whining” Carter, neocon cells implanted all across lame duck Team Obama, and their hordes of media shills.

Enter Plan B; the Battle of Mosul.

Fallujah remixed?

The Pentagon plan is deceptively simple; erase any signs of Damascus and the SAA east of Palmyra. And this is where the Battle of Mosul converges with the recent Pentagon attack on Deir Ezzor. Even if we have an offensive in the next few months against Raqqa – by the YPG Kurds or even by Turkish forces – we still have a “Salafist principality” from eastern Syria to western Iraq all mapped up, exactly as the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) was planning (dreaming?) in 2012.

London-based Syrian historian Nizar Nayouf, as well as unnamed diplomatic sources, have confirmed that Washington and Riyadh closed a deal to let thousands of phony Caliphate jihadis escape Mosul from the west, as long as they head straight to Syria. A look at the battle map tells us that Mosul is encircled from all directions, except west.

But what about Sultan Erdogan in all this? He’s been spinning that Turkish Special Forces will enter Mosul just as they entered Jarablus in the Turkish-Syrian border; without firing a shot, when the city will be cleaned of jihadis.

Meanwhile, Ankara is preparing its spectacular entrance in the battlefield, with Erdogan in full regalia shooting at random. For him, “Baghdad” is no more than “an administrator of an army composed of Shi’ites”; and the YPG Kurds “will be removed from the Syrian town of Manbij” after the Mosul operation. Not to mention that Ankara and Washington are actively discussing the offensive against Raqqa, as Erdogan has not abandoned his dream of a “safe zone” of 5,000 km in northern Syria.

In a nutshell; for Erdogan, Mosul is a sideshow. His priorities remain a fractured, fragmented Syria, “safe zone” included; and to smash the YPG Kurds (while working side by side with the Peshmerga in Iraq).

As far as the US Plan B is concerned, Hezbollah’s Sheikh Nasrallah has clearly seenthrough the whole scheme; “The Americans intend to repeat the Fallujah plot when they opened a way for ISIL to escape towards eastern Syria before the Iraqi warplanes targeted the terrorists’ convoy.” He added that “the Iraqi army and popular forces” must defeat ISIS/ISIL/Daesh in Mosul; otherwise, they will have to chase them out across eastern Syria.

It’s also no wonder that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has also clearly seen The Big Picture: “As far as I know, the city is not fully encircled. I hope it’s because they simply couldn’t do it, not because they wouldn’t do it. But this corridor poses a risk that Islamic State fighters could flee from Mosul and go to Syria.”

It’s clear Moscow won’t sit idly by if that’s the case;“I hope the US-led coalition, which is actively engaged in the operation to take Mosul, will take it into account.”

Of course Mosul – even more than Aleppo – poses a serious humanitarian question.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) estimates as many as 1 million people may be affected. Lavrov goes straight to the point when he insists “neither Iraq nor its neighbors currently have the capacity to accommodate such a large number of refugees, and this should have been a factor in the planning of the Mosul operation.”

It may not have been. After all, for the “US-led” (from behind?) coalition, the number one priority is to ensure the phony Caliphate survives, somewhere in eastern Syria. Over 15 years after 9/11, the song remains the same, with the war on terra the perennial gift that keeps on giving.

The US-led offensive against the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, begun this week, is part of the protracted and unfolding US war crimes that have killed, maimed and displaced millions across the Middle East.

Once again, a horrific humanitarian catastrophe is being unleashed upon a civilian population that suffered more than its share of death and destruction during the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent eight years of American occupation.

This occupation relied on the age-old oppressor’s tactic of divide and rule, stoking sectarian conflicts that had a particularly bitter character in Mosul with its broad intermingling of different ethnic and religious groups, including Sunni Arabs, Kurds, Turkmens, Yazidis, Armenians and others.

The sectarianism promoted by the US occupiers created fertile ground for the growth of the Islamic State (ISIS), which the present offensive is ostensibly directed at crushing. The Shia-dominated government installed in Baghdad persecuted the Sunni majority of Mosul and Anbar province, jailing and killing prominent Sunni leaders, suppressing the population and treating all opposition to its rule as “terrorism.”

ISIS, an offshoot of Al Qaeda, is itself a direct product of US imperialism’s interventions in the region, utilizing Al Qaeda-linked Islamist militias, first in Libya and then in Syria, as proxy forces in Washington’s wars for regime change.

When it stormed into northern Iraq from Syria in June of 2014, ISIS exposed the rot within the government and military created by Washington through a war that cost the US nearly 5,000 soldiers and trillions of dollars. In the face of a far smaller force, the Iraqi security forces disintegrated, throwing down their weapons and tearing off their uniforms, while a substantial layer of the population welcomed the Islamist militia as preferable to the rule of the sectarian regime in Baghdad.

This history is a closed book as far as the US media is concerned. Once again, its reporters are embedded with the US-led forces, enthusiastically promoting their advances, as if the bloody events that began in 2003 had never happened.

The US-led assault on Mosul is being portrayed as a battle to “liberate” the city from the clutches of ISIS, which is accused of exploiting the population and using civilians as “human shields.” Such allegations, also leveled against the Iraqi government in 2003, have always served as an advance alibi for the slaughter of civilians in US bombardments.

Curiously, 300 miles to the west, where Russian-backed Syrian government forces are attempting to wrest the eastern part of the city of Aleppo from similar Islamist militias, the media speaks in terms of “war crimes” rather than liberation, and no one suggests that the “rebels” could be making use of the civilian population, much less employing “human shields.”

The grotesque double standard only underscores the fact that the real objective of Washington’s intervention in both Iraq and Syria is not the eradication of terrorism, much less the promotion of human rights, but rather the assertion of US hegemony over the Middle East at the expense of and in preparation for conflicts with American imperialism’s larger rivals, particularly Russia and China.

To that end, Washington is prepared to employ both military sieges, as in Mosul, in the name of combating terrorism, and the arming of Al Qaeda-connected militias in Syria in the name of promoting human rights. There are credible reports that the operation in Mosul may involve both, with the US and Saudi Arabia working to funnel ISIS fighters out of the Iraqi city and back into Syria to fight against the government and its principal ally, Russia.

No doubt the Pentagon also sees the assault on Mosul as an important exercise in testing out its doctrine for urban military operations in what are seen as coming major wars. These bloodthirsty theories were spelled out in a report titled “The Future of the Army” issued last month by the influential US think tank the Atlantic Council.

Drafted by a retired major general who served as the commander of US forces in Afghanistan and a military adviser to several US administrations, the report projects a coming world of intense social inequality and class conflict in which “urban operations will increasingly dominate land warfare,” and US armies will operate “in densely packed metropolitan areas where civilian populations are a part of the battlefield.”

The people of Mosul, including an estimated 600,000 children, will be treated as human guinea pigs in this operation, which could drag on for months, entailing not only relentless US air strikes and artillery bombardment, but also the systematic starvation of the population. All of this will unfold under the watchful eyes of the US military command.

The bloody operation in Mosul has been launched less than three weeks before the US presidential election. It is a massive escalation of US military intervention in the Middle East, with US Special Forces troops accompanying Iraqi government and Kurdish units into battle, and US warplanes and artillery units providing the bulk of the siege’s firepower. Yet, there is no public discussion, nor even a hint of questioning of US policy by the candidates of the two major parties.

President Barack Obama, who was elected in 2008 in large measure due to the false perception that he was an opponent of the Iraq war and other crimes of the Bush administration, has not even bothered to make a public statement to the American people explaining this new escalation. Asked about it at a press conference Tuesday, he acknowledged that the offensive would produce “heartbreaking circumstances.” Concluding with what amounted to a chilling acknowledgement that the city will be reduced to smoking rubble, he declared, “It’s hard when you leave your home.”

All of this is supposed to be accepted by the American people as just another episode in a state of unending and continuously escalating global war.

From the media and the entire political establishment, there is not a single note of criticism of US war policy. Moreover, 13-1/2 years after millions took to the streets in the US and across the globe to oppose the impending 2003 invasion of Iraq, there is not even verbal opposition from the pseudo-left organizations and tendencies that trace their origins back to the middle-class anti-war protest movement of the 1960s and 1970s. This socio-political layer, including organizations such as the International Socialist Organization in the US, the Left Party in Germany and the New Anti-Capitalist Party in France, reflects the interests of privileged sections of the middle class. They have all moved far to the right, becoming today one of the principal constituencies for “human rights” imperialist interventions, as in Libya and Syria.

The siege of Mosul, a new and bloody US crime in the Middle East, is part of a far broader escalation of military interventions in that region and around the globe that threaten to coalesce into another world war, involving the major nuclear powers. The fight against this mounting threat requires the building of a new mass anti-war movement based upon the working class and the youth and directed against the capitalist system.

As a critical step in building a movement against imperialist war, the Socialist Equality Party and the International Youth and Students for Social Equality are holding a November 5 conference in Detroit Socialism vs. Capitalism and War. We urge all of our readers and supporters to register for and attend this vitally important event.

Belgium’s region Wallonia has dealt a severe blow to European Union’s hopes to sign a free trade deal with Canada. The region’s President-Minister said he would not support the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement or CETA by the Friday deadline.

The deal has to be ratified by all EU’s 28 member states. However, Belgium cannot sign the agreement without the consent of its regional parliaments.

Radio Sputnik discussed the CETA agreement with Michel Chossudovsky Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

“This is not a bilateral agreement between Canada and the EU. It is a […] mechanism for the integration of NAFTA and the European Union into what might be called the North Atlantic trade and investment organization which would literally integrate North America and the European Union from the point of view of trade and investment,” Chossudovsky told Sputnik.

CETA is said to offer better business opportunities for EU firms in Canada and create more jobs. However opponents of the deal say that CETA as well as TTIP, which is another trade deal that EU is negotiating with the US, will lower the bloc’s food, health and safety standards, while at the same time allow American and Canadian corporations to sue EU governments for alleged discriminatory practices under ISDS or Investor dispute settlement.

According to Chossudovsky, US and Canadian economies are closely intertwined and therefore CETA can be considered a “proxy” of TTIP.

“It is not only a Canada-EU project. It is also a Washington project,” the expert said. “TTIP and CETA were implemented jointly, they weren’t separate initiatives, it’s one initiative,” he added.

In Chossudovsky’s opinion, if the TTIP fails to reach consensus because people would say “We don’t want to be a colony of the United States,” and prefer CETA, it wouldn’t change much in terms of the EU dependence on Washington.

“CETA is a proxy. This Canada-EU comprehensive economic agreement in fact is a TTIP in disguise,” the expert noted. “We have to be very careful about what it implies politically. These trade agreements are not [made] for people, they are part of the corporate agenda.”

According to the expert, both agreements would mean integration of NAFTA and the EU into a kind of Atlantic trading block and thus have serious geopolitical implications.

“The European Union has certain dynamics. But once it is integrated to NAFTA, it may not be Brussels anymore. It might be just Washington which will be calling the shots,” the expert concluded.

The candidates are not the first to blame for this.

The first to blame are the moderators of such debates, the alleged journalists (and their overlords) who do not ask questions that are relevant for the life of the general votes and who do not intervene at all when the debaters run off course.

The second group to blame are the general horse-race media who each play up their (owner’s) special-interest hobbyhorses as if those will be the decisive issue for the next four years. The candidates fight for the attention of these media and adopt to them.

I didn’t watch yesterday’s debate but every media I skimmed tells me that Clinton was gorgeous and Trump very bad. That means she said what they wanted to hear and Trump didn’t. It doesn’t say what other people who watched though of it. Especially in the rural parts of the country they likely fear the consequences of climate change way more than Russia, ISIS and Iran together.

Another reason why both candidates avoided to bring up the issues low in the list above is that both hold positions that are socially somewhat liberal and both are corporatists. None of those low ranked issues is personally relevant to them. No realistic answer to these would better their campaign finances or their personal standing in the circles they move in. Personally they are both east coast elite and don’t give a fu***** sh** what real people care about.

As far as I can discern it from the various reports no new political issues were touched. Clinton ran her usual focus group tested lies while Trump refrained from attacking her hard. A huge mistake in my view. He can beat her by attacking her really, really hard, not on issues but personality. Her disliked rate (like Trump’s) is over -40%. She is vulnerable on many, many things in her past. Her foreign policy is way more aggressive than most voters like.  Calling this back into mind again and again could probably send her below -50%. Who told him to leave that stuff alone? Trump is a major political disruption. He should have emphasized that but he barely hinted at it for whatever reason.

The voters are served badly -if at all- by the TV debates in their current form. These do not explain real choices. That is what this whole election circus should be about. But that is no longer the case and maybe it never was.

Belgium was unable to agree on CETA today as the French-speaking Walloon Region’s Parliament voted last week to oppose the deal. The national trade minister was unable to go ahead with the agreement without the consent of its regional parliaments.

In addition, Bulgaria, Romania and Slovenia are still making the trade deal a matter of reaching final agreement with Canada on visa regulation for their citizens, equal to those with all other EU member states.

GUE/NGL Shadow on CETA, Anne-Marie Mineur, supports Wallonia in its position: “I am very pleased to see that the Walloon Government has stood up against this agreement. They are courageously standing up for what is best for Belgians and all Europeans.”

Mineur also raises concerns over the pressure that Belgium now faces: “They have been given three more days to find a way to agree on CETA. Millions of people across Europe will be watching anxiously and I sincerely hope that Belgium will be able to stay strong and resist the pressure to cave in to the neoliberal demands of this agreement.

“It is astounding that so much pressure is being put on Belgium over an agreement that has so little public support. This highlights the huge divide between the neoliberal people in power in the European Commission and the broader European public who largely oppose the agreement.”

GUE/NGL Coordinator on the International Trade Committee, Helmut Scholz, calls for “the signing of the CETA, which was scheduled for October 27, to be cancelled.”

“CETA, TTIP, TiSA and other new generation trade agreements will have dramatic consequences not only for consumer and labour standards and social and environmental protection, they will also intervene deeply in member states legal systems through the investment court system. If passed, these agreements’ definitions of ‘regulatory co-operation’, would set in concrete a world trade architecture in which the multinational companies have their way.

“The insistence of the European Commission and the overwhelming majority of member state governments to complete CETA show that they have absolutely no regard for the critical opinions expressed by large sections of civil society.

“Not only has the Walloon Parliament in Belgium stood up against this agreement, tens of thousands of people all over Europe protested against it on September 17. Now the Commission and member states must listen,” concludes Scholz.

GUE/NGL Press Contact:

Nikki Sullings  +32 22 83 27 60 / +32 483 03 55 75

Gay Kavanagh +32 473 84 23 20

The third US presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton was an awkward affair that probably did little to alter existing perceptions.

Trump entered the debate with critical and urgent tasks:

-Head off the existential threat of a nuclear war with Russia over Syria; a war the Hillary Clinton would start.
-Expose Hillary Clinton as a criminal and a terrorist, with such force and detail that she would be removed as a presidential candidate, and removed from public service entirely.
-Clearly and convincingly articulate an agenda for reform and world peace that can disrupt the entrenched New World Order oligarchy.

In this final opportunity to educate and convince an international mainstream television audience, within a limited format, Trump failed.

Stylistically, Trump came in seemingly unprepared. He did not bring enough new material to this performance, failed to utilize dozens of new Wikileaks revelations. He repeated too many routines from the previous debate. His glancing, roundabout speaking patterns did him no favors. He went off on tangents, squandering countless opportunities. Trump is not a trained politician who knows how to jam talking points into two minute segments full of “zingers”, and it showed.

Hillary Clinton, by contrast, had the easier job of staying upright and merely surviving. She gave a typical rehearsed politician’s performance. She lied with the assurance of an experienced criminal and sociopath. She absorbed Trump’s attacks (without effectively deflecting many of them), only losing her composure a few times, and spouted lies and half-truths that sounded factual. She was nasty. Hillary Clinton was Hillary Clinton: typically unlikeable and vicious, but proudly so.

But it was Trump’s failures on substance that were most problematic.

The Russian “threat”

Trump did not effectively counter the aggressive “Russia did it” propaganda and war agenda. Hillary called him a Russian puppet who has “encouraged espionage against the United States of America”.

When Hillary bombastically declared everything from Wikileaks and Trump himself as agents of a massive Russian espionage operation of Putin to “infiltrate the US election” “from the highest levels of the Kremlin”, “proven by 17 government agencies”. Trump shot back “No puppet, you’re the puppet”, but failed to immediately attack Clinton’s idiotic rhetoric and her claims of proof. He declared that Clinton doesn’t actually know who is responsible for the cyberhacks and is blowing hot air.

The “17 agencies proof” is a  total lie manufactured by US intelligence on behalf of Clinton. The “17” is actually one man, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who committed perjury over NSA surveillance. Trump did not point out that Clinton’s “proof” via her own people—officials of the Obama administration, Obama’s intelligence apparatus, including the compromised FBI Director (and longtime Clinton/Bush co-conspirator) James Comey—is not “proof”.

The mainstream media has parroted these same claims of “evidence” of Russian espionage and cyberattacks as if fact. Debate moderator Chris Wallace even tossed this so-called “proof” of Russian meddling at Trump. Trump failed to counter that there is no proof to back the claim of Russian hacking and espionage. Perhaps because he actually believes that there is.  Worse, Wallace got Trump to say that he condemns Russian interference in the election. “Of course I condemn it”. This condemnation of non-existent Russian interference was perhaps the most embarrassing and dangerous failure of the night on Trump’s part.

Trump instead retreated to the same simplistic denials from the last debate: “I don’t know Putin”, “He says nice things about me” but “We’re not best friends”.  He failed to turn it back on Clinton, failed to state clearly that the entire anti-Russia agenda is not only McCarthyist propaganda, but dangerous rhetoric that is provoking a world war, thus the fanatical Hillary Clinton is the danger to humanity. Trump could have won over any human being interested in not only world peace but planetary survival, with just a few such lines. He didn’t do it.

Trump failed to channel, of all people, Joe Biden. Recall in the 2012 vice presidential debate, Biden famously shamed Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan for his hotheaded desire to “take out” Syria and Assad. To which Biden pointedly asked Ryan, “Do you want a war? Is that what you want?” That is all Trump had to do with Hillary Clinton: “Hillary, do you want nuclear war? Is that what you want?” Or: “Hillary, do you think there are any winners in a nuclear war? Are you insane?”  (Ironically, it is Joe Biden who today is planning the coming war against Russia. So he indeed is the one who “wants it”. )

When Clinton said that she intends to “take back Syria from the Russians”, Trump failed to expose her lie.  Syria is being invaded by US/NATO terrorists, and Russia is helping a sovereign nation defend itself from the illegal conquest at the bloody hands of Clinton and the New World Order. Trump should simply be calling for an end to the criminal US/NATO operation: “give Syria back to Syria”, and get out of the region. He has not done so.

Instead of defusing the provocative anti-Russia rhetoric, Trump even added to it non-sequiturs about competing nuclear stockpiles. Scary Iranian nuclear ambitions, scary Russian aggression, scary Assad—not that different a viewpoint than Clinton’s.

Trump did not defend Wikileaks, and did not counter the charge that Wikileaks and Julian Assange is not a Russian espionage operation. Worse, Trump failed to state that no matter the source, the substance of what Wikileaks is exposing—the truth—is something Clinton cannot hide from. That substance absolutely exposes Hillary Clinton and the Clinton machine is criminal and treasonous. She and her operatives should be answer to this evidence and be punished for all of it.

Trump did not differ with the Clinton/New World Order narrative that Russia, Iran and Syria are enemies that have outsmarted and disrespected Clinton and Obama, and must be opposed by someone better, and “make them respect us”.

On Syria and the Middle East

Trump repeated, as he did in the previous debate, that the US and Russia “should be fighting  ISIS” together. But he said nothing about the fact that ISIS is a creation of CIA and the Obama administration, and Hillary Clinton directly. He has made suggestions about this in previous speeches, but his failure to do so on this important mainstream appearance squandered a final chance to use the new Wikileaks evidence exposing Hillary’s funding of ISIS. Trump therefore failed to address the source of the problem. Was this conscious avoidance, or does he not “get it”?

Trump did not disavow the “war on terrorism”, has said nothing about getting out of the Middle East. He only says it is a “disaster” caused by Clinton and Obama.  Instead of nailing Hillary Clinton for war crimes (for which she orchestrated and carried out with intent, enthusiasm and relish—Libya, Benghazi, ISIS, Syria, etc.—Trump continued with soft criticism of her “ineffectiveness”; accused her State Department and the Obama foreign policy of being “stupid”.

Trump repeated the line that ISIS grew out of the “vacuum” left by the Clinton/Obama in Iraq. In fact, it was not a “vacuum”. ISIS and Islamic terrorism are not “outside enemies”. ISIS is a creation of the CIA and NATO that was not just “allowed to happen” but is the leading military-intelligence force of NATO and the United States in the region. Numerous sources expose Clinton and Obama as creators of terrorism. Trump said nothing about this. As for the CIA, illegal covert operations, and the CIA’s running of Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra and ISIS, Hillary Clinton is front and center in the middle of these atrocities. Trump has never gone there.

Trump invited a Benghazi widow to attend the debate, but failed to attack Clinton for her ruthless and cold-blooded Libya operation, or for the fourth deaths that were meaningless to “What difference does it make?” Hillary.

Trump repeated a stale point from the previous debate, about what he believes is a failure to take Mosul with a sneak attack.  Trump entirely misses the point, avoiding the fact that ISIS fighters are being repositioned, on US/NATO/CIA orders from Mosul into Syria. Trump failed to talk about the reality that ISIS and jihadists are run by the CIA and NATO. If he knows this, he is not saying.

On Aleppo, Trump stated, ignorantly or intentionally, that the US at present “doesn’t know who the rebels are”, but “we’re backing rebels”.  This represents some of Trump’s most brain-dead rhetoric. The US and NATO know exactly who the rebels are. The rebels are NATO’s “freedom fighters”. The US, NATO and the CIA created Islamic terrorists, manage/fund/arm/guide Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra, and ISIS, all of which are military-intelligence forces operating openly on behalf of Washington and NATO, on orders from the CIA, the Pentagon, the White House, the State Department.  By refusing to state these indisputable (and now even commonly accepted) facts, Trump left an ignorance excuse loophole, through which Hillary Clinton and the powers that be can slither through safely. Instead of nailing these criminals, Trump essentially gives them plausible denial.

When Hillary Clinton predictably went into a favorite propaganda spiel about the “poor bleeding Aleppo Boy”, did Trump point out the Aleppo Boy is most likely  a propaganda hoax,  at least a blatant piece of propaganda being used to justify war, just as certainly as the “incubator baby” propaganda hoax was used to justify the Gulf War? No. Did Trump mention that there would be no “poor bleeding Aleppo Boy” at all, were it not for the foreign policy of Obama and Hillary Clinton? No. And Hillary Clinton’s contempt for humanity and war criminality, her responsibility for the deaths of thousands, including untold numbers of “poor Aleppo Boys” all over the world was also not mentioned.

When Clinton repeated her desire for a no-fly zone over Syria, Trump failed to point out that it would be an overt act of war, leading directly to nuclear conflict with Russia. Her lie about establishing “peacekeeping safe zones” is the classic charade used to justify all previous criminal wars under a “humanitarian” pretext. And that the “negotiations” under Hillary Clinton are never “negotiations”, but intimidations leading quickly to bombing and killing. Trump said nothing about this.

On Clinton’s corruption

Trump did call the Clinton Foundation a criminal organization but did not go into specifics that could have blown it wide open. He mentioned connections to Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but utterly failed to talk about how Hillary Clinton is a terrorist, who has funded ISIS with Saudi Arabia and Qatar through her foundation.

He mentioned the Clintons’ virtual rape of Haiti, but did not go into adequate detail. Trump used the Clinton Foundation’s ties with Saudi Arabia to point out that the Clintons support cultures that are misogynistic and anti-gay, to show that the Clintons are therefore hypocrites. But this is weak. Trump should be attacking the Clintons for the countless other crimes for which they were directly responsible, including political murders, the intimidation of women, their sexual perversions and rape. His use of a treasure trove of Clinton history has been anemic.

Trump went after Clinton on the emails, stating correctly that Hillary should not be allowed to run for president because of the crimes she committed, but did not go into new specifics, even though new information has surfaced.

Trump failed to fully exploit the Wikileaks in which Hillary Clinton spoke of her desire for “open borders” as an example of pure, unadulterated globalism, in the most toxic and large scale form. He did not attack Clinton when she lied that her comment being taken out of context, that “I was talking about energy”.

A right-wing agenda

Trump also did nothing to alleviate concerns about some of the right-wing agenda he is pushing seriously. He wants a conservative Supreme Court (actually, so does Clinton).  Trump is pro-life (pro-birth), pandering to the Christian fundamentalists. With a conservative Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade will be overturned, Trump would leave abortion rights “to the states” (no mention of the fact that many states are already destroying Roe v. Wade protections). Trump wants “law and order”, and is not averse to police state mobilizations, and has not articulated how such “law and order” can be applied peacefully. He advocates guns and the strengthening of the Second Amendment of the Constitution. He wants to cut taxes, but does not articulate how his proposed tax ideas, including tax cuts, benefit the majority of Americans besides the wealthy (Clinton’s tax plan also benefits the wealthy). He wants to blow up Obamacare, but has offered no specifics on a better, more equitable option. His stance on immigration is well known.

Trump wants to build a wall to keep illegal immigrants out, and most notably criminal elements.  Clinton herself also advocated a wall (but altered her stance for political reasons), and Trump does differ with Clinton’s “open borders” agenda, but he failed to expose the extent to which the Clinton/New World Order plan is intentionally (not merely as a by-product) facilitates CIA drug trafficking and the movement of intelligence assets.

Trump is against trade deals like NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that Hillary Clinton supports (she did, in fact, call the TPP a “gold standard” but is now lying and backing off). Trump wants to bring jobs back to the United States, but again, failed to give specifics beyond broad strokes. “You’re gonna love it, believe me.”

On fitness for office and character

Clinton predictably attacked Trump for being a sexual predator and a misogynist. He effectively rebutted the accusations as best he could, stating flatly that the nine accusers were plants of the Clinton/corporate media sleaze machine, and that there was no basis for the charges.

Clinton accused Trump of “patterns of divisiveness” and for “inciting violence”. Trump said nothing in response, when he could easily have countered that she is the one who is actively inciting violence, and engaging in a myriad of activities that are not only “divisive” but knowingly so, and lying about it.

According to Larry Nichols, former Clinton insider/fixer and an original creator of much of the Clinton dirty tricks play book, reality is always the opposite of what the Clintons say, and that when the Clintons accuse others of something, they themselves are guilty of it. Why hasn’t Trump figured this out? Why hasn’t Trump recruited the likes of Nichols and other former Clinton insiders, staffers, and whistleblowers who know the Clinton dirty tricks game, who know how genuinely terrifying psychopathology of Hillary Clinton better than anyone?

Trump repeated the familiar old line about Hillary Clinton being “ineffective” in thirty years of “bad experience”.  But he did not accurately depict Clinton as a criminal who has very effectively used public office to further the criminal activities of her syndicate.

Clinton called Trump a Russian puppet, but Trump failed to call Hillary Clinton what she is: the puppet of the New World Order, and the crime partner of the Bushes. He did not mention of any of the biggest Clinton crimes, including massive drug trafficking using government resources (Iran-Contra, etc.), massive financial fraud and trillions of dollars of looting, terrorism, and major corruption that is far beyond garden variety “pay for play”.  And no mention of the murders connected to the Clintons, including Vince Foster, and the recent murders of Seth Rich and others who were poised to rat out the Hillary and the DNC.

Trump has not made clear, or he is not aware that the combined syndicate of the Bushes and Clintons control virtually all of Washington, a huge segment of the world economy, and that they must be stopped from cementing their power for many generations to come.

Trump did deliver a memorable aside towards Clinton: “What a nasty woman”. Factually correct, but not nearly enough.

Donald Trump left Hillary Clinton intact. For that, the world will suffer.

The few positives for Trump

What did Trump do effectively? He brought up the rigging of the election. He called attention to the undercover operation of James O’Keefe and Project Veritas catching top Clinton/Democratic operatives on camera brazenly fomenting violence at political events, brazenly plotting and planning election fraud with orders from the Clintons and the Democrats.

The clips and a post-debate interview with O’Keefe can be seen here:

Part 1

Part 2

Interview with James O’Keefe (Infowars)

Trump did warn about the likely election theft: “Be careful, people are going to walk in and they’re going to vote ten times maybe, who knows?”

“Accepting election outcomes” and simpleminded American ignorance

Trump has gotten lambasted for not adhering to the “grand tradition” of committing to accepting the election results, if he loses. “I’ll keep you in suspense.” This seems to be the big “shocking” negative takeaway headline from the debate; that Trump is a sore loser.

The mainstream corporate media will attack Trump for this aggressively.

Clinton’s counter—“that’s what Donald does”, complain when he loses—will also register with those of infantile “playground” thinking, who do not bother to look at the Project Veritas clips showing the Clintons already rigging the election. Or they do not care. It smacks of the same treatment Al Gore and Joe Lieberman received when the 2000 election was contested: “Sore/Loserman”.

The naïve, ignorant American still believes in the kindergarten fairy tale version of reality; that America is a “good” country (Hillary’s nauseating line about “America is great because it is good”), and that everything is fair and wonderful, and in the end, “we must all come together”.

Utter nonsense.

This psychosis is exactly how the corrupt elite controls and manipulates its vassals.

Why should anyone accept the outcome of a criminally stolen election? Why should anyone accept injustice and tyranny?  It is asinine. Trump should say exactly that, and fight to the bitter end, if he truly is a champion for the people.

Podiumgate redux

Did Clinton cheat again?

It must be noted that Clinton’s podium was lit, suggesting that she again had the benefit of a teleprompter, as in the first debate. If Clinton was wired and/or prompted again, it would explain the “good performance” from a woman with known neurological problems, seizures, and lapses in thinking, as exposed in the Podesta emails.

Seen in footage, Clinton operative Brady Williamson, the white-haired bespectacled mustached who rigged the podium in the first debate and hid the evidence, was also present for this third debate.  Williamson, a Democratic Party strategist and lawyer, and a man who has worked for the Clintons for decades once again lurked about the podium this time, snatching away notes used by Hillary.

(Also present was the bald-headed African-American security agent who shadows Clinton for medical support, who carries pens of diazepam anti-seizure medication.)

Who was in charge of the stage for this debate? Why was Hillary once again given a “lit” podium, when Trump was not?

Where was Trump’s security detail? Why wasn’t the podium checked?

Why hasn’t Trump said a word about the Clintons cheating in the first debate, and possibly this one as well? Why wasn’t anyone arrested?

In the second debate, the Clintons demanded that the audience be prevented from using flash bulb cameras, to prevent Hillary from getting seizures. The same arrangement applied to this event. Why?

Trump half-jokingly wanted Hillary drug-tested for this debate. Why didn’t he push harder for this reasonable demand?

Towards the abyss

Much was riding on this event. There will be tragic consequences to Trump’s failure to stop Hillary Clinton, and his failure to further distinguish himself  to a mainstream international audience (one that may not be versed in the news on alternative media, Wikileaks, the Clinton history, or the details of recent events).

Both sides are furiously spinning the debate. Some of Trump’s supporters somehow came away believing that he did well. Some even think it was his best debate performance of the three. Clinton’s supporters, and the corporate media that the Clintons control, are ecstatic. No doubt, her corporate media will blare headlines declaring that she “trounced” Trump and added to her “insurmountable lead” via rigged polls. The vicious anti-Trump noise continues unabated. Realities remain upside down, thanks to the near total media control of the New World Order.

Undecided voters remain confused and undecided. The “average American” still doesn’t get it.

There is nowhere to turn.

A Hillary Clinton presidency promises a planetary cataclysm and a New World Order triumph of genuine evil and unimaginable criminality. The Clinton/Bush criminal apparatus will control even more of Washington, even more of the judicial system, and their reign of terror will flourish into the distant future. Political enemies will be find their lives in jeopardy. It will be Mein Kampf, applied on a planetary scale that not Hitler could possibly have dreamed of. The conquest of the Eurasian subcontinent begun with 9/11 will culminate in its murderous end game: nuclear war with Russia, and mutually assured destruction.

A Donald Trump presidency, at best, would bring chaos and uncertainty. One inexperienced and unpredictable man, alone in an entrenched criminal apparatus, surrounded by dangerous criminals who still control things, will not be a salvation. Change must begin somewhere, with someone, but is the flawed and unreliable Trump the man to do it?

This most critical of elections lumbers towards a doomsday scenario with humanity literally at stake. It could lead to a genuine civil war within the United States. The election could be cancelled by a false flag operation leading to a war with Russia, before the Obama administration leaves office. This and other large scale atrocities are possible at any time.  Even tomorrow.

It is all, as Trump says, rigged.  At least Trump issued the warning.

These next weeks could very well be the final ones, of the world which we know. Prepare yourselves.

This incisive article by Prof Rodrigue Tremblay first published in June 2916, has predicted with foresight the unfolding crisis surrounding the US presidential campaign opposing Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton…

*        *       *

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. Barry Goldwater (1909-1998) US Senator (R-Arizona) and 1964 Republican Presidential candidate, (in his Acceptance speech as the 1964 Republican Presidential candidate, in San Francisco, July 16, 1964)

Sometimes, I think this country would be better off if we could just saw off the Eastern Seaboard and let it float out to sea. Barry Goldwater (1909-1998) US Senator (R-Arizona) and 1964 Republican Presidential candidate, (in a December 1961 news conference)

We’re going to hit them and we’re going to hit them hard. I’m talking about a surgical strike on these ISIS stronghold cities using Trident [nuclear] missiles. Donald Trump (1946- ), Republican presidential candidate, (in an interview with ‘Meet the Press’, NBC News, August 9, 2015)

…They asked me the question [about torture], ‘What do you think of waterboarding?’ —Absolutely fine. But we should go much stronger than waterboarding. Donald Trump (1946- ), Republican presidential candidate, (in a statement during a campaign event at a retirement community, in Bluffton, S. C., Feb. 17, 2016)

*       *       *

The way this 2016 American presidential election is unfolding, there is a good chance that it could be a repeat of the 1964 U.S. election. In both instances, a Democratic presidential candidate is facing a flawed and frightening Republican presidential candidate who multiplies provocative and reckless statements and off-hand comments.

Politicians sometimes forget that, once elected, they are expected to serve all the people, not their narrow base of fanatical partisans. In that regard, their public statements are very important because they give a clue about what type of public servant a candidate would be. A candidate can easily self-destruct if he or she forgets that, when talking to partisans, the entire electorate is listening. Strong statements, good or bad, remain in people’sconsciousness when time comes to vote.

Let us look back 52 years to the 1964 U.S. election. Seeking election in his own right was sitting Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson (1908-1973), who had taken office in 1963 following President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, and who was about to escalate the Vietnam War, which ended up costing the lives of 58,000 Americans and the lives of more than a million Vietnamese. His Republican opponent was Senator Barry Goldwater (1909-1998) of Arizona, who had fought against the party establishment and succeeded in winning the Republican nomination over New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller.

In 1964, Republican candidate Barry Goldwater (right) soon developed an image as an extremist on many issues with a series of reckless and ill-thought out statements. For instance, in foreign policy, he advocated using ‘low-yield’nuclear weapons in Vietnam and in Europe. Domestically, he wanted to make Social Security voluntary. He even suggested that the United States would be better off if the entire East Coast of the country were cut off and sent out to sea!

Goldwater was never able to shake off his image as an extremist on many issues, and he was never in a position to unmask the Democratic candidate’s war plans. This was a key factor in his crushing defeat in November 1964: Lyndon B. Johnson (image left below) won about 61 percent of the vote to Goldwater’s 39 percent, and took all but six states.

Therefore after the election, President Johnson had a free hand in escalading the Vietnam War, especially considering that the U.S. Congress had already adopted the infamous Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, on August 7, 1964. The disastrous war would last ten more years, until 1975.

There is a good chance that history might repeat itself next November.

Indeed, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has been acting as if he doesn’t really care whether he wins the election or not, drawing attention to himself with outlandish statements and reckless comments, presumably designed to shock and create free “publicity” for his candidacy.

One day candidate Trump wants to adopt torture as a public policy. The next day, he wants to prevent Muslims from entering the United States and build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico to stop illegal Mexican immigration. Later on, he advocates using nuclear missiles against Islamist terrorists in the Middle East, and—throwing away any humanitarian principle—even kill their families.

Domestically, he wants to abolish Obamacare, but so far, he has not spelled out any replacement. Etc. etc. etc!

Moreover, he doesn’t mind contradicting himself. Sometimes, he rebuts the pro-Israel lobby, professing not to need its money. But then, he lets his Middle East advisor state that a Trump administration would give the Israeli government a free hand in expropriating the Palestinians.

Since Mr. Trump has no government experience of any kind, one would think that he would consult about policy issues he knows little about, before issuing a statement. This does not seem to be the case. He even jokes: “my primary consultant is myself.” That is a sobering thought. The candidate does not seem to have an overall plan; everything seems to be left to improvisation.

This indicates a lack of discipline. Indeed, candidate Trump seems to be his own worst enemy. As a businessman, Mr. Trump may have great qualities. As a politician, he seems to be lacking in political instincts, self-control and restraint.

As a result of his flippancy and inconsistencies, Mr. Trump’s poll numbers are slipping badly, not because people necessarily like the alternative Democratic choice, but mainly because they become increasingly disillusioned by the lack of seriousness on candidate Trump’s part. They sense that he is unstable and unpredictable, that he has no plan and no program.

All this is a free gift to Democratic presidential Hillary Clinton who has to defend 40 years of political involvement. Unless an unexpected event occurs, and unless Mr. Trump changes profoundly his approach, the choice in the U.S. next November will be between two main candidates with net negative approval ratings, and the candidate with the lowest net negative rating will win, by default.

One would think that the American electorate deserves better.

Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book “The Code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles”, and of “The New American Empire”.

Please visit the book site at:

http://www.thecodeforglobalethics.com/

and his blog at:

http://www.thenewamericanempire.com/blog.htm

“The Kremlin’s Playbook”: Washington Views Russia-EU Cooperation, A Threat to US National Security

By Fort Russ, October 20 2016

Europe is dependent on financial and energy resources of Moscow, according to a report by the Washington Center for strategic and international studies. On October 13 in Washington, a study was published, “The Kremlin’s Playbook: Understanding the Russian Influence in Eastern and Central Europe”, which on the example of five countries – Latvia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Serbia, explains the mechanisms of the workings of the Kremlin with the economies of European states.

Has World War III Already Started? German Tanks Once Again Advancing towards Russia’s Border

By Nick Giambruno, October 20 2016

Recently… for the first time since Operation Barbarossa, German tanks are once again advancing on Russia’s border.You probably haven’t heard this extraordinary piece of news. That’s because the mass media has basically ignored and obscured it. They’ve been busy covering far more important things… like transgender issues and Kim Kardashian’s latest stunt. That’s why I want to tell you about Operation Anaconda 2016. It’s the largest war game in Eastern Europe since the end of the Cold War. It’s essentially a rehearsal to secure a quick NATO victory in the event of war with Russia.

Washington Moves To Silence WikiLeaks

By Bill Van Auken, October 19 2016

The cutting off of Internet access for Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is one more ugly episode in a US presidential election campaign that has plumbed the depths of political degradation. Effectively imprisoned in the Ecuadorian embassy in London  for over four years, Assange now is faced with a further limitation on his contact with the outside world.

US Congress’s Take on the Heroin Epidemic. 6400 tons Produced in US-Occupied Afghanistan…

By William Edstrom, October 20 2016

A heroin epidemic is on fire all across America. Heroin deaths shot up from 1,779 in 2001 to 10,574 in 2014 as Afghan opium poppy fields metastasized from 7,600 hectares in 2001 (when the War in Afghanistan began) to 224,000 hectares currently. The Taliban outlawed opium in Afghanistan in 2000 and within a year it was all but gone, demonstrating that Afghan opium can be eradicated quickly for any administration that chooses to do so. Afghanistan is, by far, the number one source globally of both opium and heroin.

The US-Turkey “Escape Corridor” out of Mosul: ISIS-Daesh Terrorists “Transferred” From Iraq into Syria To Fight Syrian, Russian and Iranian Forces

By Moon of Alabama, October 19 2016

The imminent fight over Mosul might be the reason why John Kerry dialed down his hypocritical howling over east-Aleppo in Syria which is under attack from Syrian and Russian forces. The attack on Mosul proceeds on three axes. From the north Kurdish Peshmerga under U.S. special force advisors lead the fighting. Iraqi forces attack from the east and south. The way to the west, towards Syria, is open. The intend of the U.S. is to let ISIS fighters, several thousand of them, flee to Deir Ezzor and Raqqa in Syria. They are needed there to further destroy the Syrian state.

Video: Interview of Syria’s First Lady Asma Al-Assad

By Asma al-Assad and Russia-TV24, October 19 2016

Syria’s First Lady, Asma al-Assad delivers her first public interview with foreign media. We bring to the attention of Global Research readers her interview with Russia’s Channel 24 TV. It is important that Americans across the land take cognizance of the voice of Syria’s First Lady, acknowledge her humanitarian mandate and commitment outside the realm of mainstream media propaganda. While Obama and the US media have persistently described the war in Syria as the result of sectarian conflicts opposing the Allawite minority and the Sunni majority, they fail to acknowledge that the First Lady Asma Al Assad is Sunni.

Do you know that the Parliament Of Canada has the power to create all of the money necessary to meet our country’s legitimate needs for healthcare, education, the arts and infrastructure but stubbornly refuses to use that power?

Stop the Press!

Our government wants to sign CETA at a CANADA-EU summit on OCT. 27, 2016

That will be the kiss of death for any worthwhile banking reform that would make Canada prosperous again, and prevent us from using the Bank of Canada creatively as we did from 1939 to 1974 with such amazing success.

CETA is both illegal and immoral because it unilaterally transfers power from parliament to international bankers and transnational corporations, and reverses a thousand years of progress in establishing government of by and for the people since the Magna Carta was signed).

Listen to this urgent message from Paul Hellyer:

This article provides a critical discussion of Okinawa’s role in serving American and Japanese strategic interests. Since the end of World War II Okinawa has been a mostly unhappy host of American military bases, and the issue has been prominent at times on the agenda of the Japanese peace movement. The interplay of overseas bases and U.S. foreign policy is a crucial and often hidden dimension of the global projection of American power, which gives rise to friction with and opposition from the peoples living in the vicinity of the bases. This has certainly been the case in relation to Okinawa. This essay offers reflections on thisunderlying reality, as well as the linkage between the network of foreign military bases and the emergence of the first global state in history, a new political phenomenon that distinguishes it from ‘empires’ of the past.

When President Barack Obama visited Hiroshima in May of 2016 there was an effort to persuade him to put Okinawa on his travel itinerary, but as has happened frequently throughout the long tortured history of Okinawa, the request was ignored. In an important sense, Okinawa is the most shameful legacy of Japan’s defeat in World War II, exceeding even the sites of the atomic attacks by its daily reminders of a continued colonialist encroachment on Okinawan national dignity and wellbeing.

Okinawa is being victimized by overlapping exploitations with that of the United States reinforced and legitimized by mainland Japan since the reversion of Okinawa to Japanese rule in 1972. For the United States Okinawa serves as a hub for its strategic military operations throughout the Pacific, with 32 military bases on the Ryukyu Islands including more than 20 on the main island of Okinawa.

The Okinawa bases occupy about 20% of the island, with Kadena Air Base having been used for B-29 bombing missions during the Korean War more than a half century ago and the island serving as a major staging area throughout the Vietnam War. It was also a secret site for the deployment of as many as 1,000 nuclear warheads as acknowledged by the US decades later together with the claim that the nuclear warheads were removed prior to the reversion of Okinawa to Japanese rule in 1972. In recent years Okinawa rarely receives global news coverage except when a sex crime by American servicemen provokes local outrage and peaceful mass demonstrations followed by the strained apologies of local American military commanders.

After a series of military incursions, Japan finally conquered Okinawa and the Ryukyu island chain of which it is a part in 1879, and then imposed its rule in ways that suppressed the culture, traditions, and even the languages of the native populations of the islands. What is little remembered in the West is that Okinawa was the scene of the culminating catastrophic land battle between the United States and Japan in the spring of 1945 that resulted in the death of an astounding one-quarter to one-third of the island’s civilian population of then 400,000, and its subsequent harsh military administration by the United States for the next 27 years until the island was finally turned back to Japan with the US military presence intact. Despite an estimated 60-80% of Okinawans being opposed to the U.S. bases, figures confirmed by the recent election of a governor and Diet members from the prefecture united in opposition to plans for the construction of a new base at Henoko in Northern Okinawa, the government in Tokyo, currently headed by a dangerous militarist, Abe Shinzo, is comfortable with the status quo, which situates most of the unpopular American military presence outside of mainland Japan, hence not a serious political irritant to the majority population.

The plight of Okinawans exemplifies the tragic ordeal of a small island society, which because of its small population and size, entrapment within Japan, and geopolitical significance, was excluded from the decolonizing agenda that was pursued around the world with considerable success in the last half of the 20^thcentury. This tragic fate that has befallen Okinawa and its people leaves it a ‘colony’ in a post-colonial era, a fate shared with Micronesia.Its small current population (1.4 million) combined with its position as a Japanese prefecture and its continuing role in pursuing the Asian strategic interests of the United States, as well as joint military operations with Japan, make it captive of a US-Japan relationship in which both parties refuse to acknowledge the supposedly inalienable right of self-determination, an entitlement of all peoples according to common Article 1 of both human rights covenants. In this respect Okinawa, from a global perspective, is a forgotten remnant of the colonial past, which means it is subjugated and irrelevant from the perspective of a state-centric world order. In this respect, it bears a kinship with such other forgotten peoples as those living in Kashmir, Chechnya, Xinjiang, Tibet, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Palau, Marianas Islands, among many others, as well as among such minorities in the United States as native Americans, Hispanics, African Americans, and, of course, Muslims.

US military bases in Japan and Okinawa

.

click image to enlarge

There are other ways of being forgotten. I have for many years been concerned about the Palestinian ordeal, another geopolitical and historical casualty of Euro-American priorities and the colonialist legacy. Here, too, the indigenous population of Palestine has endured decades of suffering, denials of basic rights, and a dynamic of victimization initiated a century ago when the British Foreign Office issued the Balfour Declaration pledging support to the world Zionist movement for the establishment of a Jewish Homeland in historic Palestine, later placed under the tutorial role of the United Kingdom with the formal blessings of the League of Nations until the end of World War II.

Whereas Japan plays the intermediate role in Okinawa and the Western Pacific, it is Israel that pursues its own interests and teams with the United States and Europe as a strategic partner to carry forward shared geopolitical goals throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Of course, there are crucial differences. Japan is constrained as a partner by its postwar peace constitution, which Abe is keen to circumvent and dilute, while Israel has become a military powerhouse in the region, enjoying a special relationship with the United States that includes the incredible assurance by Washington of a military capability sufficient to defeat any foreseeable combination of Arab adversaries. Also, unlike Okinawa, there are no American military bases in Israel. There is no need for them. Israel acts as an American surrogate, and sometimes even vice versa. Yet the result is the same—force projection unconnected with self-defense, but vital for upholding regional strategic interests that involves maintaining a visible military presence and offering allies in the region credible promises of protection.

To raise questions about the future of Okinawa is to come face to face with the role and responsibility of global civil society. The Palestinian goals appear to remain more ambitious than those of most Okinawans, although such an impression could be misleading. The Palestinian movement is centered upon realizing the right of self-determination, which means at the very least an end to occupation and a diplomacy that achieves a comprehensive, sustainable, and just peace. For Okinawans, integrated into the Japanese state since 1879 and again since 1972, earlier dreams of independence seem to have faded, and the focus of political energy is currently devoted to the anti-bases campaign, in particular to preventing the expansion of US bases anywhere in Okinawa. Taking moral globalization seriously means conceiving of citizenship as borderless with respect to space and time, an overall identity I have described elsewhere under the label ‘citizen pilgrim,’ someone or some group on a life journey to build a better future by addressing the injustices of the present wherever encountered.

In this respect, acting as citizen pilgrims means giving attention to injustices that the world as a whole treats as invisible except when an awkward incident of lethal abuse occurs. Okinawa has been effectively swept under the dual rugs of statism (Okinawa is part of the sovereign state of Japan) and geopolitics (Okinawa offers the United States indispensable military bases), and even the Japanese peace movement may have grown fatigued and distracted, being currently especially preoccupied with its opposition to the revival of Japanese militarism under Abe’s leadership, although the anti-base movement on Okinawa has always been primarily an Okinawan movement, with mainland involvement more pronounced at some times than others.

Whether attention to the plight of Okinawa will give rise to false hopes is a concern, but the aspiration is to produce an empowering recognition throughout the world that for some peoples the struggle against colonialism remains a present reality rather than a heroic memory that can be annually celebrated as an independence-day holiday. Until we in the United States stand in active solidarity with such victims of colonialist governance in which we play a crucial role through the hegemonic position of military bases on the island, we will never know whether more can be done to improve prospects of their emancipation. This awareness and allegiance is the very least that we can do if we are to act in the spirit of a citizen pilgrimage.

An earlier version of this article appeared in Japanese in the Okinawan newspaper,Ryukyu Shimpo on August 22, 2016.

The offensive by the US-led coalition to retake Mosul continued Tuesday, as leading participants acknowledged the fighting could take months, and aid organizations issued dire warnings of the impact on the more than 1 million civilians living in Iraq’s second largest city.

Since ground operations were launched at dawn on Monday by the Iraqi army, Kurdish Peshmerga fighters under the control of the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) and various ethnic-based irregular militias, advancing troops have captured 20 villages from Islamic State (also known as ISIS). Peshmerga forces captured part of the road connecting Irbil, the KRG capital, to Mosul Tuesday.

The US-led military operation is preparing the ground for a war crime of enormous proportions. An assault is to be waged on a city with an estimated population of 1.3 million, including 600,000 children, by some 30,000 ground force, backed up by aircraft from the US and other imperialist powers, among them France, Britain, Germany and Canada. For those lucky enough to survive the initial onslaught, virtually no plans have been made to deal with the 1 million expected to be turned into refugees, let alone how Mosul and its ethnically diverse surroundings will be governed following its recapture from ISIS.

US President Barack Obama made his first public comments on the Mosul offensive yesterday, acknowledging at a joint press conference with Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi that “Mosul will be a difficult fight and there will be advances and setbacks.” Ignoring the destruction wrought by previous anti-ISIS operations, such as the sieges of Ramadi and Fallujah, which left both cities largely in ruins, he remarked blandly on the impact on civilians, “Executing will be difficult and no doubt there will be instances where we see some heartbreaking circumstances. … It’s hard when you leave your home.”

The wall-to-wall coverage in the Western media about ISIS’s use of civilians as human shields conceals the fact that the humanitarian catastrophe developing in Mosul is of the imperialist powers’ own making. The US-led invasion of 2003 and Washington’s subsequent fomenting of ethnic divisions between Shia and Sunni cost the lives of hundreds of thousands and created the conditions in which ISIS could flourish and claim to be liberating Sunni areas of western Iraq. The US and its coalition allies are now dropping leaflets on Mosul urging civilians to flee under conditions where the Iraqi government is said to be suspecting any male aged 14 or over leaving the city as a potential ISIS supporter.

Beyond Iraq, the US-led intervention in Syria and the Saudi-led military operations Washington has backed in Yemen have deepened regional conflicts and plunged the Middle East into a bloodbath that threatens to draw in the major powers in a wider war.

These conflicts are being exacerbated by the Mosul offensive. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Syrian army sources charged the US-led coalition with planning to enable thousands of ISIS fighters based in Mosul to flee across the border into Syria. Noting that the west of the city remained unguarded, Lavrov warned that Russia would be forced to adopt “political and military” measures if this eventuality came to pass. “As far as I know, the city is not fully encircled,” Lavrov said. “I hope it’s because they simply couldn’t do it, not because they wouldn’t do it. But this corridor poses a risk that Islamic State fighters could flee from Mosul and go to Syria.”

While other sources have reported that Shia militias kept out of the offensive due to the fear of sectarian reprisals have been deployed to the west of Mosul to cut off the escape route, it can by no means be excluded that the US has reached such an arrangement. Washington worked closely with Islamist extremists in 2011 to topple the Gaddafi regime in Libya, and many of these elements were later transported to Syria with the help of the CIA before going on to form ISIS. Moreover, the Obama administration has shown its readiness to collaborate with Jihadi forces in the five-year civil war to oust the Assad regime in Damascus.

As well as potentially inflaming the war in Syria, the retaking of Mosul threatens to deepen already bitter ethnic, regional and religious divisions within Iraq itself.

Many of the ethnically based militias that have been armed and trained by Western powers engaged in bloody sectarian fighting in the wake of the 2003 US invasion and are pursuing antagonistic interests that could well result in the ethnic partition of Iraq, which would have devastating consequences for the already desperate population.

Even commentators in the bourgeois media have been compelled to note that the retaking of Mosul will resolve none of the problems that have led to Iraq’s essential partition into Kurdish, Shia and Sunni enclaves and could in fact prepare a new wave of bloodletting.

David Gardner writing in the Financial Times observed that Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi’s hope that Iraqis would unite around the capture of Mosul was “optimistic.” He described the various militias involved in the offensive as being “at each others’ throats” and warned that the battle for control of the region, which is rich in energy reserves and is home to an ethnically diverse population including Sunnis, Shia, Kurds and Christians, could be “explosive.”

The Peshmerga fighters, who have previously been accused of atrocities against Sunni villagers, are to be kept outside of Mosul in a bid to avoid ethnic violence, but the KRG is determined to use their involvement in the offensive to strengthen its position with the central government in Baghdad. This was the message contained in an interview published Tuesday by al-Jazeera with KRG Foreign Minister Falah Mustafa Bakir. “We have a stake in Mosul,” he stated when asked about the role of the KRG after its recapture. “Mosul is important and has a direct impact on Irbil and Dohuk, and the KRG as a whole, in terms of security, the economy, a social impact. Therefore, we need to be there.”

He also left no doubt that the KRG would give little quarter to civilians fleeing the fighting because everyone would be suspected of carrying ISIS sympathies. “Having talked about IDPs [internally displaced persons] coming in, we have a security concern,” Bakir told al-Jazeera. “Those who have lived under ISIL come with baggage. Some have been recruited, therefore we have to be able to distinguish between real and genuine IDPs and those who come in disguised as IDPs.”

Sharp divisions also exist between Baghdad and Ankara. The Turkish government has deployed roughly 700 troops to the northeast of Mosul and also trained a local Turkmen militia to support it. The Shia-dominated Iraqi government has denounced Ankara’s presence, and a demonstration of several thousand supporters of Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr was held in front of the Turkish embassy in Baghdad yesterday. Some of the Shia militias, which are heavily backed by Iran, have vowed to fight a Turkish intervention.

Turkey has refused to back down, insisting that it has a right to participate in the Mosul operations and subsequent talks over its final status. In so doing, it is aiming to restrict the activities of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) in northern Iraq and extend Ankara’s influence in Sunni areas. Noting Turkey’s 350-kilometer border with Iraq, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Monday, “We will not be responsible for the negative consequences that will emerge from any operation that doesn’t include Turkey. We will be involved both in the operation and at the [negotiating] table afterward. It is not possible for us to stay excluded.”

Primary responsibility for the disastrous state of affairs in Iraq lies with American imperialism, which laid waste to the country in its reckless pursuit of regional and global hegemony.

But the involvement of all of the major imperialist powers in the region will only exacerbate the sectarian conflicts and increase inter-imperialist rivalries. Alongside approximately 5,000 US special forces involved in the onslaught on Mosul, troops from Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany and Italy are also deployed to Iraq. French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, who has been at the forefront in charging Russia with war crimes over its involvement in Aleppo over the past month, announced a planned meeting jointly hosted with the Iraqi government October 20 to discuss plans for Mosul’s future.

As Liz Goodwin and Michael Isikoff noted on 11 October 2016 regarding a recent wikileak:

The Clinton email states: “We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.”

That email from Hillary Clinton, was sent on 17 August 2014.

Any reference to the Saudi government is a reference to the Saudi royal family, who own the Saudi government — it’s their fiefdom.

I reported on 17 February 2016 that:

On 30 December 2009, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent a cable (subsequently released to the public by wikileaks) to America’s Ambassadors in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, and Pakistan, headlined, “Terrorist Finance: Action Request for Senior Level Engagement on Terrorism Finance.”

She told those Ambassadors to make clear to the given nation’s aristocrats that, under the new US President, Barack Obama, there would no longer be any allowance for continuation of their donations to Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups that attack the United States.

It opened, “This is an action request cable,” meaning that the operations of the local US Embassy in the given nation would be monitored for compliance with the Secretary of State’s “request.”

Despite her assertion, there was no accountability; yet she has continued to complain to them in private about those royals’ financing of terrorist groups.

On 11 February 2015, I headlined “Al Qaeda’s Bookkeeper Spills The Beans” and reported, with links to the US courtroom documentation, that:

Zacarias Moussaoui was the bookkeeper and bagman (money-collector) for Al Qaeda, but the US intelligence services have been keeping this fact secret as much as they can, because what he knows about the crucial financial backers of Al Qaeda can be very damaging to the US aristocracy, which is heavily oil-based and closely allied with the Saudi royal family, which created Al Qaeda in order to please the Saudi clerics, who are Wahhabist Muslims who constantly threaten the royals with exposure of their economic and sexual corruption unless the royals finance the spread of the Wahhabist sect (such as by Al Qaeda), and thereby finance the spread of those clerics’ own international influence and power.

Or, so says the former bookkeeper of Al Qaeda, who was selected by Al Qaeda’s military chief, Abu Hafs (also known as “Mohammed Atef”), to serve Osama bin Laden in that capacity: Zacarias Moussaoui. This is his testimony, in brief.

Moussaoui swore in court, that he collected multimillion-dollar cash donations to Al Qaeda from “Waleed — Waleed bin Talal, Prince — Prince Turki Al Faisal Al Saud, Prince — Prince Bandar bin Sultan Al Saud, Prince Mohammed Al Faisal Al Saud” and other Saudi royals. He was asked how important this was to Al Qaeda, and he replied: “It was crucial. I mean, without the money of the — of the Saudi you will have nothing.” This courtroom testimony remains suppressed to the present day, virtually entirely ignored in the press — and without the 9/11 families having pushed the legal issue, this testimony never would even have occurred at all.

On 10 September 2016, I reported on ‘the missing 28 pages’, which were actually 29 pages, which till recently were kept secret, expurgated actually, from the congressional study on the origin of the 9/11 attacks, and noted that:

what that document actually showed, and proved (and cited FBI investigators who could then have testified in public, if requested), was the opposite of unimportant: that the Saudi Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud (who was known in Washington as “Bandar Bush,” because of his closeness to the Bush family), had secretly been paying the Saudi handlers of at least two of the 15 Saudis among the 19 9/11 hijackers, and that Bandar’s wife and other relatives were also paying those hijackers-to-be, and their families — thus enabling the future hijackers to obtain the necessary pilot-training etc., for the 9/11 attacks.

Why, then did US President Barack Obama, who is oath-bound to the US Constitution and to the American people, veto a bill that Congress finally passed allowing the 9/11 families to sue the Saudi government — the Saudi royal family — for 9/11?

Whom is Obama protecting, and why? Does anyone publicly ask this question of him?

NOTE: This same person, Obama, who protects the Sauds, says as follows about the non-sectarian, separation-of-church-and-state committed, anti-jihadist, leader of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, whom the US and Saudi governments back Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups in Syria in order to overthrow: As the Wall Street Journal headlined on 19 November 2015, “Obama Says Syrian Leader Bashar al-Assad Must Go” and they reported his argument:

“It is because it is unimaginable that you can stop the civil war here when the overwhelming majority of people in Syria consider him to be a brutal, murderous dictator… He cannot regain legitimacy.”

Obama says that Al Qaeda in Syria and other such jihadists (whom he calls ‘moderate rebels’) there should overthrow Assad (and would presumably be more ‘legimate’ there).

But, in reality, even Western-sponsored polls have consistently shown that Assad is the only person in Syria whom more than 50% of the Syrian people actually want to be their leader, and that the US itself is loathed there because it is viewed by 82% of Syrians as being to blame for the tens of thousands of jihadists who have been imported into Syria (paid for by the Sauds and militarily trained by the Americans) causing immeasurable misery there for the Syrian people.

Why are American Presidents impeached for extramarital sex but not for being traitors and for supporting America’s actual enemies, against the interests of the 9/11 victims and of the rest of the American people? Is America’s government against the interests of the American people? If so, whom does it really represent? And why?

A heroin epidemic is on fire all across America. Heroin deaths shot up from 1,779 in 2001 to 10,574 in 2014 as Afghan opium poppy fields metastasized from 7,600 hectares in 2001 (when the War in Afghanistan began) to 224,000 hectares currently.

The Taliban outlawed opium in Afghanistan in 2000 and within a year it was all but gone, demonstrating that Afghan opium can be eradicated quickly for any administration that chooses to do so. Afghanistan is, by far, the number one source globally of both opium and heroin.

In 2014, 7,554 tons of raw opium were produced worldwide, including 6,400 tons in US-occupied Afghanistan and 173 tons from Mexico and Colombia. Opium plus chemicals (like acetic anhydride) produce heroin. US-occupied Afghanistan produces 85% of the world’s heroin. Mexico and Colombia produce only 2% of the world’s heroin. Mexico and Colombia produce enough heroin for only 115,000 heroin addicts.

Other countries such as Myanmar, Laos and Vietnam produce the remaining 13% of the world’s heroin. Heroin from Southeast Asian (Golden Triangle) countries go along heroin trade routes to other parts of Asia, Australia and Europe.

Most heroin in the US is coming from US-occupied Afghanistan. There is no other mathematical possibility. There is no other physical possibility.

There were 189,000 heroin users in the US in 2001, now there are 4,500,000 (2.5 million heroin addicts and 2 million casual users).

The heroin epidemic is big enough now for Congressional Hearings to be called. Congressional Hearings can be authorized by Chairs of various committees. Senator Johnson, Chair of the Homeland Security Committee, for example, can call hearings. There is no greater threat to national security at the moment than tons of Afghan heroin flooding into US each week, killing over 10,000 Americans a year.

Senator Grassley, Chair of the Judiciary Committee can also call hearings.

Basic questions can be asked like 1) how did Afghan opium spread from 7,600 hectares to 224,000 hectares, 2) why did US heroin deaths shoot up from 1,779 in 2001 to 10,574 in 2014, 3) how did the Taliban eradicate Afghan opium (from 93,000 hectares in 1999 to 7,600 hectares in 2001), 4) why hasn’t the current Administration done likewise, and 5) why did President Obama stop all US opium eradication efforts in US-occupied Afghanistan in 2009, effectively green lighting the Afghan opium and heroin trade.

I contacted all 535 US Congresspeople and several hundred opposition candidates to find out Congress’s take on this deadly epidemic.

Seven incumbents responded as did thirty-three opposition candidates. Answers varied from “close the CIA” to ‘beef up the border with Mexico’ to ‘decriminalize drugs’ to ‘more treatment’ to ‘eradicate Afghan opium crops.’

In a show of bipartisan unity not seen for a long time, the US Senate passed S.524, The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016, by a vote of 94-1 in 2016. This bill proposes modest improvements in treatment and prevention efforts.

The corresponding bill in the US House of Representatives is still pending in the Judiciary Committee as is allocation of $725 million in funding for this bill.

Senator Ron Johnson (REP – WI) responded to inquiries with facts about work he has done as Chair of the Homeland Security and Government Oversight Committee to beef up border security to more effectively combat drug trafficking and on getting the Addiction and Recovery Act passed and funded.

Senator Johnson has also taken a lead in the fight against sex trafficking, a predicament many heroin users find themselves in, stating that “the degradation is sick.” Senator Johnson added amendments onto the Addiction and Recovery Act “aimed at helping Veterans, the Tribes in Wisconsin, and others.”

Former Senator Feingold (DEM – WI) declined to comment.

Heroin from Afghanistan has killed more people than the 55,000 Americans killed in the Vietnam War. An American now gets killed every 32 minutes by Afghan heroin. With US heroin deaths tripling every four years, an American will get killed by heroin every 16 minutes by 2020. Since 2009, American policy has been to permit Afghan opium growing and the heroin trade, to minimize US troop casualties in Afghanistan and to maximize US civilian heroin casualties here in the USA.

Senator John Cornyn (REP – TX) spoke candidly about how:

the abuse of heroin and prescription painkillers is devastating families and communities. The truth is, the problem is getting worse. Deaths due to heroin overdoses and prescription drug overdoses have even surpassed car accidents as the #1 cause of injury-related deaths nationwide. So it’s time for Congress to do something significant to begin to address this disturbing trend. This (Addiction and Recovery Act) bill is a good example of how Republicans and Democrats working on a bipartisan basis can zero-in on a problem that’s harming our nation and work together to address it, and I’m proud to cosponsor this legislation.

While this bill touches on how to battle drug addiction, we need to do more to cut the source of drugs off and to keep them from getting into our country in the first place. Unfortunately, even while the production and demand of these illegal drugs has been growing, we have simply not done enough to combat it.

Senator Cornyn:

introduced several amendments that would help focus our resources to interdict these shipments and to help stem the growing tide of illicit drugs entering the U.S. I’m glad that we are making some progress on this legislation. I’m optimistic that we will be able to complete it in a bipartisan fashion, which is the only way you get things done around here. 

Senate Chuck Grassley (REP-IA), who marshaled the bipartisan Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act to final passage, stated:

The heroin and opioid epidemic is taking lives and shattering families in Iowa and across our country, so I’m grateful that my colleagues have come together to pass the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. This bill will help to combat the scourge that affects all walks of life through expanded access to life-saving overdose reversal drugs, increased prevention education, a renewed focus on addiction recovery. Fighting addiction is a bipartisan issue, and requires bipartisan consideration, which is why we included the viewpoints and amendments of many senators. The House of Representatives should now move swiftly to get this bill to the President’s desk so we can begin to provide relief for American families.

Senator Grassley added:

More than 120 Americans die each day from drug overdoses. The Addiction and Recovery Act would help to stem these tragedies by expanding law enforcement and first responders’ access to naloxone, a fast-acting medication that can reverse the deadly effects of opioid overdoses … to treat addiction and assist in recovery, the bill launches an evidence-based opioid and heroin treatment and intervention program to expand the use of best practices nationwide. It also establishes a medication assisted treatment demonstration program, and helps to identify and treat non-violent individuals struggling with addiction who encounter the criminal justice system.

Senator Grassley (REP-IA), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the Caucus on International Narcotics Control and Senator Feinstein (DEM-CA), Co-Chair of the Caucus on International Narcotics Control, both praised Senate passage of their Fight Transnational Drug Trafficking bill. The US Senate passed the bill in Fall 2015 by unanimous consent.

“Since drug cartels are continually evolving, this legislation ensures that our criminal laws keep pace,” said Grassley, adding “the bill closes a loophole abused by drug traffickers who intend for drugs to end up in the United States, but supply them through an intermediary. The Justice Department needs every legal tool to help crack down on those who ship these substances into our country.”

“International drug traffickers continue to find new ways to circumvent our laws,” said Feinstein “to reduce the flow of drugs into the US, the federal government needs the legal authority to aggressively pursue transnational criminal organizations and drug kingpins in any country. This bill gives law enforcement the authority they need to go after these criminals.”

Senators Johnson and Grassley have not yet responded to a follow up inquiry asking when their Committees will hold hearings about the surge of Afghan opium since opium growing was permitted by American policy in 2009, leading to an increase to 224,000 Afghan opium hectares, simultaneous with the surge in American heroin deaths from 3,036 in 2010 to 10,574 in 2014 and the surge in heroin users from 189,000 Americans in 2001 to 4,500,000 Americans in 2015, how all that Afghan heroin is getting to US, what (if anything) Congress will do about the role of people working for the federal government in trafficking heroin, what can be done about it, how the Taliban eliminated opium growing in Afghanistan within a year (mid-2000 to mid-2001) and why hasn’t the current Administration done likewise.

“Close the CIA” was one of the first responses I got from an opposition candidate, Scott Jameson, a Libertarian Congressional candidate in Texas’s 3rd Congressional District (CD). In a previous election, Mr. Jameson earned 20.9% of the vote in a State Senate campaign.

Chris Aguayo, Veteran’s Party candidate for US Senate in Illinois, stated:

First, we as a country need to accept the fact that we have a growing epidemic. We also have to be honest about how the drugs are actually making it into the country past customs. We have to hold those in charge and involved accountable. So how do we do that? We already know that the CIA and DEA are involved. We also know that the CIA uses Mexican cartels to funnel drugs into the US. The CIA involvement with cartels isn’t new knowledge. When elected I will push for legislation to end the CIA involvement with cartels and terrorist organizations. I would also push to have the Afghanistan government outlaw opium like they did in the past. We have to stop the issue at the source. When I say that I am going to put a target on my back for my constituents and take a stand for them in Washington DC I mean ever word.

Second, I firmly believe communities need more resources to help those with addictions. I’m appalled at how many mental health treatment facilities have been shut down. This has forced an over-growth in our prison systems without the proper treatment for those in need. The big question is where is that funding going to come from? How are we going to pay for it without raising taxes? We need the State of Illinois to pass a balanced and Constitutional budget. We need to look into cutting funding for unnecessary programs. We also need to provide law enforcement with the tools necessary to find drug smugglers and dealers providing the heroin on the streets of our cities. Community leaders and their communities need to come together to find possible solutions as well. Ending this epidemic will take the combined effort of the federal government, states, and local communities.

Mike Kolls, a Libertarian candidate in Texas implored that:

Government should not act to supply currently illegal drugs, or anything else. Government officials and other influential people should not personally benefit financially from government action. Private organizations and concerned citizens should provide recovery programs, provide necessary assistance to the addicted, and distribute informational materials. Parents and guardians should teach their values to the children. Each person must then choose.

Mr. Kolls added if indeed government officials are proven to be part of the international drug trade then “stop its operations and involvement, force officials and their friends who benefited to give back their ill-gotten booty, seek felony charges and damages from officials whose action directly caused a death or a disabling medical condition and give the sovereign states the regurgitated booty for recovery programs, assistance and public service announcements.”

Billy Hart, a candidate in the Texas Republican Primary election for Congressional candidates, declared:

I am fully aware that the U.S. Government is behind drug trafficking via big pharma companies that elected politicians own stock in. With opiates being purchased worldwide by publicly traded companies in which elected officials are invested in; seemingly the only time there is a war on drugs is when elected officials are not profiting off of it. My opponent (Congressman) Will Hurd is a backbone in this corruption and this activity is the reason I am running against him.

Mr. Hart added that:

Under Oath, former Secretary State Clinton did admit that ISIS was created by the CIA; and knowing Hurd was in Afghanistan, he (epitomizes) the reason we have a war on terror. This is not a party issue to me being that with peace, elected officials cannot profit off of their invested stock in Dept. of Defense funded companies. Our own Democratic Secretary of State Kerry is the largest profiteer off of war earning hundreds of millions of dollars off of seeding international conflict via the CIA, then selling weapons and soldiers overseas as bullet sponges in the name of terror … every one of our elected politicians is driven by the greed of money and corruption.

In conclusion, Mr. Hart described his candidacy against Congressman Hurd (a self-described former CIA operative in Afghanistan) as “a David and Goliath story considering my opponent is sitting on over a million dollars in special interest campaign funds.”

Michael Coblenz, a Democrat campaigning for Congress in Kentucky cited “the increased use of heroin is due to authorities limiting prescriptions of opioid painkillers. So addicts have turned to heroin.” Mr. Coblenz added “drug use tends to increase as the economy sours and that price of heroin has decreased dramatically.”

Mr. Coblenz, if elected, would “improve the economy. The recent recovery has been very uneven across the country and some areas have barely recovered. Invest in improving our crumbling infrastructure as one way to pump money into the economy” and he added “increase drug treatment, treat users as people with a problem and not as criminals. Obviously some are and should be treated as such, but the vast majority are not and should not have their future destroyed with a criminal conviction or prison sentence.”

Mr. Coblenz concluded “improve border control, improve the economic conditions of those regions of the country that produce heroin, allow farmers to return to growing other crops. I would certainly do what I could to examine allegations (of government involvement in the heroin trade) and if true to stop this behavior.”

Geoff Young, another Democratic candidate in Kentucky’s 6th District stated:

America’s military-industrial complex needs to be reduced significantly. Fund infrastructure, not useless weapons. 50% of our military and “intelligence” budgets could be carefully cut in such a way that our nation’s security would actually improve. We would then be able to afford investments in infrastructure, health care, and education that would benefit all Americans.

Mr. Young added:

It’s possible that I would propose cuts of more than 50% in the annual secret budgets of the CIA and NSA. I believe that such cuts would reduce the supply of heroin being produced in Afghanistan and would improve our national security and the stability of our financial system. I would also demand the immediate and permanent withdrawal of all US troops and CIA agents in Afghanistan.

Matt Maxwell, a Republican candidate in Connecticut stated “corruption is at the heart of it. We must root out those entities that facilitate the status quo.” Mr. Maxwell added that he has had “a number of friends who died from overdosing.”

Bob Fitrakis, Green Party candidate for Franklin County, Ohio Public Prosecutor said:

It is a well established fact that the CIA has long allowed narcotics trafficking among US allies in order to finance so-called covert operations. The massive flow of opium which is processed into heroin is a direct result of the US military, the CIA and covert operations being stationed in Afghanistan. This is the famed “Golden Crescent.” As Professor McCoy established in “The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia” the CIA did the same thing during the Vietnam War in Laos. It’s well documented that there was a long-standing agreement between the OSS-CIA and the Mafia to look the other way on organized crime narcotics running into the US. This was done in exchange for intelligence concerning espionage on US docks, information on the invasion of Sicily in WWII and cooperation against the Soviets during the Cold War.

The so-called French Connection was another obvious example of the CIA allowing the Corsican Brotherhood to traffic heroin into New York City in exchange for aiding CIA activities against Communists in France.

The first thing we need to do to stop heroin trafficking is to invest in scanning all cargo coming into the US, particularly by air and ship. Estimates are as low as only 3% of the custom sealed containers being scanned. We clearly need to search all flights coming into military bases like Rickenbacker here in Columbus.

We need to revoke the CIA’s de facto license to be the Cocaine-Importing Agency. Any commercial fronts be they textile companies or fruit importers that are involved in bulk trafficking of heroin need to have their assets confiscated.

I would end all prosecution for personal possession of narcotics and move resources away from street level dealers and focus all resources on the major distributors flooding our streets with heroin. I would use the criminal justice system to assist in getting treatment for those addicted who will accept treatment.

Bob is an attorney, a college professor, a journalist and a superhero crime fighter.

Darryl Cherney, a Green Party primary candidate for President, had this to say:

The war in Afghanistan is a continuation of the opium wars commenced by the British and US back in the 1800’s and continuing on right through World War 2 and Vietnam. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s father, William Delano, was an opium trader as was Robert Forbes. The Taliban came down on the opium trade (in 2000). This could have been one of the many reasons to restart warfare in the land known as “The Graveyard of Empires.”

Afghanistan has had the name Graveyard of the Empires from the time Alexander the Great’s empire was ended there long ago through the ending of the Soviet empire in 1991 to present. One way or another the Afghani people figure out how to destroy empires that have attacked them.

Mr. Cherney, a Fordham University graduate (as is CIA Director John Brennan), added:

We know that nations throughout history have funneled drugs into civilizations they want to conquer, such as our nation’s supplying tribes with alcohol and the aforementioned opium into China by the British, primarily. It’s a tactic of warfare. Which brings us to what I call “the war on people” in this country.

While I (Cherney) fully believe the articles uncovering drug funneling into communities across our nation, I have also seen it first hand. I’ve watched first-hand the cops stop a meth or heroin dealer and then let them go, only to watch one deal to a 10 year old five minutes later. I watched our local DA in Eureka, CA release on no bail an undocumented foreign national who was caught with 2 pounds of methamphetamine, never to be seen again. I see the cops and military occasionally get caught with large quantities of these hard drugs in their possession. In other words, law enforcement allows these drugs into our community and even becomes part of the problem. It serves the powerful to have the middle class terrified by the drug addicted class, which I do see as becoming their own class.

The prison industrial state compliments this nightmare. People coming out of prison destitute with no job possibilities, leaving behind families with the same plight, are more likely to turn to substance abuse and dealing. Pardoning all non-violent drug offenders is in my purview. Working to end unnecessary sentencing will assist as well. It’s a holistic approach.”

Cherney then added:

The culture of corruption and the money involved is colossal, with the banks playing roles laundering money for the cartels. Dismantling and rebuilding the DEA might be in order. Border checks are important, but many hard drugs are made in the USA, one of the last things we actually make here, besides weaponry. Delisting cannabis will be necessary, because falsely labeling it as a Schedule I dangerous drug contributes to the cartels and even small time dealer’s profit margins. Drug rehabilitation and education is a start. There’s no discernible media campaign to address this epidemic. It’s one easy place to start – taking out television, radio, internet and print ads, as well as billboards and posters. Before and after pictures of addicts, I believe, could be helpful. We won’t know until we try.

What I (Cherney) do know is that the streets of towns large and small are filled with the “walking dead,” people who have essentially lost their souls or at least their personalities, not to mention their health, to meth and heroin. Crime and violence that accompanies that, are making even small town America, where you used to not need to lock your car or your doors, more dangerous. Ending these wars is key. We fight some of them, in part, to keep the opium trade going.

David (Dew) Williams III, an Independent Congressional candidate in Illinois’s 9th District had this to say:

It’s becoming common knowledge that drugs such as heroin magically do not appear on U.S. soil, or just because of the Mexican drug cartels and Islamic terrorist cells. The CIA in the past have been caught in purposely allowing the drugs into Black communities such as in Los Angeles in the early 1990s to continue their cycle of incarceration for the prison industrial complex. I feel that as Americans, we need to hold our government accountable for their corrupt actions from the local to federal level – from investigations to prosecuting those involved in such illegal activities that are ruining our moral structure.

Mr. Williams, a Veteran, added:

We have enough laws as it is when it comes to heroin. People will still find ways to break those laws. I feel we as a nation should take a holistic approach by caring for those with over coming such bad habits. Rehabilitation and education is the key to defeat this heroin epidemic, while we’re at it, I firmly believe it starts at home too. Parenting needs to be stronger, and the parents speaking to their children about the real world is a start.

Sean Jackson, a Republican candidate in Maryland’s 1st Congressional District, is both a Veteran and a Police Officer. Mr. Jackson stated:

“I would address the heroin drug war as a “health issue” that is plaguing Americans and a “national security issue”:

Domestically – The U.S. spends billions of dollars each year combating illegal drugs. We need to concentrate our drug prevention efforts on poisonous illegal drugs (e.g. heroin, meth, etc.) that destroy the body (resulting in overdose deaths), tied to the increase in crime (robberies, thefts, etc. … desperation to seek money for withdrawal needs) and devastates families and communities. As long as there is a demand for heroin, drug cartels (some with ties to governments and/or terrorist organizations) will supply. The U.S. needs to re-focus our war on drugs. The legalization of marijuana is a start. The U.S. will never stop the insatiable demand for marijuana. The U.S. can address the issue as fiscal benefit by regulation and taxation of marijuana. The taxation proceeds can be earmarked directly towards health education and treatment programs dealing with heroin. All forms of governments are woefully inept to combat the heroin epidemic. According to health reports, once an individual becomes a heroin addict, only 3% are successful at recovery. During recovery, the addict will spend the rest of their life in turmoil to avoid recidivism.

National Security/International Involvement – Afghanistan is the largest producer of heroin in the world. The U.S. can not take on this battle alone. IF, the World (including the U.S.) is truly serious about combating heroin, they need to convene and strategize a unified military effort (to include economic sanctions) to permanently destroy those organizations/governments/countries that condone the manufacturing/distribution of this poison for financial gain and ultimately the self-destruction of western society. The unified front should include U.S. allies in the region (Israel & India) that book-end the Middle East to stem the distribution routes out of the region.

The U.S. (with its Allies) may need to consider a military invasion or military strikes against Mexican drug cartels that are strategically and safely positioned along the U.S./Mexico. According to intel, the cartels have concentrated their efforts in producing heroin and meth (rather than marijuana) due to the increased profit margin and user demand.”

Many opposition candidates, such as Mr. Jackson, had the most detailed and insightful (proposed) solutions to the problem.

Johnny Slavens, a Republican candidate in Texas said:

The only chance we really have to beat things like this is to inspire people to believe in something bigger than themselves. Our founding fathers called that God and so do I.

Mr. Slavens added:

We also need to secure our border. The federal government has a constitutional obligation to secure our border of which they are dramatically failing. Career politicians don’t care about securing the border. The Democrats see it as votes and the Republicans see it as cheap labor (i.e. crony capitalism). The drug trafficking, human trafficking, sex trafficking, the threat to our national security, we must secure the border as our highest priority.

Chris Mason, a Republican candidate in Maryland and a Veteran  declared “we simply need to secure our borders and all these problems are solved.” Simon Winston, a Republican candidate in Texas’s 1st District, echoed “that a more secure border would be a good step in the right direction.”

Darrel Smith, Jr., the Green Party candidate in Texas’s 6th District stated:

We should be focusing on rehabilitation programs with proven track records and expand them. We should look at local programs like Los Angeles County’s Substance Abuse Prevention and Control and the Massachusetts Opioid Abuse Prevention Collaborative, and implement their successes nationwide while also understanding and modifying those programs to work with specific communities.

Joe Demare, Green Party candidate for US Senate in Ohio, said “heroin sucks” and added two points:

First, massive increases in addiction treatment, drug abuse prevention, and education funding and second, follow the strategy put forward by Bob Fitrakis, Green Party candidate for Franklin County Prosecutor. He points out that in most cases, the identity of the largest regional heroin importers are known to authorities. However, they are not pursued for prosecution because of fear. I would support prosecutions and work to ensure that there is enough federal support to protect our judges and law enforcement officials pursuing heroin importers.

A former Congressional Staffer, who is not campaigning for public office, and who did not want to be identified for this article, stated that “it’s an open secret on the Hill that the CIA prompted the spread of narcotics in Afghanistan and is flying it into the USA. They made Afghanistan a narco state. It’s killing Americans in droves, no doubt. It’s just, most everyone on the Hill is too afraid of the CIA to do much of anything about it.”

Ed Rankin, a Texas Libertarian candidate (32nd CD) began:

The system is totally corrupt. It’s indeed interesting that opium production has risen so dramatically in Afghanistan following the US invasion isn’t it?

He then added:

First, in order to address the drug addiction problem, we need to stop the drug war and begin to treat addiction as a social problem and not a criminal one. If we’re going to seriously continue the drug war, then we should prosecute executives of the banks laundering the drug money not simply fine the institutions a relatively paltry amount. Longer term, stopping US military interventionism is the key to addressing many of our domestic and international problems. The trillions of dollars wasted on our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq could certainly be used to address issues like drug addiction at home. I’d introduce legislation repealing all federal drug laws. That would eliminated drug laundering. Prohibition has never worked. Legalize drugs and it all goes away.

Ruben Corvalan, another Texas Libertarian candidate (23rd CD) echoed Mr. Rankin, stating:

I would legalize all drugs, including heroin, cocaine, marijuana, etc.

Then he added:

Once legalized, we can control it, tax it, and distribute it in approved retailers. The money collected in purchase taxes would be used in an aggressive educational campaign (similar to cigarettes). Americans are adults, they should be responsible for their actions. The government is not and should not be the caretakers of adults. Adults should have the dignity of free choice. Free choice comes with a price. The price of freedom is responsibility and accountability.

Dorian Myrickes, a Democratic Party candidate in Illinois (2nd CD) advocates legalization. Mr. Myrickes stated:

The reality of the drug industry in America is that it provides thousands of jobs through law enforcement, social services, and rehabilitation programs, unfortunately. These drugs destroy our communities and America has never had a true plan on the war of drugs. It is disheartening to think America may never have a divisive plan on the war on drugs. Until legislators come with real sensible bills and laws, sentencing drug transporters, and rehabilitation for heroin users, the problem will remain. People are going to consume, transport and sell drugs regardless of laws, bills, etc. The heroin epidemic is not new. Alcohol, cocaine, lottery, and marijuana at one point were all illegal vices. I say educate, legalize and tax drugs, this will remove the mystique of any illegal activity and perhaps close the gap on America’s debt ceiling. Distributors, facilities and customers should pay a premium tax of 35% on drugs. Those tax funds could be utilized to rejuvenate the proper monetary disbursements and reopen hospitals, rehab’s and educational facilities.

Dominique Michelle Garcia, a Democratic candidate in Texas (29th CD) said:

Drug use and abuse is a mental illness. As a society we need to stop treating the symptoms and start nipping at the cause. Our current method of declaring war on everything is flawed and outdated. We are treating people who are victims as if they are criminals. We need to decriminalize drugs and use the money for treatment.

Jeff Kender, a Democratic candidate for US Senate in Kentucky, stated “First it needs to be stopped at its core. Rehabilitation to help users, who are non-violent.”

Calvin Sidle, a Democratic candidate in Kentucky (4th CD), stated:

The heroin epidemic is one of the biggest challenges facing this area. We absolutely must put a stop to any imports of heroin, regardless of the source. We must step up efforts to limit supply at the same time as we learn new strategies to curb demand. We need to make a stronger push for medically-assisted treatment to help those people who are caught in a deadly cycle of addiction.

Joe Sestak, a former Congressman, Admiral, Anti-Terrorism Director and currently in a tight re-match with Senator Toomey in Pennsylvania referred me to his ‘opiate contrast’ pdf file. Sestak supports R & D for a new generation of non-addictive painkillers, drug courts which send non-violent users to rehab, V.A. funding for substance abuse programs, requiring all health insurance to cover substance abuse recovery programs, more prevention efforts and a greater availability of treatment for drug users. Senator Toomey’s record shows he voted against V.A. budgets, against drug courts, against more prevention and against more treatment.

Sestak prefaced his statements with a heartfelt acknowledgment that ‘1 of every 4 families has a loved one suffering from addiction and that the opiate epidemic touches all types of communities, large and small, rich and poor.’

Senator Toomey (REP-PA) declined to comment for this article.

Sestak did not reply to follow up emails asking what, if elected, he would do about the source of most heroin, US-occupied Afghanistan.

Bill Fraser, an Independent candidate in Illinois (8th CD) is campaigning on a platform of Swiss style direct democracy so voters can vote directly on issues and spending. Mr. Fraser, a high school teacher, stated “the constituency would be called upon to vote on all legislation and I would vote the way the majority wants me to vote.”

Direct voting on legislation and spending or at least nationwide ballot referendums would be a giant leap forward towards democracy in the USA. In international rankings, the USA currently ranks #62 for democracy and #49 for freedom of the press.

Andrew Straw, an attorney and Republican candidate in Illinois (8th CD) stated:

Afghanistan has always grown poppies. We must think about the other uses for this substance besides heroin, which is a scourge, despite the fact that President Obama admitted using it in his autobiography.

Mr. Straw added:

My brother was a critical care trauma nurse and he served in Afghanistan. He patched together and saved the lives of our soldiers who were blown up and amputees. They used a lot of morphine.

Mr. Straw concluded:

There is a worldwide shortage of morphine. Morphine is made from opium. The world community should be buying the opium and using it to create morphine. Morphine is a very important drug needed in every country, every community, every hospital. While the United States has a presence in Afghanistan, it needs to regulate the opium and purchase it for use in making vital pharmaceutical drugs, there is no reason the opium has to turn into heroin illegally or destroyed. It has other, legitimate uses.

An opium crop buying program may be a win win situation, although it might also spark bidding wars for raw opium and higher prices leading to an even greater expansion of Afghan opium crops.

Rob Shaver, a Republican Congressional candidate in New York and a Veteran, stated:

I feel NY State is entirely at the crossroads of devastation in our rural area’s to inner cities from this epidemic. Worse then crack cocaine was in the 1980s and early 1990s. Children and adults are loosing their lives both in reality and figuratively by the addictions they face from the first time shooting up.

Mr. Shaver added “to the victims, I do believe they are victims from a weakened border and policy we allowed for decades now.” Mr. Shaver mentioned “the dark world of funding off book operations” and elaborated “it’s been around for a long while as we the USA been the main drug trafficker for decades to fund National Security operations and other agendas we the people wouldn’t understand in their minds.”

If elected, Mr. Shaver would:

Create bills that amend or repeal current international drug enforcement statues to put pressure on the US government to stop this destruction to our citizens. Most of the tribal leaders and members of Afghan Parliament are in on the illegal sale of opium so we have corruption to deal with as the first task. The US Congress needs to do some reform on our foreign appropriations spending and the Executive branch with Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense focusing on the stop of distribution with the current Minister of Interior and President Mohammad Ashraf Ghani and his executive branch members of justice in joint task force we have trained and jointly funded now for a decade. DEA and ATF has been tasked with this for years now making small dents, but not enough to stop the sale of heroin in the western world. The Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs who oversees this work will again be on the new POTUS and Executive Branch to propose appropriations and Congress to approve the funding that warrants stronger US Border enforcement and trafficking that many politicians do not want to support. Case in point Senator Kristen Gillibrand (NY) when Congresswoman supported stronger borders and now as US Senator has flip flopped under Senator Chuck Schumer and her DNC associates to vote against Sen McCain’s amendment to H.R. 4899, the 2010 Emergency Supplemental bill to send National Guard troops to add more Right of Entry guards into Arizona to stop drug trafficking levels that were scorching our southwestern front.

Mr. Shaver concluded by stating:

New York State and the Department of Justice needs to be proactive with more ear marked funding to develop county task forces with both State and Federal support to not only make arrest and prosecutions but treatment faculties and half-way homes with vocational training to get all victims of this drug back into society with our support.

Dr. Donald May, a former Air Force Major and Republican primary candidate in Texas (19th CD) highlighted the Democratic Party’s role for entry into war after the September 11th terrorist attacks. Dr. May began by stating:

Due to Obama, the U.S troops have no control over much of anything in Afghanistan, our border is wide open to anything and everything, guns have been supplied to the Mexican drug criminals, and drug dealers plead down their cases and go free. You really need to blame the evilDemocrats for starting the rumors that led to the invasion of Iraq. The Democrats claimed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s) and a nuclear weapons program. It was Bill Clinton who repeatedly warned George W. Bush of Saddam’s WMDs.

Dr. May then supplied 16 quotes from Democratic Party officials such as Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Henry Waxman, Jay Rockefeller, Robert Byrd and others.

For example, Dr. May stated that then Senator Hillary Clinton (DEM-NY) said on October 10, 2002:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.

The reasons for entry into wars, the lingering 15+ year occupation of Afghanistan and the flood of Afghan heroin devastating America all have roots that need to be better investigated and reported on.

99% of incumbents and close to 95% of opposition candidates contacted did not respond to inquiries.

A few incumbents, 1%, did reply, but refused to answer any questions about the heroin epidemic, the devastation being caused by the epidemic or about Afghanistan.

Sam Carpenter’s campaign for Senate in Oregon replied a few times to ask which outlet the report would be published in and if Senator Wyden (DEM-OR) had responded, but he refused to answer any questions about Afghanistan or the heroin epidemic.

vog.etanes.nedyw@nedyw_rotanes (email not signed) responded on March 1, 2016 “You will be receiving a more detailed response via email in the near future.” That was months ago and a detailed response via email has not been sent. I followed up with both of these Senate candidates, but they didn’t respond. Neither appeared to have any sense of urgency regarding the heroin epidemic killing an American every 32 minutes.

Congressman Lee Zeldin’s Press Secretary replied to ask about the article’s deadline. I replied then never heard back again. I followed up several times, but there was no further response from anyone in Zeldin’s office to questions about the heroin epidemic or the explosive spread of Afghan opium since 2001 simultaneous with the mushrooming increase in US heroin fatalities from 1,779 in 2001 to 3,036 in 2010 to 10,574 in 2014.

Zeffin Hardin, a Republican candidate in Texas (28th CD), emailed a couple times to state he would not be commenting or answering any questions about the heroin crisis.

Many of these candidates, incumbents and non-incumbents alike, might as well have auto-replied “let them eat cake” because that’s how many of their non-responses seemed.

The House can vote this week, if they care to, to pass HR953, the companion bill to S.524 to make a baby step forward of more treatment possible. Amy Bos in Congressman Senserbreener’s Office stated that “the bill is still pending in multiple committees. We’ve been told the bill is a priority for leadership but have been given no indication on timing for a vote.”

Current treatment cannot provide for even 1/8th of the surge in drug abusers. If both the Senate and House bills were passed and funded, they would not provide enough for even 3% of current need.

$25 billion, however, would construct 100,000 new in-patient treatment beds and $10 billion annually would provide another 1,000,000 seats in out-patient treatment. $35 billion is needed immediately for treatment. The opiate problem has gotten that big in the USA since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

The Senate and House bills both call for less than $1 billion in funding.

Congress can also call Congressional hearings into how Afghan opium fields have spread from 7,600 hectares to 224,000 hectares as US heroin deaths shot up from 1,779 in 2001 to 3,036 in 2010 to 10,574 in 2014.

Why is it that the Taliban administration in 2000 outlawed opium and within a year it was all but gone (from 93,000 hectares in 1999 to 7,600 hectares in 2001) and why exactly has the current administration not done that too? What have different agencies (e.g. DEA, FBI, CIA, DoD) been doing in Afghanistan since 2001? The AOK’ing for Afghans to grow opium and the transporting of Afghan heroin into the US “green lighted” in 2009 was for what exactly?

I contacted the DEA several times in Spring 2016, for answers about how Afghan opium metastasized to 224,000 hectares, what has the DEA been doing since 2001, why have American heroin deaths mushroomed to 10,574 a year and continue to spiral up out of control? What arrangements does the DEA have with the CIA regarding CIA agents (officers, contractors, etc.) dealing drugs? What has been done since 2001 to interdict acetic anhydride into Afghanistan?

Barbara Carreno and Russell Baer, who has top secret clearance, dodged most of my questions, but did answer a few questions about acetic anhydride stating that was the job of Afghanistan’s government to deal with.

Mexico with 10,500 hectares of opium could not possibly supply even 1/20th of the heroin demand in the US.  What has the DEA been doing about the vast majority of heroin which is coming in from Afghanistan?

Congresspeople can demand the various agencies come clean and tell all about Afghan heroin, 2001 to present.

Harold Pfleiderer at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police stated that 90% of the heroin in Canada comes from Afghanistan.

Barbara and Russell at the DEA claimed, incredibly, that only 4% of the heroin in the US is from Afghanistan and they refused to answer any questions about why they claim most heroin is coming from Mexico since Mexico cannot produce enough heroin for 1/20th of the US heroin demand. Every opium producing nation on Earth, except Afghanistan, cannot produce enough heroin for even 1/2 of the heroin demand in the USA.

Barbara and Russell refused to answer most questions. Barbara and Russell at the DEA emailed on April 1st, 2016:

Unfortunately, we are a small press office with many queries to answer, and your line of questioning is expanding. I’m sorry to have to say that we will not able to assist you further on these stories.

Is the heroin epidemic, which is killing over 10,000 Americans a year, an April Fools Day joke to these DEA people?

Looking at facts and figures regarding the heroin epidemic, it becomes obvious that the DEA has been a colossal failure and they refuse to answer most questions asked of them. Perhaps, the DEA would answer questions (or plead the 5th) at Congressional Hearings.

Since Afghan opium spread to 224,000 hectares in 2014, since heroin deaths in the US shot up to 10,574 in 2014, several narratives have been rolled out to try to draw attention away from where most heroin comes from (US-occupied Afghanistan) and how most of that heroin gets to US.

First, ‘the Mexicans did it” which is to say that the 173 tons of raw opium from Latin America (from 10,500 hectares in Mexico and 1,500 hectares in Colombia) were converted into 17.3 tons of heroin and all 17.3 tons were imported into the US, where it would not supply even 5% of the US heroin demand.

If all countries on Earth growing opium, except Afghanistan, were to convert their opium to heroin and send it to the US, it wouldn’t be enough for even half of the current US heroin demand.

Most heroin in the US is coming from US-occupied Afghanistan.  There is no other mathematical possibility possible.  There is no other physical possibility possible.

Second, ‘Myanmar did it’. Myanmar does grow 50,000 hectares of opium, not even 1/4th of what Afghanistan does. Myanmar heroin could not provide even half of the US heroin demand and most heroin from Myanmar is known (e.g. by the UN) to travel heroin trade routes to Europe, Asia and Australia.

Thirdly, ‘Fentanyl did it’. Fentanyl accounts for less than 15% of total opioid deaths in the US. The heroin epidemic is not due to Fentanyl. The heroin epidemic is due to heroin.

Fourthly, ‘doctors did it’. Doctors prescribe painkillers then patients ramp up to heroin. Only 3.6% of people who abuse prescription painkillers then go on to heroin. Doctors prescribing painkillers did not cause the heroin epidemic. The flood of Afghan heroin since 2001 has caused the heroin epidemic.

Fifthly, the false claim that there are only 250,000 heroin users in the USA so back to 1) ‘the Mexicans did it’. (If there were only 250,000 US heroin addicts, then Mexico’s puny 10,500 hectares of opium still couldn’t provide most of the heroin demand in the US.)

There are many more American heroin addicts than 250,000. The White House stated there were 1,500,000 heroin addicts in the US in 2010. That figure has shot up since 2010, to 2,500,000 regular heroin users currently plus another 2 million casual users.

Mexico cannot supply even 1/20th of the heroin demand in the US. All nations on Earth that grow opium combined, except Afghanistan, could not physically provide even half of the heroin used in the US. Only Afghanistan grows enough opium to provide the current US demand for heroin.

And only eradication of Afghan opium crops will stop the heroin epidemic. The Taliban outlawed opium in 2000 and within a year it was all but gone, so we know that eradication of Afghan opium is totally doable within a year.

Before writing this article, I hadn’t gotten “no comments” by email before. I’ve gotten “no comments” in person. I’ve gotten “no comments” on the phone. But, not by email. Usually, when someone doesn’t want to comment, by email, they simply ignore the email (i.e. about 99% of incumbents and 95% of opposition candidates). 

On March 14th, I got an email from David Nunes (DEM-CA), the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee stating: “I’m sorry, we have no comment on this one.”

The following day, March 15th, came this email from Brad Wenstrup (REP-OH) in one of the states hardest hit by the heroin epidemic, Ohio: “Thank you for your email. Congressman Wenstrup does not have a comment at this time.”

With an American getting killed every 32 minutes by heroin, when will the Members of House Intelligence Committee feel like responding to this highly lethal epidemic of Afghan heroin flooding into the USA?

What can be done about the heroin epidemic? Eradicate Afghan opium as the Taliban administration did in 2000-2001, search US government (and US government chartered) planes and ships, ban precursor chemicals to make heroin, buy crops not yet eradicated (then sell those crops to make medical morphine), hold Congressional hearings to find out how Afghan opium spread more than 25 fold since the US invasion in 2001 (from 7,600 hectares to 224,000 hectares), how it’s getting to US and why hasn’t eradication been done (as the Taliban did in 2000-2001), $25 billion for 100,000 more in-patient treatment beds, $10 billion a year for 1,000,000 more outpatient treatment slots, decriminalize personal possession and focus on the big dealers (i.e. dealers of Afghan heroin).

Without cutting off (i.e. eradicating) the source of most heroin, Afghan opium, the heroin epidemic will get worse to over 20,000 American heroin deaths a year, crime levels not experienced since the 1980’s (or worse), deadly infections (e.g. HIV, HCV) shooting up, way up, costing taxpayers an extra $25 billion a year or so (e.g. Medicaid, Medicare, Obamacare subsidies) to care for the increases in diseased people.

Congress needs to know where the heroin is coming from. Congress also needs to acknowledge where most of the heroin is coming from (i.e. US-occupied Afghanistan), how it is getting from US-occupied Afghanistan to US and they need to investigate (e.g. Congressional Hearings), then act in their capacity to do oversight, to adjust budgets and to legislate.

Senator Moynihan (DEM-NY) introduced a bill, in 1991 and again in 1995, to abolish the CIA and to give their tasks to the State Department.

The Taliban outlawed opium in Afghanistan in 2000 and within a year it was all but gone. Outlaw opium in Afghanistan just like the Taliban did in 2000 and within a year Afghan opium will be all but gone and the American heroin epidemic will be all but gone as well.

William Edstrom graduated from Columbia University in 2003 and has worked since as a scientist, educator and writer. He’s co-authored book chapters, journal reports (e.g. Nature, Journal of Biological Chemistry) and articles with independent media outlets like Counterpunch, Truth-Out, Pravda, Global Research and the Mott Haven Herald. Will was the Green Party candidate for US Congress in 2014 in New York’s 15th Congressional District. He’s also a member of the Educational Writers Association (EWA).