This article was first published on February 16, 2014. In early 2014, ISIS fighters were heralded by Washington as “Freedom Fighters”. A few months later, Obama launches his crusade against the Islamic state fighters who had been trained and financed by US-NATO and its Persian Gulf allies. 

Several hundred convicted criminals who escaped from carefully guarded prisons in Iraq have recently joined the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) as well as the Al Qaeda affiliated rebel force, Jabhat Al Nusra.

According to the NYT: “the prison breaks also reflect the surging demand for experienced fighters which led to a concerted effort by militant groups, particularly the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, to seek them in the one place where they were held en masse — Iraq’s prison cells.” (Tim Arango  and Eric Schmitt, Escaped Inmates From Iraq Fuel Syrian Insurgency, NYT, February 12, 2014):

“American officials estimate, a few hundred of the escapees have joined the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, several in senior leadership roles.”

Acknowledged by the NYT, the prison breakouts are part of the recruitment of jihadists to serve in the Syrian insurgency. What is not mentioned, however, is that the recruitment of mercenaries is  coordinated by NATO, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar with the support of the Obama administration. Moreover, known and documented, most Al Qaeda affiliated forces are covertly supported by Western intelligence including the CIA, Mossad and Britain’s MI6.

The prison breaks in Iraq are part of a coordinated endeavor entitled  “Operation Breaking the Walls,” established in July 2012 by the ISIS. Acknowledged by an American counterterrorism official quoted by the NYT,

 “The influx of these terrorists, who collectively have decades of battlefield experience, probably has strengthened the group and deepened its leadership bench.”

US Occupation forces and military personnel in the prisons turned a blind eye to the breakouts.

Abu Aisha was originally arrested by the Americans and then released from Camp Bucca, the infamous American prison in southern Iraq, in 2008. He was rearrested by the Iraqis in 2010.

“Finally, they put me in Abu Ghraib, and I again met some of the leaders and fighters I knew, including princes from Al Qaeda — Iraqis, Arabs and other nationalities,” he said. “Most of them had been at Bucca as well.”

One night last summer, as Abu Aisha sat in his cell waiting, as he did each day, for his date with the executioner, explosions and gunfire erupted and a familiar prison guard opened the doors to his cell and told him to leave immediately. With hundreds of others, Abu Aisha ran through the prison’s corridors until he escaped through a hole that had been blasted through a wall. He hopped into a waiting Kia truck that took him to freedom — and back to the battlefield.

Abu Aisha said leaders of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria gave him a choice: leave and fight with them in Syria, or stay and fight in Iraq. (NYT, op cit, emphasis added)

Coordinated Program: Saudi Arabia

The recent prison breakouts have the hallmarks of a carefully planned covert operation requiring the complicity of the US military and Iraqi prison personnel.

The prison breakouts are not limited to Iraq. Planned prison escapes to join the jihadist insurgency have occurred simultaneously in several countries, indicating the existence of a coordinated recruitment program.

Saudi Arabia –which has played a central role in channeling weapons (including anti-aircraft missiles) to the jihadists on behalf of Washington– has been actively involved in the recruitment of mercenaries from the kingdom’s prisons.

In Saudi Arabia, however, there were no breakouts: criminals serving jail sentences were released from the kingdom’s prisons on condition they join the Syrian jihad.

A top secret memo sent by the Ministry of Interior in Saudi Arabia “reveals the Saudi Kingdom sent death-row inmates, sentenced to execution by decapitation, to Syria to fight Jihad against the Syrian government in exchange for commuting their sentences.”

On Saturday, July 26, at a maximum security prison in Benghazi, Libya, an almost identical prison break to the one that happened in Iraq occurred:

There were riots within the prison, with fires set. Suddenly gunmen flocked upon the prison and opened fire. About 1,200 of Libya’s most deadly inmates escaped.  Peregrino Brimah, Obama’s Syria Endgame: New Al Qaeda “Recruits” Dispatched to Syria, Global Research, September 4,  2013, emphasis added)

And midnight, July 29-30:

Taliban gunmen with rocket launchers and suicide bombers, wearing police uniforms attacked the largest jail in Dera Ismail Khan, in a northern Pakistani province, releasing over 300 inmates. They came well coordinated, with rocket-propelled grenades and freed top militants–some of the Taliban’s most deadly men. They used loud speakers to announce the names of the men they needed. According to an official (Reuters), only 70 of the 200 guards on duty were at work that fateful night, suggesting higher level security-government involvement. (Ibid, emphasis added)

The U.S. claims it wants to hit the Islamic State but in one year of bombing it never really touched one of its biggest sources of income. Hundreds of oil tanker trucks are waiting every day at IS distribution points to smuggle oil to Turkey and elsewhere. Only one such distribution point was ever bombed and that attack was  by the Iraqi air force.

Now the Russian President Putin played some “name and shame” at the G-20 meeting in Turkey and, lo and behold, the problem gets solved.

The Obama administration recently claimed it would increase attacks on the most expensive Syrian oil infrastructure which is owned by the Syrian government but under IS control. But it said it would still not hit the large truck gatherings.

While the American-led air campaign has conducted periodic airstrikes against oil refineries and other production facilities in eastern Syria that the group controls, the organization’s engineers have been able to quickly repair damage, and keep the oil flowing, American officials said. The Obama administration has also balked at attacking the Islamic State’s fleet of tanker trucks — its main distribution network — fearing civilian casualties.But now the administration has decided to increase the attacks and focus on inflicting damage that takes longer to fix or requires specially ordered parts, American officials said.

The obvious target to stop the oil trade is to hit the trucks. Without trucks the other infrastructure is useless for IS as the oil can not be sold. With trucks destroyed the men behind the smuggling will lose all profits and leave the business. The “civilian casualties” argument does not hold. There could be warnings to avoid human damage or one could consider that these oil smugglers are dealing with terrorists and thereby accomplices. The real U.S. reluctance to hit the oil smuggling might be out of deference to the Turkish government which of course profits from such oil transfers.

Then came along Russia and its President Putin and demonstrated at the current G-20 meeting that the U.S. is not serious about fighting IS. Today the Turkish journalist Abdullah Bozkurt reports remarks by President Putin from a G-20 sideline event:

Abdullah Bozkurt @abdbozkurt

Putin in #Turkey: I provided examples based on our data on the financing of different #ISIL units by private individuals.”This money, as we have established, comes from 40 countries and, there are some of the G20 members among them”, Putin says

“I’ve shown our colleagues photos taken from space & from aircraft which clearly demonstrate the scale of the illegal trade in oil”

Putin provided that information and the photos yesterday. Obama must have been deeply embarrassed. Suddenly, a day after Putin exposed the U.S. reluctance to hit IS where it is needed, a big truck assembly was bombed:

Intensifying pressure on the Islamic State, United States warplanes for the first time attacked hundreds of trucks on Monday that the extremist group has been using to smuggle the crude oil it has been producing in Syria, American officials said. According to an initial assessment, 116 trucks were destroyed in the attack, which took place near Deir al-Zour, an area in eastern Syria that is controlled by the Islamic State.
…
Until Monday, the United States had refrained from striking the fleet used to transport oil, believed to include more than 1,000 tanker trucks, because of concerns about causing civilian casualties. As a result, the Islamic State’s distribution system for exporting oil had remained largely intact.

It seems that Putin’s naming and shaming with regards to the oil smuggling was successful. We might soon see a similar effect on the financing sources he mentioned.

I was sickened to hear and watch the events occurring in France.  Part of that was for the immediate families, friends and neighbours of those so needlessly killed.  Another part was the fear factor, not fear of terror or for myself but fear for how the powers that be would ratchet up the security control within their own societies by using their own biased racist fear factors in order to rationalize it to control their own populations.  A wider perspective is the sick feeling of realizing that humanity in general is capable of producing such atrocities.

The latter is where a large problem arises within our supposedly ‘civilized’ western world.  It is not just the terrorists who are capable of atrocities against humanity; it is not just Muslim fanatics who are capable of terrorising the west; it is not the ‘other’ who is capable of demonizing and killing their opponents. It is you and I and the societies that we support that are also capable of producing terror across large swathes of the world.

Just as the roots of terror lie within our own hands, so do the roots of an altruistic humanitarian outlook.

It is our history of moral superiority and technological advantage for which we, the ‘western’ world, the ‘civilized’ world, perceive ourselves as being superior – well, look  at us, living lifestyles of comparative wealth and luxury to much of the world, of course we are superior.  What is not contained within that narrative is that our wealth has much more to do with the imperial conquests by the European ‘west’ of various regions in order to extract their wealth of whatever sort.  Our moral superiority is nothing more than a gloss of rhetoric over the motivation to use a superior military technology to subdue, conquer, and extract wealth from other regions and other peoples.

In short the roots of terror lie within our own hands.  Certainly other civilizations of past eras have done the same thing with their own versions of morality and technological advantages.  That only underlines the idea that this is a human condition, with our current version apparently much more deadly than previous iterations of our collective and unrecognized heart of darkness.

Imperial overdrive for power and control.

Wherein, then, do the roots of terror lie, historically apart from within ourselves generally?  One could trace the roots of terror back to the beginning of historical times, and then beyond into pre-history.  But as we are supposedly a morally/technologically superior society today, the roots of today’s terror can arguably be traced back to World War I, its imperial atrocities on all sides, followed by the demise of the Ottoman Empire.

Before then of course is the whole colonial history concerning the conquest of the Americas and the subjugation of its indigenous population.  Societies then, almost wholly European, used the same old/same old tactics of arguing moral superiority while utilizing brutal technologies to subjugate and destroy native people.  Africa was dealt the same deal, and while the indigenous populations were not destroyed, the slavery, resource extraction, and control of the physical land covered the entire continent.  Most parts of Asia, whether the British in Southern Asia or the French in Southeast Asia, with the Portuguese and Dutch scattered throughout the region, underwent a similar colonial pattern.

World War I was effectively a clash of these empires trying to supercede the control of the other empires for the wealth and power of the rest of the world.  From that war rose the divisions of the Middle East by the British and French into either outright control or spheres of influence ranging from the Sykes-Picot secret agreement through to the League of Nations mandates.  The Versailles peace, while it ‘worked’ for some, failed miserably for others, not meeting the ideals of the Wilsonian rhetoric about all nationalities deciding their own futures democratically.

Because of that failure, World War II became the last and largest battle of World War I, witnessing again a change in the imperial overlords.  Politically, financially, and economically, the U.S. became the dominant power gaining control of Europe through NATO, and using a combination of military and financial tactics to try and gain control of the rest who were not willing to submit to U.S. dominance.  The readings of history are widely available, with various interpretations, with the general trend being one of an artificial moral superiority, combined with powerful economic forces (Bretton Woods, World Bank, IMF, WTO, OECD, et al), all sustained through covert and overt military actions.

The unipolar empire

The collapse of the Soviet Union is probably the most current historical turning point.  It left the U.S. and its partners as the heirs apparent to being the global hegemon.  A global peace would surely ensue, it was the ‘end of history’.  Unfortunately the same imperial imperative from centuries past survived and thrived with what was supposed to become the New World Order.  It played out militarily through the designs of the Grand Chessboard, rather than through the logic of orderly trade and cultural interaction searching for a better understanding of each other’s cultures.

Arguably, the 9/11 attacks on the WTC could be labelled as a more important inflection point of history, but it is more readily seen as a culmination of blowback from actions taken by the global imperial hegemon after the collapse of the Soviet Union.  That incident released powerful forces already prepared, ready to be set in motion.  It was the ‘New Pearl Harbour’ desired by the authors of the Project for a New American Century (Kristol, Feith, Kagan, Wolfowiz, Woolsey,Rumsfield, Bolton, Perle) who had been around since Reagan’s tenure.  It allowed the rapid passing of the Homeland Security Act, one so large it had to be by necessity ready to go for such a framework.  It ramped up the rogue nature of U.S. military and corporate actions globally, as their infamous ‘with us or against us’ paradigm turned everything black and white, losing all perspectives of grey or colour.

The ultimate goal was global hegemony, the containment and or destruction of both Russia and China, the unparalleled support of Israel, and the demonization of all things Islamic.  It was applied ruthlessly through all means of military operations, through the manipulation of international standards (e.g. the so called ‘right to protect’ doctrine), through the manipulation of financial markets and last but not least, the outright control of the mainstream media and its acquiescence, indeed promotion of,  imperial rhetoric.

Multipolarity renewed

Fortunately we are at another inflection point in history – not fortunate for the depth of its current and potential violence – fortunate in that the ‘rest of the world’ has acted against the imperial overdrive of the U.S. and its imperial cohorts and satraps.

Yes, the attacks in Paris were brutal, vicious and intended to terrorize.  But what of the terror that has been instigated in the name of empire, the empire in which you and I live?  Is it less of a terror tactic to bomb cities, villages, and countrysides indiscriminately as in the Vietnam War?  Are we more ‘civilized’ now that we pretend to use smart weapons?  Is shock and awe a feature of technological morality making us superior to the thousands killed immediately, with millions more affected in subsequent years?  Is the use of hyperbaric bombs, cluster munitions, white phosphorous, depleted uranium munitions, Hellfire missiles, dense inert metal explosives – all used by ‘civilized’ western powers in the wars of the Middle East and beyond – is that being more civilized?

Similarly is the control and manipulation of the financial world a morally justifiable act?  Are ‘free trade’ agreements anything but free when they subjugate the junior partner to both financial and legislative/legal terms that essentially destroy sovereignty?  Is our lifestyle –  predicated on consumption, living within a rentier extractive economy (living in debt), buying cheap resources and goods from countries subject to financial and military imperial overdrive – is that how we rationalize our moral superiority?

This is understood by some of the world.  It is seldom if ever recognized within the mainstream media, except for the odd occasion when a ‘balanced’ report is made on a situation in which there is no balance.  What is being recognized, slowly and without huge rhetorical counter-attack, is that there is, fortunately, no longer a single global hegemon, even as they remain desirous to attempt it.

Putin asked at the UN, “Do you know what you have done?” They have created an empire of chaos that serves certain sectors well but for the most part to a level of violence not witnessed for several generations, that could – if the right wing rhetoric and bluster of U.S. presidential candidates holds any meaning – could lead to the end of the world as we know it.  The mujahideen “freedom fighters” of Reagan have morphed through the Taliban to al-Qaeda into the current ISIS iteration.

These groups have all been supported by the U.S.:  certainly the mujahideen from which the Taliban; less so al-Qaeda other than as a useful ‘other’ as an excuse to combat on a global scale yet supported by long time ally, the medieval tribal monarchy of Saudi Arabia; and as can be extrapolated from current actions against ISIS who have proven to be a convenient destabilizer against Assad, receiving U.S. military aid indirectly through Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other partners.

As for France, it has been a willing partner in most if not all of these imperial endeavours.  Asymmetric warfare has brought those endeavours to the ‘homeland’.  France could have imposed martial law and locked the country down as more than likely would happen in the U.S. if a similar incident had occurred.  In Canada the response has been measured and compassionate, a decided change from what would have happened if Harper was still in power and able to ramp up the terrorist fear factor.  Fortunately, humanity also carries within itself an altruistic caring capacity towards others.

Just as the roots of terror lie within our own hands, so do the roots of an altruistic humanitarian outlook.  That includes all humanity, indeed all of the global environment, and if nourished properly can result in the eventual reset to a more compassionate and caring social structure.  I expect no miracles as the hatreds and animosities that have been developed by the control of the commons politically, financially, and militarily, presented with a subservient media, will not be easy to overcome.

What needs to be recognized is that we are all complicit partly through the acceptance of our lifestyles and what it is truly based on.  As individuals sometimes not much can be achieved, but it becomes an individual responsibility to question authority, to question the raison d’etre of our moral judgements, and to be prepared to do our own search for the truth, however painful that truth may be to predetermined ideologies.

Civilians in Paris have been killed because of these imperial drives for power, just as tens,  hundreds of millions before them have been killed in the past.  The human condition, its extremes of pathos and joy, requires a recognition of a global responsibility towards each and every ‘other’ that exists.  Take personal responsibility, think globally, act locally towards an era when perhaps the world will be at peace with one another.

Labor unrest and Washington’s threats involving participation in AGOA poses challenges for ANC government

Members of the National Education and Health Care Workers Union (NEHAWU), an affiliate of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), are defying an interdict (injunction) to end their strike and demonstrations at the Parliament building in Cape Town which has prevented the normal operations of legislative sessions.

Negotiations were halted on November 16 when the NEHAWU leadership reported that their member’s salaries were withheld due to their participation in the strike. The South African government is saying that the strike is illegal because the workers perform what is described as “essential services.”

One of the main issues in the dispute is centered on the way performance bonuses are calculated. Labor leaders say that talks to end the strike will not resume until the workers are paid their salaries from November 6 when the work stoppage began.

Parliament workers perform various functions including cleaning and catering to overseeing the efficient operations of the legislative committee meetings as well as access control at the visitors’ center. Consequently the strike has severely hampered the capacity of the parliament to function properly.

Sthembiso Tembe, the Parliament branch chairperson of NEHAWU, said “the strike is continuing.” A settlement earlier in the year involving at 9 percent pay increase did not encompass the issues related to performance bonuses. (News24)

Since November 9, workers have engaged in strike actions inside the parliament building resulting in the cancellation of legislative committee meetings. The strike action has been strengthened by numerous messages of solidarity and support including from COSATU.

Other statements of solidarity have been sent from the NEHAWU regional leadership, the South African Students Congress’s (SASCO) national executive committee and the chairperson the African National Congress Youth League (ANCYL) in the province. A rally held on November 16 emphasized that the NEHAWU demands were non-negotiable.

Independent Online reported on the rally noting that “Workers gathered in the Old Assembly chamber on Monday (November 16) morning on day seven of their strike to hear messages of support from the NEHAWU leadership, ANC alliance partners, and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU).”

The newly-elected NEHAWU Ikapa South regional secretary Baxolise Mali told the crowd “We are going to have a national shutdown…we are very clear. We are not fighting the alliance, we are fighting the employer.”

Mali conveyed to the parliamentary staff that the time for negotiating with Parliament was over. “We are not negotiating. We have passed that stage,” he declared.

The latest action is the result of not only the outstanding labor issues going back to 2014 over pay levels but also the demand for the removal of parliamentary secretary Gengezi Mgidlana.

On November 11 police used stun grenades in clashes with the NEHAWU members marking the second time in a month where the Parliament building in Cape Town has been the scene of battles between students in October and now workers. Law-enforcement officers wearing full body armor carried away members of NEHAWU. “The police must go,” union members chanted as they held their ground on the front steps of parliament’s second house, the National Council of Provinces.

Parliamentary administrators are saying that the adoption of the demands of NEHAWU would be unsustainable. South Africa is already facing serious economic challenges including the rapid decline in the value of its currency.

An article published in News24 says “The financial implications of agreeing to the National Education, Health and Allied Workers’ Union (NEHAWU) demands are unbudgeted for and unaffordable for Parliament given the shoestring budget it is managing, a parliamentary spokesperson said on Sunday (November 15). In a statement, a spokesperson said Parliament ‘is committed to continuing discussions’ with the union to ‘resolve the impasse which has seen the union embark on an illegal strike last week’”. (November 16)

Finance Minister Says Drought Will Compound Economic Crisis

At the G20 Summit held in Turkey, South African Finance Minister Nhlanhla Nene spoke on the drought in the sub-continent which could impact agricultural production and consequently prompt a rise in prices for food and other consumer goods. The Southern Hemisphere is moving into the summer season and the lack of rain would destroy crops compounding the already precipitous decline in economic growth.

Nene told Reuters press agency in an interview delivered outside the conference meeting that the drought, “If it’s long, indeed it will have serious impact on food prices. It will have an impact on economic growth because agriculture is one of our focus areas. It would also have an impact on employment; it would have an impact on our revenues. We are bracing ourselves for the worst.” (November 15)

Problems with the state-owned Eskom utility agency have mounted over the last several months. Periodic power shortages and outages have compelled the government to take measures aimed at addressing the fall in consumer revenues from power generation.

The government response to the Eskom crisis includes the conversion of subordinated debt into equity, which Nene says has eased funding pressure. The utility agency has still not tapped into the roughly 50 billion rand (approximately $US3.5 billion) of financial banking guaranteed by the government.

Nene said of Eskom “They still have room to play. All of that gives them breathing space between now and the time they go out to the market again.”

Obama Threatens to Suspend Aspects of South African Participation in AGOA

As it relates to South African foreign policy and the deepening economic crisis inside the country, the administration of President Barack Obama is demanding changes in Pretoria’s trade policy which the White House says maintains barriers to United States access to domestic markets.

The Africa Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA) was established during the latter period of the presidency of Bill Clinton. It is ostensibly designed to foster the export of capital to the continent while providing market access for products produced by both the U.S. and African nation-states.

If the U.S. removes key agricultural sectors from the agreements with South Africa it could cause further damage to the economy. Negotiations to resolve outstanding issues are ongoing while a January 1 deadline approaches.

In a statement issued by the South African Communist Party (SACP) on November 9, supporting the ANC government’s position in the negotiations, the party says that despite its commendable declarations “in reality, AGOA is imperialist both in terms of its content and strategic goal disguised under the fetishist illusion of ‘free market’. Its extraterritorial imperialist content is now being aggressively pushed by the U.S. against South Africa.”

This same statement from the SACP goes on to emphasize that “to allow the U.S. to prohibit ownership of economic assets by the state in our country is to allow it to usurp our constitutional right to democratic national sovereignty. This will be tantamount to handing over to U.S. imperialism our right to determine our own development trajectory and decide policies to achieve it. The SACP is strongly opposed to, and rejects, imperialist domination in its entirety and all its manifestations.”

The party also noted “South Africa’s independence must be safeguarded in the interest of the completion of our struggle for national liberation and social emancipation. Our democratic national independence and public property rights – the right to collective ownership of productive assets including through the state – are crucial to the success of our second, more radical phase of transformation!”

Such a stance by the Obama administration illustrates the real agenda behind AGOA and the overall foreign policy imperatives of the White House. South Africa has the inalienable right to determine its own economic program without the interference of Washington and Wall Street.

Washington and its French vassal have refined how they conduct their false flag operations. With the Charlie Hebdo operation, they knew to immediately set the story in stone in order to avoid any questions from the print and TV media and in order to use the set story to take the place of an investigation.

The set story made it unnecessary to explain the mysterious “suicide” of one of the main police investigators while engaged in the investigation of the event. The set story also made it unnecessary to explain why it was necessary to kill rather than capture the alleged perpetrators, or to explain how the French authorities could be so wrong about the alleged get-away-driver but not about the two gunmen. There has been no explanation why the authorities believed there was a get-away-driver, and no such driver has been captured or killed. Indeed, there are many unanswered questions of no interest to any media except the alternative Internet media.

What the US and France learned from the Charlie Hebdo skepticism on the Internet is to keep the story flowing. Charlie Hebdo involved two scenes of violence, and the connection between the two acts of terrorism was vague. This time there were several scenes of violence, and they were better connected in the story.

More importantly, the story was followed quickly by more drama, such as the pursuit of a suspected perpetrator into Belgium, a French bombing attack on the Islamic State, a French aircraft carrier sent to the Middle East, a declaration of war by the French President against ISIL, and speculation that Hollande, pressured by Washington, will invoke NATO’s Article V, which will pull NATO into an invasion of the Islamic State. By superceding each event with a new one, the public’s attention is shifted away from the attack itself and the interests served by the attack. Already the attack itself is old news. The public’s attention has been led elsewhere. How soon will NATO have boots on the ground?

The Western media has avoided many interesting aspects of the Paris attacks. For example, what did the directors of the CIA and French intelligence discuss at their meeting a few days prior to the Paris attacks. Why were fake passports used to identify attackers? Why did the attacks occur on the same day as a multi-site simulation of a terrorist attack involving first responders, police, emergency services and medical personnel? Why has there been no media investigation of the report that French police were blinded by a sophisticated cyber attack on their mobile data tracking system? Does anyone really believe that ISIL has such capability?

The Western media serves merely as an amplifier of the government’s propaganda. Even the non-Western media follows this pattern because of the titillating effect. It is a good story for the media, and it requires no effort.

Initially even the Russian media served to trumphet the set story that rescues the Western political establishment from politial defeat at home and Russian defeat in Syria. But it wasn’t too long before some of the Russian media remembered numerous false stories about a Russian invasion of Ukraine, about Assad’s use of chemical weapons, about US ABMs being placed on Russia’s borders to protect Europe from nonexistant Iranian nuclear ICBMs. And so on.

Russian media began asking questions and received some good answers from Gearoid O Colmain:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=215&ebc=ANyPxKqr8P2sln2JowUb7OtE9x-Uh73wTzgr_ROE6eJC640x6hFGrOs879tSr41gemYrY56XDSeGT0VlU_SSs6lWIcYel6SrWw&v=L7GAbVhjTSw

To understand the Paris attacks, it helps to begin with the question: “What is ISIL?”

Apparently, ISIL is a creation of the CIA or some deep-state organization shielded by the CIA’s operations department. ISIL seems to have been used to overthrow Gadaffi in Libya and then sent to overthrow Assad in Syria. One would think that ISIL would be throughly infiltrated by the CIA, Mossad, British and French intelligence. Perhaps ISIL is discovering that it is an independent power and is substituting an agenda of its own for Washington’s, but ISIL still appears to be at least partially dependent on support, active or passive, from Washington.

ISIL is a new group that suddenly appeared. ISIL is portrayed as barbaric knife-wielding fanatics from medieval times. How did such a group so quickly acquire such extensive global capability as to blow a Russian airliner out of Egyptian skies, conduct bombings in Lebanon and Turkey, outwit French intelligence and conduct successful multi-prong attacks in Paris? How come ISIL never attacks Israel?

The next question is: “How does the Paris attack benefit ISIL?”

Is it a benefit to ISIL to have Europe’s borders closed, thus halting ISIL’s ability to infiltrate Europe as refugees? Does it help ISIL to provoke French bombing of ISIL positions in the Middle East and to bring upon itself a NATO invasion?

Who does benefit?

Clearly, the European and American political establishment in so many ways.

Establishment political parties in France, Germany, and the UK are in trouble, because they enabled Washington’s Middle East wars that are bringing floods of refugees into Europe. Pegida is rising in Germany, Farage’s Independent Party in the UK, and Marine Le Pen’s National Front in France. Indeed, a recent poll showed Marine Le Pen in the lead as the next president of France.

The Paris attack takes the issue and the initiative away from these dissident political parties. Among the first words out of the mouth of the French president in response to the attack was his declaration that the borders of France are closed. Already Merkel’s political allies in Germany are pushing her government in that direction. “Paris changes everything,” they declare. It certainly saved the European political establishment from defeat and loss of power.

The same result occurred in the US. Outsiders Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders were slaughtering the establishment’s presidential candidates. Trump and Sanders had the momentum. But “Paris changes everything.” Trump and Sanders are now sidelined, out of the news. The momentum is lost. The story has changed. “Paris attacks become focus of 2016 race,” declares CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/16/politics/paris-attacks-isis-2016-reaction/index.html

Also among the early words from the French president, and without any evidence in support, was Hollande’s declaration that the Islamic State had attacked the French nation. Obviously, it is set for Hollande to invoke NATO’s Article V, which would send a NATO invasion force into Syria. This would be Washington’s way of countering the Russian initiative that has saved the Assad government from defeat by the Islamic State. The NATO invasion would overthrow Assad as part of the war against the Islamic State.

The Russian government did not immediately recognize this threat. The Russian government saw in the Paris attack the opportunity to gain Western cooperation in the fight against ISIL. The Russian line has been that we must all fight ISIL together.

The Russian presence, although highly effective, is small in Syria. What does the Russian government do when its policy in Syria is crowded by a NATO invasion?

The only benefactor of the Paris attack is the Western political establishment and Washington’s goal of unseating Assad in Syria. The Paris attack has removed the threat to the French, German, and British political establishments from the National Front, Pegida, and the UK Independence Party. The Paris attack has removed the threat to the US political establishment from Trump and Sanders. The Paris attack has advanced Washington’s goal of removing Assad from power.

The answer to the Roman question, “cui bono,” is clear.

But don’t expect to hear it from the Western media.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books areThe Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West and How America Was Lost.

On this Monday morning, the CNN network is scrolling features about a “global manhunt” for those said to have been involved in the Paris attacks on Friday. Attackers are “at large”. The imaginary of global terror feasts yet again on the body of reason. But what should also be featured is a calming campaign against what is becoming a virulent assault on certain vulnerable persons. They did not dictate the narrative of Paris, but they are becoming its victims.

Where there are flows of people, there will always be suggestions of impropriety and poor character. The legitimate asylum seeker is stalked by suggestions that he or she takes the seed of tyranny, or criminality, with them. Australia’s Howard government throughout the 1990s and the first decade of 2000 made a long sport of it, arguing that refugees who sewed their lips up in protest were morally deficient, and dangerous to that unspecified concept called the Australian character.

At every given opportunity, statements were made to harden the Australian populace against these purported charlatans who were attempting to cash in on generous spirit in the antipodes. The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet’s office was stern about strategy towards those intercepted at sea, notably on the injunction against humanising the refugees.

Images of children being thrown overboard by desperate parents were manipulated. “I can’t comprehend,” feigned Howard in 2001, “how genuine refugees would throw their children overboard.”[1] Such a poison still lingers in the Australian body politic.

It is axiomatic that amidst tens of thousands of people, an enterprising bad egg, or moulding apple, will be found. Amongst the concentration camp survivors liberated as the Second World War neared its conclusion, the vigilant guards, sensing an opportunity, attempted to disappear into the crowd. Such an argument was never one to be used against liberating the survivors, let alone allowing refugees in. Nazis and Nazi collaborators did become migrants, as did genuine displaced persons.

It is that sort of argument, at least in some form, that is being used in attempting to further halt the refugee arrivals in Europe. It patterns all too neatly with the paranoid world view of former Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, who warned in the second Margaret Thatcher lecture at Guildhall that Europe, in embracing a “love your neighbour” policy was slipping into “catastrophic error”.

“The Australian experience proves that the only way to dissuade people seeking to come from afar is not to let them in.”[2] Turn them back, he was suggesting. Cut off arrival points. Close borders. Extend the gulag. The conservative Spectatormagazine cheered in Thatcherist approval.[3]

The challenge is proving most pressing being in such countries as Germany, which is becoming the “shock absorber” of Europe for those seeking refuge. There are broader matters at play as to why such large numbers are being accepted, not least an economic rationale fronted by German industry.

A bleaker social and security picture, however, is being pushed home by nervous sceptics, not least of all from the governing parties themselves. Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Bavarian allies are seething, and the immediate aftermath of the attacks in Paris prompted sharp remarks by some members.

The point of contention here was the holder of a Syrian passport found near the body of one of the assailants who perished in the Friday night attacks. He had passed through Greece in October, according to Greek authorities. Not in itself conclusive of anything, but it was enough to link free movement with ISIS penetration even beforeresponsibility was ascertained. It was enough to suggest that open borders constituted open invitations to spread mayhem in Europe.

Bavarian Finance Minister Markus Soeder provided his few Euros worth on the topic: “The days of uncontrolled immigration and illegal entry,” he told Welt am Sonntag, “can’t continue just like that. Paris changes everything.”[4] Such dangerous nonsense slams the door on legitimate attempts to flee oppressive regimes, shifting the focus back on concepts of illegal entry. We cannot trust them, these strange creatures who do not abide by the protocols of processing.

Soeder had inspiration from Bavarian state premier Horst Seehofer of the Christian Social Union (CSU), who has called for a border clamp down. Soeder has, in turn, been listening to the railing statements of Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, who has told Merkel in no uncertain terms that there should be no “moral imperialism” at play here.

Orbán has seen his moment underscored in the Paris attacks. Blood has nourished his pan-European Christian rhetoric, a point he managed to put forth in his parliamentary address in Budapest titled “Attack on Europe.” Some of his initial words suggested that he would, in fact, draw a line between desperate refugee and opportunistic terrorist.  “In a deliberate and organised way, terrorists have exploited mass migration by mingling in the mass of people leaving their hopes of a better life.”[5]

Then, a truer picture emerges, one that has little to do with compassion, and everything to do with the orthodox righteousness of the nation state. “The right to self-defence is stronger than any other, we should not put European lives at risk on the basis of any kind of ideology or economic arguments.” Except, of course, the ideology of unquestioned sovereignty itself.

This then paved the way for Orbán to strike at apologists and the compassion brigade, a feint suggestion that they had collaborated in the project of undermining European security. “Those who said yes to immigration, who transported immigrations from warzones, those people did not do everything for the defence of European people.”

The dog whistling then became vehement. “We don’t think that everyone is a terrorist but no one can say how many terrorists have arrived already, how many are coming day by day.” Liberal Europe, deemed deluded in its compassion, under assault, and gradually giving way at the seams.

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

Notes

[1] http://www.safecom.org.au/kids-overboard.htm

[2] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/28/tony-abbott-urges-europe-to-adopt-australian-border-policies

[3] http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/the-moral-case-for-a-tough-line-on-migration/

[4] http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Paris-changes-everything-Bavarian-allies-pressure-Merkel-on-refugees-433129

[5] http://www.nst.com.my/news/2015/11/111893/jihadists-mingled-among-migrants-hungary-pm-says-after-paris-attacks

Attacks in Paris turn entire populations into suspects within imperialist states

A gathering of African leaders and European Union (EU) member-states in Malta has resulted in a proposed financial package of nearly $US4 billion which will ostensibly be utilized to halt the flow of migration from Africa to Europe.

European governments say they are willing to send funds to Africa so that people will not be interested in migrating to the continent. Such a program would in effect turn African presidents and prime ministers into the gatekeepers of Europe.

In 2015, the level of dislocation internationally is worse than any other period since the conclusion of World War II. In Syria alone, it is estimated that 11 million people have been displaced with four million outside the country in neighboring states and other regions.

People from not only Africa but the Middle East and Asia are flooding out of their geo-political areas seeking refuge from imperialist war and the burgeoning world crisis of capitalism. Rather than address the actual causes of dislocation, migration and the refugee problem, the imperialist states in Europe and their allies are seeking to contain the crisis within the oppressed nations which they have destroyed through centuries of enslavement, colonization, neo-colonization, super-exploitation and militarism.

Hundreds of thousands of migrants have crossed the Mediterranean into Southern, Central and Eastern Europe in recent months creating a humanitarian crisis and exposing the racist character of governments in the EU. Despite the offer of billions to stem the tide of migration, African leaders, even those with close political and economic ties to the imperialist states, have looked upon these proposals from the EU with skepticism and outright rejection.

British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) Europe Editor Katya Adler wrote on November 13 that “in addition to NGO concerns…, African leaders widely dismissed EU offers of cash and other aid, as far too little to tackle the root causes of migration. As flowers go, the extra aid package doesn’t even make the gaudy plastic category.”

Somalian Prime Minister Omar Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke, the head of a state that is heavily dependent upon United States and EU funding for the 22,000-member African Union Mission to Somalia (AMISOM), which handles its security along with U.S. and NATO intelligence advisors, was not impressed with the new offer of cash for containment. The experience of Somalia illustrates that western aid and military occupation does not necessarily translate into social stability and economic prosperity.

Adler noted that “Somalia’s distinctly unimpressed Prime Minister Omar Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke put it to the BBC that Africa needed investment, not charity, to improve its economies. The same as the U.S., the EU or anywhere else in the world, he said.”

Moreover, the EU countries have not even been able to raise the funds for this proposed project with commitment being lukewarm apparently over doubts about the efficacy of such a program. Pledges of aid and other forms of assistance over the last two decades has done very little to halt migration when the foreign policies of these European states have largely been shaped by the U.S. in its so-called “war on terrorism.”

European Divisions Over Migration Continue

An escalation in the migratory pattern from Africa to Europe has accelerated during 2015 which has divided the EU politically. Hundreds of thousands of migrants are being trafficked across North Africa to the Mediterranean where countless numbers have died since January.

Migrants have been met with barriers and brutality in Eastern Europe where several governments are calling for a total ban on people originating in Africa, the Middle East and Asia from entering their countries. Images of desperate migrants being hosed with water cannon evoke sympathy for their plight as well as outrage over such treatment.

The same above-mentioned article by Adler says “Cross-border co-operation is disintegrating as barbed wire goes up and borders slam shut across Europe: in Slovenia, Hungary, Austria, Sweden, Norway. Even Germany is toughening border regulations. In stark contrast to the warm welcome given to hundreds or thousands earlier this autumn, Wolfgang Schaeuble, Germany’s hugely popular finance minister, has begun to mutter darkly about a migrant ‘avalanche’ engulfing his country. There’s little evidence of the EU – more of each country for itself.”

Continued divisions within the EU prompted Council President Donald Tusk to warn that Schengen, the EU agreement allowing passport-free border passage across much of Europe, is in danger of collapse. This accord has been championed internationally as major contributor to the integration of the continent.

Real Causes Neglected While Paris Attacks Reinforce Militarism and Racism

Nonetheless, the underlying issues of imperialist war and the global economic crisis are not being addressed by the EU relying instead on military and police solutions. This new scheme to fund African states to essentially imprison their own people will also collapse.

The attacks in Paris on November 13 that resulted in the deaths of approximately 130 people in a series of operations claimed by the Islamic State (IS) has prompted a security crackdown in France and other EU states. Socialist Party President Francois Hollande in a speech on November 16 called for the revision of the French constitution to allow even greater powers for intelligence and law-enforcement agencies.

Hollande immediately escalated France’s bombing of Syria. This response will create further dislocation both inside and outside of the embattled Middle Eastern state while the doors of migration will be further closed from Europe to the U.S., where politicians have already announced the denial of admission to Syrian nationals.

It has been the imperialist foreign policy led by Washington which has laid waste to huge swaths of territory throughout North and East Africa, extending into the Arabian Peninsula and down into Central and Southern Asia. The U.S. and NATO occupation of Afghanistan was carried out under the guise of fighting “Islamic extremism and terrorism.”

This war was a direct outcome of the efforts by the administration of President Jimmy Carter in 1979 to undermine the Soviet-allied socialist government in Afghanistan. With the fall of the Soviet Union and other Eastern and Central European socialist states, the emphasis of imperialism was shifted to the attempted realization of a “unipolar world”, where Washington and its allies in Western Europe would dominate military and economic power globally.

Consequently, the “war on terror” is a misnomer. The advent of many of the “extremist groups” is a direct product of imperialist foreign policy.

Retired President Fidel Castro, the former leader of the revolutionary island-nation of Cuba, charged in a column written on August 31, 2014 that leading U.S. political figures are responsible for the creation of IS. He condemned the war policies of Washington and issued a challenge for the modern period.

Castro asked

“Would it not be preferable to struggle to produce food and industrial products; build hospitals and schools for billions of human beings who desperately need them; promote art and culture; struggle against epidemics which lead to the death of half of the sick, health workers and technicians, as can be seen; or finally eliminate illnesses like cancer, Ebola, malaria, dengue, chikungunya, diabetes and others which affect the vital systems of human beings?” (Granma International)

The Cuban theorist and tactician concludes by inquiring whether “If today it is possible to prolong life, health and the productive time of persons, if it is perfectly possible to plan the development of the population in accordance with growing productivity, culture and development of human values, what are they waiting for to do so? Just ideas will triumph, or disaster will triumph.”

Although President Barack Obama said he opposes “endless war” and “America’s combat mission in Afghanistan may be over,” he announced that the 9,800 US troops presently there will remain. Obama had previously stated that he would cut the US force in half, but he has decided to maintain the current troop level until 2017.

Seventy years after the founding of the United Nations, armed conflict, especially US wars that violate the UN Charter, continues to plague the world. In 1945, the UN Charter was created “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” It forbids the use of military force except in self-defense after an armed attack by another state or when approved by the Security Council. Yet the three most recent US presidents have violated that command.

Bush, Clinton and Obama Circumvent the UN

In October 2001, George W. Bush led the US to attack Afghanistan, even though Afghanistan had not attacked the United States on 9/11. Nineteen men, 15 of whom came from Saudi Arabia, committed a crime against humanity. Bush’s invasion of Afghanistan did not constitute lawful self-defense and the Security Council did not approve the use of force. The US war on Afghanistan has replaced Vietnam as America’s longest war.

Two years later, before he invaded Iraq and changed its regime, Bush tried mightily to secure the imprimatur of the Security Council. Although the council refused to authorize “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” Bush cobbled together prior Security Council resolutions from the first Gulf War in an attempt to legitimize his illegitimate war. Bush’s war on Iraq was a disastrous gift that keeps on giving. It has resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, led to the rise of ISIS, and dangerously destabilized the region.

John Bolton, Bush’s temporary UN ambassador (a recess appointment since the Senate would never have confirmed him) infamously declared, “There is no United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that is the United States, when it suits our interest, and when we can get others to go along.” Bolton added, “When the United States leads, the United Nations will follow. When it suits our interest to do so, we will do so.”

Indeed, Bush’s predecessor could have helped prevent the genocide in Rwanda. But instead, Bill Clinton prevented the United Nations from acting to stop the killing of 800,000 people in that country. Clinton’s secretary of state, Madeline Albright, called the UN “a tool of American foreign policy.”

Barack Obama and his counterparts in France and Britain secured a resolution from the Security Council approving a no-fly-zone over Libya in 2011. But the three powers engaged in forcible regime change, ousting Libyan president Muammar Qaddafi. This went far beyond what the resolution authorized. That action has also contributed mightily to the current instability in the region.

The Libya resolution mentioned the emerging doctrine of “Responsibility to Protect.” This doctrine is contained in the General Assembly’s Outcome Document of the 2005 World Summit. It is neither enshrined in an international treaty nor has it ripened into a norm of customary international law. Paragraph 138 of that document says each individual state has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Paragraph 139 adds that the international community, through the United Nations, also has “the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the UN Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.”

But the United States and its allies have not utilized the Responsibility to Protect doctrine to protect the people of Gaza from massacres by Israel, most recently in the summer of 2014.

An Institution Created to Maintain the Power of WWII Victors

The objective of the victorious powers of World War II in creating the UN system was to make sure they would continue to control post-war international relations. The League of Nations, which the US had refused to join, had failed to prevent fascism and the Second World War.

In 1942, the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain, and China – four of the permanent members of the Security Council (later joined by France) – had met at Dumbarton Oaks, near Washington DC. They hammered out the framework for the UN. A few months before the founding UN conference, the US, Britain and the Soviet Union met at Yalta in the Crimea and made important decisions about the post-war world, including the structure of the UN.

The United States made certain that the founding conference would be held on US soil, and it took place in San Francisco. In order to ensure that the US choreographed the meeting, the FBI spied on foreign emissaries and even on the US delegates themselves.

Stephen Schlesinger noted, “The US apparently used its surveillance reports to set the agenda of the UN, to control the debate, to pressure nations to agree to its positions and to write the UN Charter mostly according to its own blueprint.”

George Kennan, architect of the US containment strategy against the Soviet Union, didn’t pull any punches: “We have 50% of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3% of its population … Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will allow us to maintain this position of disparity … We should cease to talk about the raising of the living standards and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts.”

The Veto Power

Without the power to veto decisions of the Security Council, the US and the Soviet Union would not have joined the UN. One of the major sticking points during the conference was the scope of the veto power. Australian foreign minister Gareth Evans described the motivation behind giving the permanent members the power to veto decisions of the Security Council. He stated, “to convince the permanent members that they should adhere to the Charter and the collective security framework embodied therein, a deliberate decision was taken to establish a collective security system which could not be applied to the permanent members themselves.”

The Security Council has 15 members – five permanent members and 10 non-permanent members. The Soviet Union wanted the permanent members to have veto power over all decisions of the Security Council, which would have allowed them to prevent discussion about the peaceful settlement of disputes in which they were involved. A compromise was reached that gives the permanent members a veto only over “substantive” matters; the peaceful settlement of disputes is considered a “procedural” matter.

Religious groups feared the veto would permit the big powers to use their military might against the small nations without accountability. A group of prominent Protestant ministers called it “a mere camouflage for the continuation of imperialistic policies and the exercise of arbitrary power for the domination of other nations.”

Smaller countries, including Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Switzerland, Italy and the Vatican felt the proposed voting structure was not consistent with the sovereign equality of states and would place the permanent members above the law.

Interestingly, the word “veto” does not appear in the UN Charter. Article 27 says that decisions on procedural matters “shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members.” One permanent member can therefore exercise veto power by withholding a concurring vote.

Tensions With Latin American Countries

The US, Great Britain, the Soviet Union and China, as the sponsoring powers of the conference, issued formal invitations. Fifty countries, primarily from the industrialized North, were represented at San Francisco. They comprised fewer than one-quarter of the countries of the world. About 35 were aligned with the US, five were allied with the Soviet Union, and 10 were non-aligned. At the time, most of the developing countries were colonies or semi-colonies.

During the conference, conflicts erupted between the big powers and countries in the South. The Latin American contingent was made up of 19 countries that had been non-belligerents during the War. But since they had declared war on the Axis countries by the deadline, they were allowed to join the UN.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) had a warm relationship with Latin America, stemming from his Good Neighbor Policy in the 1930’s. It provided for non-intervention and non-interference in the domestic affairs of the countries of Latin America. In return, the United States expected sweet trade agreements and the reassertion of US influence in the region. FDR died 13 days before the San Francisco conference, leaving Harry Truman to represent the US in negotiations over the UN Charter.

Although the Latin American countries proposed the inclusion of Brazil as the sixth permanent Security Council member, the US successfully prevented it.

The Latin bloc sought to establish its own regional security system apart from the UN. The Act of Chapultepec, which was developed at a prior Inter-American conference in Mexico City, said that an attack on one state in the region was an attack on all, which would result in immediate collective consultation and possible military action.

Objecting to a provision in the UN Charter that would give the permanent members the power to veto any action by a regional organization, the Latin countries advocated the principles of Chapultepec. The final draft of Article 51 of the UN Charter protects “the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense.” In deference to the Latin bloc, “collective” is a reference to Chapultepec.

The US Opposes the Use of “International Law”

Article 2 provides, “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.”

The original proposal stated that international law would determine what is “solely within the domestic jurisdiction” of a state. When the US Congress demanded that the words “international law” be removed, they were deleted.

Since then, not surprisingly, the United States has repeatedly violated international law in both the use of armed force and the killing of civilians, most recently in Obama’s drone war.

The US Dilutes the Jurisdiction of the World Court

The UN Charter established the International Court of Justice, or the World Court, as the judicial arm of the UN system. Would states have to submit to its jurisdiction? Truman said that if “we are going to have a court, it ought to be a court that would work with compulsory jurisdiction.” But after Secretary of State Edward Stettinius convinced Truman that the US Senate would never ratify an International Court of Justice statute with that provision, Truman relented. The court only has contentious jurisdiction over states that consent to its jurisdiction.

Indeed, when the International Court of Justice ruled in 1986 that the US had violated international law by mining Nicaragua’s harbors and supporting the Contras in their insurrection against the Nicaraguan government, the US thumbed its nose at the court, saying it was not bound by the ruling.

Whither the UN Charter?

For 45 years during the Cold War, the veto power paralyzed the Security Council. But after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the veto ironically turned the Security Council into a countervailing power to the US, as the council is the only international body that can legitimately authorize the use of military force.

And as stated above, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have circumvented or manipulated the Security Council, in violation of the UN Charter.

The United Nations has succeeded in some instances in slowing down an immediate resort to military force, although it has failed to broker a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or develop a treaty to outlaw nuclear weapons.

Nevertheless, the US government feels compelled to try to obtain the Security Council’s blessing for its military interventions. And although the US often uses armed force without Security Council approval, it is increasingly apparent to the countries of the world that the United States is a notorious lawbreaker.

Nick Buxton introduces the theme of an upcoming London talk on 25 November sponsored by Global Justice Now that will launch a new book, The Secure and the Dispossessed -How the Military and Corporations are shaping a climate-changed world

There is no shortage of words in the latest negotiating document for the UN climate negotiations taking place in Paris at the end of November – 32,731 words to be precise and counting. Yet strangely there is one word you won’t find: military. It’s a strange omission, given that the US military alone is the single largest user of petroleum in the world and has been the main enforcer of the global oil economy for decades.

The history of how the military disappeared from any carbon accounting ledgers goes back to the UN climate talks in 1997 in Kyoto.  Under pressure from military generals and foreign policy hawks opposed to any potential restrictions on US military power, the US negotiating team succeeded in securing exemptions for the military from any required reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Even though the US then proceeded not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the exemptions for the military stuck for every other signatory nation. Even today, the reporting each country is required to make to the UN on their emissions excludes any fuels purchased and used overseas by the military.

As a result it is still difficult to calculate the exact responsibility of the world’s military forces for greenhouse gas emissions. A US Congressional report in 2012 said that the Department of Defense consumed about 117 million barrels of oil in 2011, only a little less than all the petrol and diesel use of all cars in Britain the same year. Deploying that oil across the globe to the fuel-greedy hummers, jets and drones has become a growing preoccupation of NATO military strategists.

But the responsibility of the military for the climate crisis goes much further than their own use of fossil fuels. As we witnessed in Iraq, the military, the arms corporations and their many powerful political supporters have consistently relied on (and aggressively pushed for) armed intervention to secure oil and energy supplies. The military is not just a prolific user of oil, it is one of the central pillars of the global fossil-fuel economy. Today whether it is in the Middle East, the Gulf, or the Pacific, modern-day military deployment is about controlling oil-rich regions and defending the key shipping supply routes that carry half the world’s oil and sustain our consumer economy.

The resulting expansion of conflict across the globe has consumed ever-increasing levels of military expenditure: in 2014, global military expenditure reached $1.8 trillion dollars. This money is a huge diversion of public resources that could be invested instead in renewable energy as well as providing support for those most affected by climate change. When the UK government in 2014 allocates £25 billion to the Ministry of Defence but only £1.5 billion to the Department of Energy & Climate Change, it is clear where its priorities lie.

Ironically despite their role in the climate crisis, one of the loudest voices calling for action on climate change is coming from the military. US Military Head of Pacific Command Samuel Locklear III is typical of a growing chorus of military generals identifying climate change as the major security challenge of this century. The generals have been echoed by politicians. UK Prime Minister David Cameron has argued that, “Climate change is one of the most serious threats facing our world. And it is not just a threat to the environment. It is also a threat to our national security, to global security…”

This could seem a welcome development. After all who would not want one of the most powerful forces on your side in tackling humanity’s greatest ever challenge? But there is a good reason also to be cautious of who we jump into bed with. A close look at military climate change strategies reveals that they are all about securing borders, protecting supply-routes for corporations, controlling conflicts around resources and instability caused by extreme weather, and repressing social unrest. They turn the victims of climate change into ‘threats’ to be controlled or combated. There is certainly no examination of the military’s own role in enforcing a corporate capitalism and fossil-fuel economy that has caused the climate crisis.

In fact, there is evidence that many players in this corporate-military-security industrial nexus are already seeing climate change not just as a threat but an opportunity. Arms and security industries thrive on conflict and insecurity and climate change promises another financial boon to add to the ongoing War on Terror. British arms giant BAE Systems was surprisingly open about this in one of their annual reports saying “New threats and conflict arenas are placing unprecedented demands on military forces and presenting BAE Systems with new challenges and opportunities.” An Energy Environmental Defence and Security (E2DS) conference in 2011 jubilantly proclaimed that “the aerospace, defence and security sector is gearing up to address what looks set to become its most significant adjacent market since the strong emergence of the civil/homeland security business almost a decade ago.”

One of the critical lessons for climate change movements in recent years has been an understanding that simply pressurising politicians to do the right thing will not deliver effective change. Instead we must target, delegitimise and undermine the corporations that are blocking change. As climate change impacts start to hit home, we must now widen our focus to stop these same forces now disturbingly seeking to profit from the consequences of climate change. As the Paris climate talks take the global stage, it’s time to draw attention to the military elephant in our room and demand that adaptation to climate change is led by principles of human rights and solidarity, rather than militarism and corporate profits.

These issues will be explored at the launch of Secure and Dispossessed – How the Military and Corporations are seeking to shape a climate-changed world (Pluto Press/TNI) held at 6:30pm on Wednesday 25 November in Free Word Centre, 60 Farringdon Rd, London EC1R 3GA. Book your free ticket here.

Award-winning author and Professor of Economics Michel Chossudovsky

will be speaking at Beit Zatoun Cultural Centre in Toronto. 

This event will also launch Prof. Chossudovsky’s latest book: The Globalization of War: America’s Long War against Humanity 

Who is Behind ISIS?

The Globalization of War

UPDATE: In the light of the tragic events in Paris, Professor Chossudovsky will also be reviewing in Toronto the alleged role of the Islamic State in the Paris terrorist attacks. For further details see:  

The Paris Terrorist Attacks, “9/11 French-Style”, “Le 11 septembre à la française”By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, November 14, 2015.

*      *      *

While Al Qaeda and their affiliates, including the Islamic State (ISIS), are routinely presented as terrorists threatening the “Free World”, most media fail to mention that they were recruited and trained by the CIA, Mossad and others.

*      *     *

The United States and its allies have launched a global military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.

America’s hegemonic project in the post 9/11 era is the “Globalization of War” whereby the U.S.-NATO military machine —coupled with covert intelligence operations, economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime change”— is deployed in all major regions of the world. The threat of pre-emptive nuclear war is also used to black-mail countries into submission.

This “Long War against Humanity” is carried out at the height of the most serious economic crisis in modern history.

It is intimately related to a process of global financial restructuring, which has resulted in the collapse of national economies and the impoverishment of large sectors of the World population.

The ultimate objective is World conquest under the cloak of “human rights” and “Western democracy”.

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author and Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the University of Ottawa. He is the Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), and Editor of the globalresearch.ca website, a cutting-edge, independent research and media organization.  He is the author of: The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order, America’s War on Terrorism, and Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War.  He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Brittanica; his writings have been published in more than twenty languages.  

This event will also launch Prof. Chossudovsky’s latest book: The Globalization of War: America’s Long War against Humanity, Global Research Publishers, Montreal, ISBN 978-0-9737147-6-0, 2015  240 pages.

NATO Article 4 calls for members to “consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence, or security of any” is threatened.

Article 5 considers an armed attack (real or otherwise) against one or more members, an attack against all. Collective self-defense is called for – perhaps in the wake of the Paris incident all-out war on humanity, risking global escalation if confrontation is provoked with Russia or China.

Unleashing US-led NATO’s killing machine could become the war to end all wars, risking world peace and humanity’s survival.

Republican presidential aspirant Marco Rubio called for “invok(ing) (NATO’s) Article 5,” requiring all 28 Alliance nations to defend a member under (alleged) attack.

On ABC’s Sunday morning program, Rubio lied, calling what happened in Paris “an act of war and an attack on one of our NATO allies, and we should invoke Article 5 of the NATO agreement, and bring everyone together to put together a coalition to confront this challenge.”

His rant followed French President Francois Hollande calling the incident “an act of war,” automatically blaming ISIS despite no evidence proving it.

Fellow presidential aspirant Jeb Bush on CNN Sunday urged “conven(ing) the North Atlantic Council to discuss” invoking Article 5, adding:

“If that’s what the French want, then, our longest and strongest and most loyal ally over our entire history, we should certainly consider it.”

The only previous time Article 5 was invoked was after the 9/11 attacks.

Bush called the Paris incident “a threat to western civilization, and we should consider it that way.”

Obama’s deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes called what happened “an act of war,” a clear indication of what’s coming. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said member states are ready to assist France.

“We stand strong and united in the fight against terrorism,” he blustered, a near declaration of all-out war.

Former NATO commander, retired Admiral James Stavridis, wrote a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) controlled Foreign Policy op-ed, calling the Paris attacks “an act of war…waged by a terrorist army, a jihadist army, by Daesh, against France…”

“The Islamic State is an apocalyptic organization overdue for eradication,” he ranted – ignoring his full knowledge of it being a US creation, used as proxy foot soldiers.

Netanyahu took full advantage of the Paris incident, saying “(t)he time has come for countries to condemn terrorism against us to the same degree that they condemn terrorism everywhere else in the world.”

“The terrorists who attack us have the same murderous intent as those in Paris” – ignoring his all-out terror war on Palestine and possible complicity with almost certain state-sponsored terrorism against Parisian civilians.

Israeli defense minister Moshe Ya’alon blustered: “This must be a time of reckoning,” suggesting the worst to come against Palestinian civilians, defenseless against Israel’s rampaging killing machine.

New York Times editors headlined “What Will Come After Paris,” saying Friday Paris attacks “along with twin bombings in Beirut on the day before and the downing of a Russian jetliner over the Sinai Peninsula on Oct. 31, show a new phase in the Islamic State’s war against the West, a readiness to strike far beyond areas it controls in Iraq, Syria, and increasingly, Libya.”

“The challenge for threatened countries is huge,” Times editors barely stopping short of urging greater US-led war on humanity than already – never explaining ISIS is a US creation, used to wage war on Syria, Iraq and other targeted countries, heading for Russia if not stopped.

“France must take measures to protect its citizens, as must the United States” and other countries, Times editors blustered, ignoring what’s most important to explain to readers.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. 

The SAA, the National Defense Forces (NDF) and the Palestine Liberation Army (PLA) made several advances in the northern of the Dara’a province after making another push to reenter the town of Sheikh Miskeen on Saturday. According to the field reports, the Syrian forces captured the northern farms of Sheikh Miskeen, and the Water Resource Facility after a series of intense firefights against of the vestiges of the Free Syrian Army’s “Southern Front Brigades”. Now, the government’s forces are in position to launch an advance on the town of Sheikh Miskeen. The town of Nawa will likely become the next target of the SAA if Sheikh Miskeen is captured.

The Syrian forces are continuing operations in Southern Aleppo. Considering the reinforcements noted by SouthFront: Analysis & Intelligence on Nov. 13, the government’s spearhead at the sector consists of the SAA, Hezbollah, the NDF, the Ba’ath Battalions, the Iraqi paramilitary groups of Harakat Al-Nujaba and Kataeb Hezbollah, and a joint Iranian and Afghani paramilitary force of Firqa Fatayyemoun.

Over the last 3 days, the joint pro-government forces have captured the towns of Al-Hadher and Tal Al-‘Eiss aiming to approach the Damascus-Aleppo highway from the eastern flank. They captured approximately 408 square kilometers of territory in southern Aleppo. The SAA and their allies are now approaching the northeastern part of the Idlib province. The Syrian government lost this area during the militants’ offensive in summer 2012.

On Saturday Syrian moderate terrorists’ sources claimed that they had killed Iranian al Qods chief, the commander of Iranian forces in Iraq and Syria, Gen. Qassem Soleiman, in the fighting east of Aleppo. This statement isn’t confirmed by any other sources. The terrorists say they located the Iranian general’s movements by means of intelligence and struck his car with a TOW missile, killing him and three other Iranian commanders, Masoud Askari, Mahmud Dahakan and Ahmed Rajai. If it’s confirmed it would count as a significant lose for the pro-government’s officer personnel at the battlefield.

The US think tanks argue that the “Syrian Democratic Forces” offensive along the Syria-Iraq border, toward the town of al-Hawl has become an epic success for the US-backed forces. Accordin to them, the SDF captured more than 36 villages and six border posts and partially surrounded al-Hawl. The push toward al-Hawl is part of a broader attempt by U.S.-backed forces to squeeze ISIS out of large swaths of the border region and reduce the number of border crossings in the group’s control. The effort should complicate ISIS logistics.

Considering the so-called “Syrian Democratic Forces” is, de-facto, Syrian Kurds partly supported by separate US-backed Sunni units, it becomes hard to confirm the victorious statements which support the Kurds offensive. In previous reports, SouthFront: Analysis & Intelligence noted that the White House urgently needs a significant success at the Syrian-Iraq battlespace. So, we should expect some “extravagance” in description of the US-backed efforts by main stream media and think tanks.

While global demand for the world’s most popular metal – aluminium – continues to rise, it is critical that the aluminium industry address its environmental and social impacts, particularly in indigenous peoples’ territories, according to new report published today by Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP), Forest Peoples Programme (FFP) and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

With many of the world’s bauxite mines, and the rivers used to generate power for its processing, located in or near indigenous peoples’ territories, the aluminium industry needs to ensure the rights of indigenous peoples are respected and protected, as outlined in the UN Declaration of on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, said the authors, who are participating in the UN Business and Human Rights Forum taking place here from 16-18 November.

The report, Mining, the Aluminium Industry and Indigenous Peoples: Enhancing Corporate Respect for Indigenous Peoples’ Rights, provides a global overview of the challenges facing indigenous peoples, and presents five case studies from Australia, Cambodia, Guinea, India and Suriname.  The case studies reveal that indigenous communities are affected by primary production activities, such as mining and associated infrastructure (Australia, India, Guinea, Suriname), and by secondary processes such as smelting and energy production used to sustain operations (India, Suriname).

Image: Dr. Chandra Muzaffar

There has been a massive outpouring of sympathy for the victims of the dastardly, heinous massacre in Paris on 13 November 2015. Once again, with the help of the media, the whole of the human family has come together to grieve with the bereaved in France.

I only wish there was a fraction of that sympathy for the hundreds of thousands of victims of acts of terrorism right across West Asia and North Africa (WANA) in the last few decades. In many instances these innocent men, women and children were also the targets of the terrorist group, the Islamic State (IS), the alleged mastermind behind the Paris carnage, and other equally vicious perpetrators of violence. But IS terrorism in WANA is seldom analyzed to its roots in the mainstream global media because it would reveal the ugly truth about the hidden hands that manipulate so much of the murder and mayhem in that region.

To understand the IS’s role today, one has to go back to the Anglo-American invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, the second greatest calamity to befall WANA, after the imposition of the entity called Israel upon the region in 1948. The occupation of Iraq and the ouster of Saddam Hussein was followed by the dismantling of the country’s security apparatus which deprived tens of thousands soldiers and police personnel of their livelihood who later became a fertile recruitment base for Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Their anger and resentment peaked when parliamentary elections in December 2005 produced a Shia-led government (the Shias are the majority community in Iraq) which was perceived by many Sunnis as biased against them. Sunni terrorist activities spearheaded by Al-Qaeda received covert support from individuals and groups in other WANA states such as Saudi Arabia who feared growing Shia, and therefore, Iranian influence in the region. Israel, which since the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran was totally antagonistic towards Iran for whom the liberation of the Palestinian people was a foreign policy priority, was also determined to curb the rise of Iran. Given Israel’s position, it was not surprising that the US which a few years earlier had overthrown a Sunni leader was now quietly aiding and abetting Sunni insurgents. It is worth noting that under Saddam there was not a single Al-Qaeda terrorist cell in Iraq.

It was a breakaway group from Al-Qaeda in Iraq motivated by anti-Shia sentiments that moved into Syria in 2011 to reinforce the armed rebellion against President Bashar Al-Assad, a member of a Shia minority sect ruling a Sunni majority population. The group morphed into IS. The IS and other terrorist outfits such as the Jabhat al-Nusra receive overt and covert support from Sunni states and non-state actors within and without WANA. Apart from arms and money, recruitment networks established in a number of countries from Europe to Africa and to Asia have facilitated the flow of foreign fighters from more than 80 countries into Syria in the last 3 or 4 years. In creating and sustaining this flow, it is alleged that CIA operatives, Mossad infiltrators and M16 agents have played a significant role. They are involved “in overseeing the conduct of terrorist operations on the ground together with Turkish and Qatari special forces, as well as thousands of mercenaries recruited from Muslim countries…”

How does one explain the involvement of so many different groups and states in what are clearly terrorist activities aimed at overthrowing a legitimate government?  For many foreign fighters, the visceral hatred for the Shia sect cultivated by Sunni ulama (religious personalities) appears to be a driving force. If anything, Bashar’s brutal suppression of dissent in some situations has intensified this hatred. In the case of the Saudi elites, antagonism towards the Shia is intertwined with resentment against what they perceive as Iran’s growing political clout in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Bahrain and Yemen. 15% of the Saudi population itself living mostly in the country’s oil rich province is Shia. Bashar, they know, is Iran’s staunchest ally in the region. In order to stem Iranian influence, some Saudi elites depict their opposition to Iran as an attempt to curb Persian penetration of the Arab heartland. While Qatar may share some of these sentiments, it turned against Bashar partly because he refused to acquiesce with the former’s proposal to build a gas pipeline from Qatar to Europe via Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey which would have impacted adversely upon Russia’s supply of gas to Europe.

Turkey from the Ottoman period has regarded Syria as vital to its own security and would have been more comfortable with a leader in Damascus who would willingly share power with the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood with which the present Justice and Development (AKP) rulers in Ankara enjoy some affinity. More than Turkey, it is Israel that wants a regime change in Damascus — a change which would lead to the termination of Damascus’s close ties with Iran, on the one hand, and Hezbollah in Lebanon, on the other, the two forces in WANA that remain opposed to Israel’s hegemony over the region. At the same time, it hopes that the exit of Bashar would make it easier for Israel to gain complete control over the strategic Golan Heights which it captured in the 1967 Israel-Arab War.  Israel’s agenda has shaped to an extent the US and Western approach towards Syria and the region.

The Obama Administration is determined to get rid of Bashar because it is aware of the role he plays in perpetuating the three way resistance to US and Israeli dominance of WANA expressed through the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah link. What piques Obama even more is that Syria is a strategic ally of Russia which has special naval access to the Mediterranean port of Tartus. In recent months, the Syria-Russia bond has become even stronger.

It is obvious that there is a set of complex factors ranging from the religious to the geopolitical that is responsible for the opposition to Bashar, a significant part of which is related to the politics of hegemony. It is not just in relation to terrorism in Syria that the politics of hegemony is critical. If we examined the three real reasons behind the invasion of Iraq in 2003 which sired the current pattern of terrorism in WANA they are all connected to hegemony — the US desire to control Iraqi oil; Iraq’s strategic location in WANA; and Israel’s desire to eliminate an Arab leader who was not only passionately committed to the Palestinian cause but also uncompromisingly opposed to Israeli hegemony. Indeed, hegemony is at the root of the chaotic mess that prevails in yet another Arab country today. It was because of the West’s quest for control over Libyan oil and to thwart Muamar Gaddafi’s plan for economic self-reliance and political integration for Africa that NATO chose to liquidate him in 2011. His liquidation has opened the way to intense competition for power among contending terrorist groups. If we go back in history it was the contest for hegemony between the US and the demised Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) over Afghanistan in the nineteen eighties that gave birth to terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda.

Even if we took another in-depth look at the Paris carnage it is undeniable that France has become a target of the IS because of its military interventions in a number of states from Syria, Iraq and Libya in WANA to Chad, Mali and Ivory Coast. It appears that France wants to play a more dominant role in both West Asia and Africa in pursuit of its own hegemonic agenda. This has earned it the ire of a lot of Muslims and Africans.

This is why it will not be possible to eliminate terrorism unless there is a concerted attempt to overcome hegemony at the global level. Citizens within the hegemonic centres of power in particular will have to stand up and demand that their governments cease overt and covert military operations in other countries. Government leaders should know that they cannot denounce terrorism at the rhetorical level and yet hobnob with terrorist organizations in terms of realpolitik.  They should be persuaded through the democratic process to abandon their hegemonic agendas forever. Respecting the independence and sovereignty of other nations and peoples should be a principle that is put into practice rather than preached from a rostrum.

This does not mean that if global hegemony ends, terrorism will disappear altogether. There are many other causes of terrorism which will have to be combatted with resolute vigour. Nonetheless, a global movement against global hegemony with the focus upon terrorism is the need of the hour.

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST)

Key points:

• Farmland fund investing in Brazil is managed by TIAA-CREF of New York City
• Farm acquisitions tied to Brazilian businessman accused of violent land grabbing and involvement in money laundering scheme
• Farms acquired in Brazil by way of a company structure that evades regulations on foreign investment
• TIAA-CREF and pension fund investors contravening the international principles of farmland investment that they developed

A New York company managing the retirement savings of workers in Sweden, the US and Canada is evading Brazilian laws on foreign investment to acquire farmlands from a businessman accused of violently displacing local communities, according to a new report, released today by Rede Social de Justiça e Direitos Humanos, GRAIN, Inter Pares, and Solidarity Sweden – Latin America.

The investigative report, entitled “Foreign Pension Funds and Land Grabbing in Brazil,” exposes how Swedish, US and Canadian pension funds have acquired farmlands in Brazil by way of a local businessman accused of using violence and fraud to displace small farmers.

The pension funds have been investing in Brazil through a global farmland fund called TIAA-CREF Global Agriculture LLC (TCGA). The fund is managed by the New York-based Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association – College Retirement Equities Fund (TIAA-CREF). Those investing in the fund include TIAA-CREF, the Second Swedish National Pension Fund (AP2) and the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDP) and the British Columbia Investment Management Corporation (bcIMC) of Canada.

Instead of supporting Omot, his former employer the World Bank has said little about his case and continues to bankroll the Ethiopian government, as do the governments of the US, UK, Germany, Switzerland and Canada.

“For years these pension funds have refused to provide specifics on their land deals in Brazil, saying that we should trust in their due diligence procedures,” says Annelie Andersson of Solidarity Sweden – Latin America.

“It took three years of investigative work to find the location of some of the farms the pension funds acquired, and what we found contravenes the principles for responsible farmland investment that these companies claim to follow.”

TIAA-CREF is a founder of the Principles of Responsible Investment in Farmland and the largest institutional investor in farmland globally. It claims to follow strict procedures to verify the title of the lands it acquires and it says that all of its farm properties in Brazil were acquired in compliance with federal and local laws protecting aboriginal heritage and indigenous community rights.

The report; however, shows how TIAA-CREF and the other pension funds acquired several farms in the southern parts of the states of Maranhão and Piauí, where land conflicts and land grabbing are rife, and that these acquisitions were made from a businessman accused of using force and assassinations to acquire lands in the area.

“Through our research into official documents and interviews with local authorities and communities where the pension funds have acquired farms, we were able to determine that these foreign pension funds acquired several farms by way of a businessman who is accused of illegally acquiring large areas of land in the area,” says Fábio Pitta of the Brazilian organisation, Rede Social de Justiça e Direitos Humanos. “This businessman is known to use falsified documents and violence to evict local residents, and federal authorities have connected him to a multi-million dollar system of money laundering and land grabbing.”

Brazilian legislation was developed to prevent foreign investment in farmland on this scale. The report; however, details how the pension funds used a complex company structure and system of debentures that allows them to evade Brazilian regulations.

“People’s hard earned savings in Sweden, Canada and the US are being used to grab lands from small farmers in Brazil and to set up massive industrial farms that poison the local communities with pesticides and rob them of their local water sources,” says Devlin Kuyek of GRAIN. “The communities get nothing in return: no decent jobs, no compensation, and no food because all of it is exported elsewhere.”

“We are deeply disturbed to see the pension funds of workers being used to fund the expansion of a model of industrial agriculture that is so destructive of family farms,” says Kathy Ozer of the National Family Farm Coalition in the US. “This kind of financial speculation is also displacing family farms here in the US and Canada, and it needs to be stopped.”

“The pension funds have deceived the people whose money they manage into believing that they are making socially responsible investments,” says David Bruer of Inter Pares. “They should immediately divest from their farmland investments and ensure that any lands they have acquired illegally or through processes of land grabbing be returned to the local communities.”

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

The report is available in English here and in French here.

A version of the report in Portuguese produced by Rede Social de Justiça e Direitos Humanos is available here.

A call-in press conference is scheduled for November 17 at 9:00 am EST.

To participate in the press conference, please use the following information:

US/Canada: 1.800.704.9804

Access code: 982173#

 Media contacts:

Maria Luisa Mendonça, Rede Social de Justiça e Direitos Humanos, +1 510 283 8374, [email protected]

Fábio Pitta, Rede Social de Justiça e Direitos Humanos, +1 510 283 8374, [email protected]

Kathy Ozer, National Family Farm Coalition, +1 202 421 4544, [email protected]

Annelie Andersson, Solidarity Sweden – Latin America, +46 73 903 10 17, [email protected]

David Bruer, Inter Pares, +1 613 563 4801, [email protected]

Devlin Kuyek, GRAIN, +1 514 571 7702, [email protected]

All of the available polling that has been done by Western polling firms in Syria has indicated strongly that the current President of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, would easily win any free and fair election in that country. In  fact when the question was directly put to Syrians by a Western polling organization, Assad got 55%, which wouldn’t leave much for each of the opposing candidates in any election, the candidates who would be splitting the residual 45%. And this poll was taken shortly after the Arab Spring demonstrations against him — those demonstrators actually possessed little support from most Syrians.

So, the United States Government demands that Assad be simply removed from office, and not allowed on the ballot, if an election for President is to be held at all in Syria.

U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have repeatedly stated that the ouster of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad is a prerequisite for stopping the invasion of Syria by U.S. bombers, and by other forces from the U.S. coalition. That’s a coalition of (besides the U.S.) Sunni Islamic regimes (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey) that are likewise demanding removal of President Assad of Syria, before they will cease their invasions of Syrian territory, and their supplies of weapons to the “jihadist” fighters who are trying to take over Syria.

Agence France Presse reported, on Thursday November 12th, that, though ‘peace’ talks about Syria, between the U.S.-allied nations and the Russia-allied nations, were planned to occur on November 14th, “the US warned a deal is unlikely without agreement over the fate of President Bashar al-Assad.” In other words: a “deal” must be reached to remove Assad, before the various invasions of Syria will stop.

AFP then noted that, “Moscow has put forward a peace proposal for the talks, which calls for elections after an 18-month constitutional reform process, but Western officials have dismissed the plan as it does not ensure that Assad will be removed from power.”

In other words: the United States government demands its right to veto, from any elections, the participation of the candidate that the polls clearly show the majority of Syrian citizens want to be their President.

The anti-Russian propaganda site, Vox, headlined regarding this matter, on November 13th, “The very simple reason why Syria peace talks are probably doomed”, and Max Fisher laid out “the very simple reason,” by implicitly and unquestioningly accepting as true U.S. government lies that Syria instead of U.S.-backed forces perpetrated the August 2013 sarin gas attack (which Fisher referred to as “chemical weapons”), which attack the U.S. President, Mr. Obama, has since used as his excuse for invading Syria. Fisher said:

Syria’s opposition, after years of enduring Assad’s barrel bombs and chemical weapons, and the forced disappearances and torture chambers before them, have said over and over they could never accept that Assad stay in office.

The US, too, has repeatedly insisted that Assad must go, correctly concluding that Assad and his policies are such a driver of sectarianism that he makes the country ungovernable and that peace is simply impossible while he remains in office. Sunni states in the region that fund the opposition, such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, would also require that Assad leave power.

The two big question marks, then, are Russia and Iran, Assad’s two foreign backers who are deeply involved in the war and who would thus need to agree to any peace deal in order for it to work. It is just not clear that they would be willing to part with him.

He blames Russia and Iran as being the reason why the talks would be “doomed.” However, if the Syrian people do not want to part with Assad, then why should Russia and Iran not also support his being on the ballot?  If that’s what the Syrian people want  (as polls indicate they clearly do), then why should the United States have any right or authority, at all, to block it from happening?

Instead of Vox being truthful to say that “Assad and his policies are … a driver of sectarianism,” the opposite has actually been the case: the secularism of Assad’s government, and its clear wall of separation between church and state, has been what held off sectarian conflict in that nation as long as it did, which was until the Arab Spring 2011 ‘democracy’ demonstrations, which, in Syria, were largely Sunni Islamic state proponents trying to bring down the government of Syria’s secular Shiite President and replace it with a Sunni Islamic government and constitution — not any sort of ‘democracy.’

The United States government insists upon overthrowing Syria’s existing non-sectarian government and replacing it by its opponents, virtually all of whom are actually supporters of a Sunni Islamic state.

Though the Vox report said that, “Syria’s opposition … have said over and over they could never accept that Assad stay in office,” the question will arise in the mind of any intelligent reader: why is the United States government automatically taking their  side in this, since those people are only such a small minority of Syrians? Mr. Fisher blames Assad as being “such a driver of sectarianism that he makes the country ungovernable,” but Assad was actually the exact opposite of that. Assad’s adamant non-sectarianism is what had been holding the entire country together. Yet, the United States is determined to end it.

Though the United States is taking the side of some Sunnis in Syria, those happen to be Sunnis who seek an Islamic constitution for Syria, to replace the existing non-religious constitution. However, it is not clear, based upon existing polling, that those Syrian Sunnis, the Islamists, constitute even a majority of the Sunnis  in Syria — they certainly do not constitute the majority of Syrians, which is the reason why all existing polling shows that Assad would likely win any free and fair election in Syria. But that’s likewise the reason why the United States government is so determined that there be no democracy in Syria. If there is to be democracy in Syria, then the United States would lose that election.

If there were any doubt about this before, there couldn’t be any doubt about it after a Gallup-affiliated British polling organization, ORB International, found in July 2015 that 82% of Syrians agree with the statement that “IS [Islamic State] is a US and foreign made group,” and only 22% agree with the statement that “IS is a positive influence,” and only 21% agree with the statement that they “prefer life now than under Assad.”

In other words: The U.S. and other invaders of Syria are decidedly unwelcomed by the vast majority of Syrians; and yet, the United States government, which the vast majority of Syrians blame for ISIS there, insists that it has some right to dictate who must not be on the ballot in a Syrian Presidential election — and that person turns out to be the very same person whom the vast majority of Syrians in any free and fair election there would be voting for to be their President.

It would seem that any remaining respect for the United States government as being a supporter of democracy, will have to be qualified by the proviso: if, and only if, the U.S. government happens to favor the person who will win. Because, otherwise, the evidence is clear that the U.S. will instead assert its supposed right to prevent that person from being on the ballot in such a ‘democratic’ election.

The old ideological view, that the U.S. supports democracy, and that its opponents do not, seems to have been turned upside-down, today. It’s the exact opposite of the truth.

Perhaps, now that the Soviet Union has ended, in 1991, the United States, 24 years later, has taken its place. Certainly, there are now many indications that the U.S. is a dictatorship; but few if any appear to be as glaring as is U.S. policy toward Syria, in 2015.

 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.

President Vladimir Putin says he’s shared Russian intelligence data on Islamic State financing with his G20 colleagues: the terrorists appear to be financed from 40 countries, including some G20 member states.

During the summit, “I provided examples based on our data on the financing of different Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) units by private individuals. This money, as we have established, comes from 40 countries and, there are some of the G20 members among them,” Putin told the journalists.

Putin also spoke of the urgent need to curb the illegal oil trade by IS.

“I’ve shown our colleagues photos taken from space and from aircraft which clearly demonstrate the scale of the illegal trade in oil and petroleum products,” he said.

“The motorcade of refueling vehicles stretched for dozens of kilometers, so that from a height of 4,000 to 5,000 meters they stretch beyond the horizon,” Putin added, comparing the convoy to gas and oil pipeline systems.

BREAKING: Putin & Obama hold talks on G20 sidelines https://t.co/qhj5hvsKoB pic.twitter.com/VIvpf8wf5n

— RT (@RT_com) November 15, 2015

It’s not the right time to try and figure out which country is more and which is less effective in the battle with Islamic State, as now a united international effort is needed against the terrorist group, Putin said.

Putin reiterated Russia’s readiness to support armed opposition in Syria in its efforts to fight Islamic State.

“Some armed opposition groups consider it possible to begin active operations against IS with Russia’s support. And we are ready to provide such support from the air. If it happens it could become a good basis for the subsequent work on a political settlement,” he said.

“We really need support from the US, European nations, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran,” the president added.

‘Let’s work together to annihilate ISIS’ https://t.co/Y7Q4l8SLkE pic.twitter.com/F9ysQ9kvCG

— RT UK (@RTUKnews) November 16, 2015

Putin pointed out the change in Washington’s stance on cooperation with Moscow in the fight against the terrorists.

“We need to organize work specifically concentrated on the prevention of terrorist attacks and tackling terrorism on a global scale. We offered to cooperate [with the US] in anti-IS efforts. Unfortunately, our American partners refused. They just sent a written note and it says: ‘we reject your offer’,” Putin said.

“But life is always evolving and at a very fast pace, often teaching us lessons. And I think that now the realization that an effective fight [against terror] can only be staged together is coming to everybody,” the Russian leader said.

BREAKING: Terror intel exchanges between US, Russia need to be enhanced – #CIA head Brennan https://t.co/X8Xup6IypD pic.twitter.com/ZbMvPkuLFd

— RT (@RT_com) November 16, 2015

According to Putin, first of all it should be decided which groups in Syria can be considered terrorist organizations and which can be attributed to an armed, but still legitimate part of the Syrian opposition.

“Our efforts must be concentrated on the battle with terrorist organizations.”

Putin also disagreed with Western criticism of Russia’s actions in Syria, where the country has been carrying out a large-scale air campaign against Islamic State and other terror groups since September 30.

“It’s really difficult to criticize us,” he said, adding that Russia has repeatedly asked its foreign partners to provide data on terrorist targets in Syria.

“They’re afraid to inform us on the territories which we shouldn’t strike, fearing that it is precisely where we’ll strike; that we are going to cheat everybody,” the president said.

“Apparently, their opinion of us is based on their own concept of human decency,” he added.

Putin told the media that Russia has already established contact with the Syrian opposition, which has asked Moscow not to carry out airstrikes in the territories it controls.

Still no conclusion on what caused Sinai plane crash

It’s too early to make conclusions about the reasons for the crash of the Russian A321 jet over Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula in late October, as all possible reasons are still being considered by the investigators, Putin said.

“We know about all the possible scenarios, all of the scenarios are being considered. The final conclusion can only be made after the implementation and completion of the inspection,” he stressed.

“If there was an explosion, the traces of explosives would have remained on the liner’s cover and on the belongings of the passengers. It’s inevitable. And we have enough equipment and skilled, world class experts, capable of finding those traces. Only then would it be possible to speak about the reasons for this tragedy,” the president added.

With 224 people dying in the crash, Putin said that “it’s a huge emotional pain for all of us; for all Russian people, no matter what the cause of the crash was.”

The atrocities in Paris, killing more than 120 people, have brought forth the usual condemnations against terrorism and expressions of sympathy for the victims, but the larger question is whether this latest shock will finally force Western leaders to address the true root causes of the problem.

Will President Barack Obama and other leaders finally level with the American people and the world about what the underlying reasons for this madness are? Will Obama explain how U.S. “allies” in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar, have been fueling this Sunni extremism for years? Will he dare recognize that Israeli repression of the Palestinians is a major contributing factor, too?

On a practical level, will Obama finally release those 28 pages from the congressional 9/11 report that addressed evidence of Saudi support for the hijackers who attacked New York and Washington in 2001?

Does he have the courage to explain how this scourge of Sunni terrorism can be traced back even further to the late 1970s when President Jimmy Carter started a small-scale covert operation in Afghanistan to destabilize a Moscow-backed secular regime in Kabul and that President Ronald Reagan then vastly expanded the program with the help of the Saudis, pouring in a total of $1 billion a year and giving rise to Saudi militant Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda?

Image: President Obama and King Salman Arabia stand at attention during the U.S. national anthem as the First Lady stands in the background with other officials on Jan. 27, 2015, at the start of Obama’s State Visit to Saudi Arabia. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza). (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Can Obama be convinced that telling hard truths to the American people is not only vital to a democratic Republic in a philosophical way but can have the practical effect of creating crucial public support for rational policies? Will he realize that propaganda schemes or “strategic communications” may be clever short-term tricks to manipulate the American people but they are ultimately counterproductive and dangerous?

Will Obama finally take on Official Washington’s well-entrenched neoconservatives and their “liberal interventionist” junior varsity by challenging their innumerable false narratives? Will he pointedly blame the neocons and the liberal hawks, including those who run the editorial pages of The Washington Post and The New York Times, for the disastrous Iraq War? Will he take on the “deep state” dug in at the big-name think tanks, not just at neocon havens like the American Enterprise Institute but at the center-left Brookings Institution?

Can the President muster the courage to ally himself with the American people, arming them with real information, so they can act like true citizens in a Republic rather than cattle being herded toward the slaughterhouse? Can he shake his own elitism or his fear of social ostracism to somehow become a true leader in his last year in office, rather than a timid follower of the prevailing “group think”?

Just because the “important people” have fancy credentials and went to the “right” schools, doesn’t mean that they have any monopoly on wisdom. Indeed, in my nearly four decades covering Official Washington, these “smart” folks have been wrong a lot more than they have been right. A leader of historic dimensions recognizes that reality and takes on the know-it-alls. In this case, a leader who enlists the American public by giving them reliable information could change this depressing dynamic.

If Obama could muster such courage and show trust in the people, he could bend the prevailing false narratives in the direction of truth and reality. On a practical level, he could help make the current Syrian peace talks succeed by stopping his endless repeating of the neocon/liberal-hawk mantra blaming President Bashar al-Assad for the entire mess and insisting that “Assad must go.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Hidden Origins of Syria’s Civil War.”]

Twist Some Arms

Instead, Obama could twist the arms of his Saudi, Qatari and Turkish “friends” to get them to halt their financing and military support for Sunni jihadists associated with Al Qaeda and its various spin-offs, like the Islamic State and al-Nusra Front. And he could work cooperatively with Russian President Vladimir Putin to squeeze concessions out of both the Assad regime and the U.S.-financed “moderate” opposition so a unity government can begin to restore order in Syria and isolate the extremists.

Once some security is achieved, the Syrian people could hold elections to decide their own future and pick their own leaders. That should not be the business of either Obama or Putin.

As part of this effort, Obama could finally release the U.S. intelligence analyses on both jihadist funding and the circumstances surrounding the lethal sarin attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013, which the Obama administration hastily blamed on Assad’s regime although later evidence pointed toward a likely a provocation by Sunni extremists. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Collapsing Syria Sarin Case.”]

To create crucial space for cooperating with Putin, Obama also could let the American people in on the reality about the Ukraine crisis in 2014, which was used by the neocons and liberal hawks to drive a wedge between Obama and Putin. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “What Neocons Want from Ukraine Crisis.”]

U.S. intelligence analysts know a lot about key turning points in that conflict, including the Feb. 20, 2014 sniper attacks, which set the stage for ousting elected President Viktor Yanukovych two days later, and the July 17, 2014 shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, which was used to build an anti-Putin hysteria. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “MH-17: The Dog Still Not Barking.”]

I’m told that these tragedies became propaganda weapons to deploy against Assad, Yanukovych and Putin rather than horrific crimes that deserved serious investigation and accountability. But whatever the ultimate conclusion about who is to blame for these crimes, why has Obama withheld from the American people what U.S. intelligence analysts know about those three incidents?

It was Obama, after all, who talked so much about “transparency” and trusting the American people as a candidate and during his first days in office. But since then, he has conformed to the elitist Orwellian approach of managing our perceptions rather than giving us the facts.

Yet, if Obama could get his cooperation with Putin back on track – recognizing how useful it was in 2013 when Putin helped Obama get Assad to surrender all his chemical weapons and assisted in wresting important concessions from Iran about its nuclear program – then the two powers could also weigh in on securing a peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, another major irritant to peace in the region.

Indeed, it appears that the possibility of Obama and Putin working together to force the Israelis to make meaningful concessions for peace was a factor in the neocon determination to turn an eminently manageable political dispute in Ukraine – over the pace of its integration into Europe without rending its ties to Russia – into the dangerous frontlines of a new Cold War.

The neocons and liberal hawks outmaneuvered Obama who fell in line with the Putin-bashing, all the better to fit within Official Washington’s in-crowd.

Thus, the Syrian crisis was left to fester with Obama acquiescing to neocon/liberal-hawk demands for arming and training “moderate” rebels although the President recognized that the idea was a “fantasy.” He also resisted some of the more extreme ideas, like an outright U.S. military invasion of Syria framed as a humanitarian “safe zone.”

But the Paris tragedy is another reminder that it is well past time for Obama to resurrect his helpful relationship with Putin and restore the teamwork that held such promise toward settling conflicts through negotiations, along the lines of the Iran nuclear deal.

If Obama were to choose that route – which could be implemented through a combination of truth-telling to the American people and pragmatic big-power diplomacy with Russia – he could at least start addressing the underlying causes of the violence tearing apart the Middle East and now spreading into Europe.

Or will Obama’s reaction to the Paris attacks be just more of the same – more tough-guy talk about “resolve,” more “targeted” killings that slaughter many innocents as “collateral damage,” more tolerance of Saudi-Turkish-Qatari support for Sunni militants in Syria and elsewhere, more acceptance of hard-line Israeli repression of the Palestinians, more giving in to neocon/liberal-hawk demands for “regime change” in the neocons’ preferred list of countries?

If the history of the past seven years is any guide, there’s little doubt which direction President Obama will choose. He will go with Official Washington’s flow; he’ll worry about what the editorialists at the Post and Times might think of him; he’ll accommodate the neocons and liberal hawks who remain influential inside his own administration. In short, he’ll continue down the road toward destruction.

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). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

The Syrian peace talks in Vienna, over the weekend, produced an agreement between all parties, and it constitutes a major defeat for the United States, because the result is entirely in accord with the longstanding Russian position, which the U.S. government has consistently opposed, that only the Syrian people should have the right to determine who will, and who won’t, be able to run in Syrian elections. 

The AP headlined on Sunday, November 15th, “Syrian Legislator Praises Aspects of Plan to End War,” and quoted Syrian parliamentarian Omar Ossi, head of the parliament’s reconciliation committee, as telling the AP that “the plan has many points that ‘run in harmony’ with Assad’s position.” What Ossi objected to was that some nations are “betting on the issue of toppling the Syrian regime by military force,” instead of by allowing democracy to determine the result.

On Saturday, November 14th, the crucial second round of the Vienna talks on resolving the crisis in Syria ended with a joint statement in which all 17 of the participating countries agreed that in six months, Syria must have a transitional government, and that 12 months after that, there will be a Presidential election to determine the country’s leader.

The key sticking-point until this weekend had been whether Syria’s current President, Bashar al-Assad (whom even Western polls show to be overwhelmingly supported by Syria’s population) would be allowed to be a candidate in this election. The U.S. said no, Russia said yes.

Up to that time, the U.S. had consistently insisted that Assad must be removed from office. However, after the Paris terrorist bombings on Friday the 13th, Secretary of State Kerry indicated that the United States might cease to insist on Assad’s removal. Russia, and its allies, Iran and Syria, had already made clear, and they continued to hold, that there be simply no agreement if the U.S. and its allies (including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and UAE — all very active participants in that war to overthrow Assad) continued insisting on having a right to dictate who may and who may not run in this election. Russia and its allies insisted that only the Syrian public has a right to determine Syria’s leader — that no foreign powers do.

Though the United States position had continued to be supported by America’s allies, the U.S. Secretary of State himself finally decided to accept the position of Russia and its allies, Iran, and Syria, so that the more pressing issue of terrorism may be addressed, in the wake of the Paris bombings.

In recent weeks, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has repeatedly condemned the U.S. position as “disrespect on international law,” and saying that it “is not acceptable. It’s not fair.” That’s how blatant America’s opposition to democracy in Syria had been (until now): blatant enough to cause even a person in his position to condemn it in public.

This Vienna agreement was signed by representatives of all of the 17 countries, the UN, the EU and the Arab League. Its text has not yet been published. The terms of the agreement are currently known only by statements about it from participants at the talks.

Specifically, the agreement is said to specify that, by 14 December 2015, diplomats will reconvene to discuss any residual issues.

On 1 January 2016, the UN will then convene formal negotiations between the Syrian government and its political opponents who are not involved in terrorist activities. Obviously, defining who those parties are will be highly contentious between the U.S. and its allies, and Russia and its allies.

On 14 May 2016, free elections will be held in Syria, administered by the UN.

The agreement specifies that the war against jihadist groups, all of which have been trying to bring down the Syrian government, will continue. This provision of the agreement recognizes the unacceptable role that these groups, such as Al Nusra (Al Qaeda in Syria) and ISIS, play in bombings not only in France but throughout Europe and the Middle East. The agreement won’t say whether those groups may participate in the elections, but it will specify that the war against those groups can continue, even while the peace process in Syria is being implemented. The “ceasefire” won’t apply to efforts to wipe out those jihadist groups, which are illegal in Syria.

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.

How do you continue to push GM crops on a population that has overwhelmingly voted against them in poll after poll? You start a campaign similar to the one the tobacco industry began in the 1920’s with the help of Edward Bernays to discredit any naysayers and even put doctors in commercials smoking cigarettes. You also do whatever it takes to buy out ‘real’ scientists and call those into question who inquire about the true safety of GM foods. You label them anti-science and discredit their credentials.

As GMWatch.org states:

“First, there has been a tendency to label anyone who dislikes GMOs as anti-science — and put them in the anti-antibiotics, anti-vaccine, even Luddite category. There is, of course, nothing scientific about the comparison. Nor is the scholastic invocation of a “consensus” a valid scientific argument.

Interestingly, there are similarities between arguments that are pro-GMO and snake oil, the latter having relied on a cosmetic definition of science. The charge of “therapeutic nihilism” was leveled at people who contested snake oil medicine at the turn of the 20th century. (At that time, anything with the appearance of sophistication was considered “progress”.)”

Just like with tobacco, the government agencies which are meant to police our food and water supply have been infiltrated with biotech interests. Bernays, and propaganda theorist Walter Lippman were members of the U.S. Government’s Committee on Public Information (CPI) that helped to promote cigarettes, especially to women, through a war-like propaganda campaign. This is so similar to what Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, Syngenta, Cargill, etc. do now. It seems biotech has looked at the Marlboro Man playbook for tips. [1]

So who does the PR?

• Hugh Grant, the CEO
• Janet M Holloway, Sr. VP, Chief of Staff of Community Relations
• Kerry J Preete, Sr. VP of Global Strategy
• And others

Grant recently said the following to CNBC:

“Twenty years since the first crops were planted in ’96, the intensity and use of chemistry has actually declined during that time so growers now are applying less. The next turn in this, the next breakthrough is how you apply less than an acre, how you apply it much more precisely. And I think the Monsanto Syngenta combination completely redefines the industry one more time in how we use chemistry and link it much more intimately to seed.”

Too bad that merger failed, and farmers are having to resort to more toxic versions of herbicides to try to get their jobs done. Monsanto is spending another $1 billion on a new dicamba herbicide after the WHO declared the best-selling product, Roundup, was probably carcinogenic.

Alas, are we to be lemmings, led off the edge of the cliff, and forced to jump off while Monsanto, just like in old cigarette ads, assures us all these chemicals and GMOs are safe?

Forgive me, but it doesn’t take a scientist to figure out this insanity. I can be called anti-science all day long, but at this point it boils down to some simple common sense.

Notes:

[1] TheSocietyPages

The G-20 summit of world political leaders being held in Turkey to discuss the economic issues impacting on the world economy has been turned into a council of war. The major imperialist powers are moving rapidly to escalate their military intervention in Syria in the wake of Friday night’s terror attack in Paris.

Yesterday evening French fighter jets carried out their biggest raid on Syria. It was launched simultaneously from the United Arab Emirates and Jordan, dropping 20 bombs on the Syrian city of Raqqa, reportedly targeting an Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) command centre, a munitions depot and a training camp. The operation was carried out in coordination with US forces.

Earlier, Ben Rhodes, the US deputy national security adviser, said he was confident that in the “coming days and weeks” the US and France would “intensify our strikes against [ISIS] … to make clear there is no safe haven for these terrorists.”

Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Rhodes said there would be an “intensification” of US military efforts and “what we are doing here at the G-20 is seeking to gain additional contributions from some of our partners so we can bring more force to bear on that effort.”

Demands are being brought forward from within the American military and political establishment for a major escalation in US action, regardless of the consequences.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican candidate for president, said that ISIS would “not be deterred by targeted air strikes with zero tolerance for civilian casualties, when the terrorists have such utter disregard for innocent life.”

His call for vastly stepped-up US military action, without any regard for the consequences for the civilian population already devastated by the US-inspired civil war, were echoed by California Democrat, Dianne Feinstein, who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

“It has become clear,” Feinstein said, “that limited air strikes and support for Iraqi forces and the Syrian opposition are not sufficient to protect our country and our allies.”

Retired Navy admiral John Stavridis, who served as NATO’s top commander in Europe from 2009 to 2013, called for direct NATO intervention in Syria and Iraq.

“Soft power and playing the long game matter in the Middle East, but there is a time for the ruthless application of hard power. This is that time, and NATO should respond militarily against the Islamic State with vigor,” Stavridis said.

During the first day of the G-20 summit, US President Barack Obama held a 35-minute discussion with Russian President Vladimir Putin in what the White House described as “constructive” talks.

The meeting followed an agreement by a meeting of the foreign ministers of the 17-member International Syria Support Group in Vienna on Saturday to work towards a ceasefire in Syria and the holding of elections under United Nations auspices within two years. The group, which includes the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, issued a statement that a “common understanding” had been reached in key issues.

The subsequent discussions between Obama and Putin at the G-20 were held as part of the US objective of sidelining, if not completely removing, Russian support for the Syrian regime of president Bashar al-Assad.

Under the agreement, following a ceasefire, a process would be set in motion to establish “inclusive and non-sectarian” governance, the drafting of a new constitution and the holding of elections under UN supervision within 18 months.

However, the crucial sticking point remains the future of Assad. In an interview on the eve of the G-20 summit, Putin said other nations had no right to demand that Assad leave office and that “only those who believe in their exceptionality [a thinly-veiled reference to the US] allow themselves to act in such a manner and impose their will on others.”

The US has been waging a campaign since 2011 for the overturn of the Assad government as part of its regime-change operations in the Middle East, in order to bring the region under its control. Russia has backed Assad in order to protect its strategic interests in the region, including a naval facility in Syria.

The US has made clear that as far as it is concerned there can be no resolution without Assad’s ouster—a position repeated by Obama’s National Security Adviser Susan Rice. She said a “transition regime” had to come to power “and it’s very hard to envision how that could be accomplished with Assad still in power.”

These remarks make clear that while the stepped up military offensive is being conducted under the banner of a “war” against ISIS, the real target is the Assad regime, which both the US and France want to see overturned.

Other imperialist powers are also preparing to intervene. British Prime Minister David Cameron indicated his intention to seek parliamentary backing for the US of British forces. The UK refused to back the US in August–September 2013 over plans to attack Syria, causing Obama to pull back and accept a Russian intervention to destroy Syrian chemical weapons.

“It’s becoming even more clear that our safety and security depends on degrading and ultimately destroying Isil [ISIS] whether it’s in Iraq or Syria,” Cameron said.

Following the talks with Obama at the G-20, a spokesman for Putin said that, while it was too early to speak of a rapprochement, there was need for “unity” in the fight against terror.

This was met with what the Financial Times described as “thinly disguised scorn” on the part of EU Council President Donald Tusk. “We need not only more co-operation but also more goodwill, especially from Russian action on the ground in Syria. It must be focused more on Islamic state and not … against the moderate Syrian opposition,” he said.

The “moderate Syrian opposition” is a mythical being created by imperialist politicians and a compliant media. The forces opposed to the Assad regime are dominated by groups such as Al Nusra, spawned by Al Qaeda, from which ISIS also developed. The fictional character of the so-called “moderates” was exposed earlier this year when it was revealed that, despite an expenditure of millions of dollars for the purpose of military training, the US was only able to find four or five people who could fall into that category.

The Paris terror attack is a terrible blow-back consequence of US operations in the Middle East. The statements emanating from imperialist world leaders and the discussions at the G-20 make clear that terror attacks resulting from yesterday’s crimes are rapidly being employed for the commission of new ones.

A number of French deputies and politicians called on the French government to alter its foreign policy and correct its course immediately and reconsider its relations with Syria following the recent terrorist attacks in Paris.

Deputy Jacques Myard said that there’s a need for revising France’s foreign policy, particularly in regards to Syria, voicing belief that France adopted an erroneous policy towards Damascus, asserting that France’s enemy today is ISIS and Al Qaeda, not President Bashar al-Assad.

Likewise, deputy Jean-Frédéric Poisson said that there’s need to revise France’s foreign policy and to become closer to those who are fighting ISIS, in addition to calling on his government to reconsider its relations with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, something that fellow deputy Bruno Le Maire also called for.

That sentiment was also echoed by president of the National Front (FN) party Marine Le Pen who said that there is need to specify who are France’s allies and who are its enemies, and that states that sponsor extremism are supposed to be France’s enemies along with states that have a vague position toward terrorist organizations, while those who fight terrorism are France’s allies and should be treated as such.

For his part, deputy Gérard Bapt voiced regret over the fact that the French Interior Ministry had ignored his advice to cooperate with Syria, noting that after his visit to Syria, he informed the Ministry that Syria is prepared to cooperate in exchanging information if France agrees to reopen its embassy in Paris.

Bapt asserted that France must stop its policy of ostracizing Syria and lift the diplomatic embargo imposed by the French Foreign Ministry.

In turn, deputy and former Prime Minister François Fillon said that French authorities should have worked with Russia rather than stop cooperation with it, and that they should have also worked with Iran and to accept a degree of cooperation with Damascus, asserting that the war on terrorism cannot be won without cooperating with Damascus.

In the same context, former Prime Minister Alain Juppé said that priorities now dictate that ISIS must be crushed, and afterwards one can see how to carry out reconciliation among Syrians, stressing the need to clarify the goals of the international alliance fighting ISIS in Syria and Iraq, describing the alliance’s performance thus far as ineffective.

Hazem Sabbagh

Damascus – President Bashar al-Assad received on Saturday a French delegation, including a number of parliamentarians, intellectuals, and media men, headed by member of the French National Assembly Thierry Mariani.

President al-Assad affirmed that the terrorist attacks which targeted Paris couldn’t be separated from those that took place in Beirut, and what has been happening in Syria since 5 years and in other regions, adding “terrorism is one field in the world and terrorist organizations don’t recognize borders.”

“Wrong polices adopted by western states, particularly France, towards events in the region, and its ignorance of the support of a number of its allies to terrorists are reasons behind the expansion of terrorism,” President al-Assad said, pointing out to the importance of adopting new policies and taking active procedures to stop support for terrorists logistically or politically in order to overcome terrorism.

For their part, members of the visiting delegation underlined that the terrorist attacks in France yesterday proved that there is no state which would be safe from terrorism, expressing belief in the importance of unifying efforts of regional and international sides to combat it and stop this phenomenon which poses threat to the peoples of the region and world.

They showed sympathy with the suffering of the Syrian people who are subjected to a fierce terrorist war, affirming their determination to convey what they have really seen during their visit to Syria in a way that could form a French public opinion, based on realities, not on fabricated images.

In statements to the journalists following the meeting, President al-Assad said, in response to a question about his reaction on what happened in Paris on Friday “First of all, we offer our condolences to the French families that lost dear members yesterday, and we are the closest people to this situation to understand what happened yesterday in France, because we have been suffering from this kind of terrorism for the last five years in Syria.

“And what happened in France yesterday cannot be separated from what happened in Beirut two days ago, because this is terrorism. That’s why you shouldn’t look at terrorism as separate arenas, like looking at Syria’s arena, Yemen, Libya, France. Actually, it’s one arena all around the world.”

Asked about where the Syrian intelligence services have any indication or information that either the people who committed this act came from Syria or were in contact with any group in Syria, the President said “No, we don’t have any information about what happened, but it’s not about the names, and who went and who didn’t. We warned about what’s going to happen in Europe three years ago, and we said don’t mess with the fault line in Syria.

It’s going to be like an earthquake that will reverberate around the world, and unfortunately the European officials didn’t pay attention to what we said. They thought that we are threatening, and they didn’t learn from what happened at the beginning of this year, from Charlie Hebdo.”

He added “Just giving statements that you are against terrorism means nothing. You have to go and fight terrorism, you have to pursue the correct and right policies, that’s what they have to do.”

In his response to a question whether Syria is ready to fight with France against terrorism if they ask and help the French intelligence services, President Assad said

“They don’t have to ask; they only have to be serious. This is where we are ready to fight terrorism with them.”

“We are ready to fight terrorism with whoever wants to really fight terrorism, and the French government is not serious yet,” he added.

In a message he was asked to send to the French President Francois Hollande, President al-Assad said

“Work for the sake and the interest of your people. And the question that any Frenchman would ask today: did the French policy during the last five years do any good to the French people? Actually, no. So, the first thing I’ll ask is to work for the interest of the French people, and if he wants to do that, he has to change his policy.”

Asked about the condition for the Syrian government and the French government to work together, or for the Syrian intelligence services to work with the French intelligence services, President Assad said

“You cannot talk about intelligence cooperation without political cooperation. You cannot talk about intelligence cooperation in order to fight terrorism while at the same time your policies, the policies of the same government, are going in the direction of supporting terrorism. That’s what I meant by being serious.”

It goes without saying that the atrocities of Paris on November 13, 2015 were unspeakable and sickening. But what is not being said in the wake of the incident—what has been ignored by the mass media—is predictably telling and ominous.

As in the wake of 9/11, the people of the world are being provoked, agitated and mobilized; the fear, horror, rage and shock channeled and shaped into wave of collective vengeance and hatred. Hatred towards what and whom?

The Islamic State has claimed responsibility for the attacks. But what is the Islamic State?

The fact that remains willfully unacknowledged is that Islamic State is the guided military-intelligence and political apparatus of the West, created, trained, financed, advised and protected by the West and NATO—including France.

The Islamic State and Islamic extremism, including Al-Qaeda, functions on behalf of NATO and Western geostrategic interests.

The intelligence agencies of the West and NATO, led by the CIA, MI-6, the Mossad, the Pakistani ISI, etc. run the Islamic State terrorists.

Jihadist terrorism would not exist without the nurturing of the West, which started with the Cold War, continued into the conflicts in the Balkans, and exploded with 9/11 and the “war on terrorism”, and continues to metastasize with the so-called war on the Islamic State, a rebranded continuation of the same fabricated criminal war of deception.

The West and its architects of war are ultimately responsible for all acts of terrorism perpetrated by their own terrorist shock troops.

As noted by Michel Chossudovsky,

“the notion that the Paris attack was an act of retribution and revenge directed against France is questionable and contradictory inasmuch as the evidence confirms that France has been channeling weapons to jihadist rebels in Syria including Al Nusrah and ISIS.”

What if it was “blowback”? What if the Paris terrorists went “rogue” and attacked their own sponsors? What if these terrorist cells were “out of control”? What if these and other groups are simply “going berserk” for “inexplicable reasons”? What if one accepts the (highly unlikely) notion that the CIA, the NSA, French intelligence, the Mossad, etc. —agencies with the most sophisticated spying capabilities on the planet—suddenly and simultaneously lost track of everything? There are red herrings. The West is still responsible for the actions of its assets. The West has not “lost control” of the Islamic State. In fact, the terrorists are being run with remarkable efficiency and effectiveness. The chaos and plunder are not random. The atrocities are designed. Were it not for unwelcome Russian “interference”, the Anglo-American empire would now control more geography than it already does. The Syrian regime arguably might have fallen.

Anglo-American war policy is what has set terrorism loose. It continues to sow, foment and expand terrorism in an unimaginable scale, with no end in sight. The trail of blood leads back to the policy, and its policy makers.

This apocalyptic crisis is not a war “on” terror, but a war “of” terror, committed by terrorists, guided by terrorists, and psychopathic war criminals that operate beyond the reach of law.

Stopping terrorism is not the real agenda. In fact, the opposite: the West’s terrorist armies are key assets used to infiltrate and destabilize, to topple the regimes that NATO seeks to co-opt, invade and conquer. One by one they fall in this manner, from Iraq and Libya to what is unfolding now in Syria, towards the even greater agenda.

The “war on the Islamic State” is not even about the Islamic State, no matter what horrific acts are committed by the ISIS/ISIL killers themselves. The war is, and has always been, a superpower world war pitting the West against Russia and China, everywhere Western geostrategic/resource/corporate interests dictate.

The “spectacular” bloodshed—the unspeakable scale and intensity of the murder—will only become more outlandish and “creative”, as the war planners become increasingly desperate to keep the easily distracted masses in home countries galvanized and fearful, and militantly supportive of the larger war agenda, and deepening involvement on the front lines.

Who benefits? Who benefits from weaponizing France and its people? The same forces that have benefitted from all such atrocities since 9/11. All of the governments that are aiming to destabilize, invade, and conquer the Eurasian subcontinent, including the Middle East and Central Asia, and beyond. All of the governments seeking regime change in Syria: NATO.

The operatic expressions of remorse on behalf of officials hide the realpolitik; the cold, calculating sociopathy that views war as industry, mass murder as a means to “victory”, and slaughter of innocents as “necessary collateral damage”. Three thousand dead on 9/11. A jetliner full of Russian tourists. Tens of thousands across the killing fields of the Middle East, Central Asia, and Africa. More than one hundred snuffed out in Paris. All in a day’s work.

The current line justified by the bloody headlines and propaganda is that even more endless “total war” must be waged. President Hollande now channels Dick Cheney’s “war that will not end in our lifetimes”, and George W. Bush’s “with us or against us”.

Paris proves, according to the propaganda, that time is overdue for regime change in Syria. Syria, the “hotbed” of terrorism, where the Islamic State is “out of control”. The Assad regime has “failed to stop it”; therefore the Assad regime must be “taken out” along with the “terrorists”.

It is no coincidence that Paris has prompted President Barack Obama to promise an escalation of military involvement in Syria. More accurately, the justification to openly invade Syria has been given the green light. The “boots on the ground” invasion of Syria, which is already underway, is now accelerated. Obama undoubtedly wants to finish the job before he leaves office in 2016. A new series of air strikes on Raqqa, Syria began less than 48 hours after the Paris attacks.

What of the Paris attacks themselves? The official narrative is being created. Although it is early in the process, questions about the Paris attack are mounting. The similarities to the false flag operation of 9/11 are abundant.

Quoting the New York Times, it “remains unclear how a plot of such sophistication and lethality escaped the notice of intelligence agencies, both in France and abroad.” But emerging evidence suggests that the intelligence agencies not only knew, but knew enough to prepare for the attacks, which suggests that they were allowed to happen.

France had foreknowledge of imminent attacks and preparations were underway weeks before November 13^th, including emergency meetings with CIA director John Brenanan, and unusual advanced preparation of first responders—who happened to be ready in Paris on November 13^th.

A massive cyberattack—one beyond the capabilities of the terrorists–took down French security systems prior to and during the incident.

French officials knew the attackers and were tracking them continuously for a significant period, yet did nothing to stop them.

From the orchestration and execution of the atrocities themselves, to the response, to the reaction, the signs of long planning, scripting, choreography, and calculation are evident.

There will be incompetence excuses (“we were caught off guard”), hopelessness and chaos excuses (“we cannot predict nor stop anything”), and other variations. But they fail to explain evidence to the contrary.

According to the CIA operatives, think tank “terrorism experts”, and other warmongering blowhards that spewed nonsense nonstop on CNN all day and all night following the Paris attacks, another “new normal” has been set.

All such brainwashing must be resisted.

The larger context must not be lost amidst chaos and panic.

It is the war itself—its architects as well as its murdering operatives—that must be condemned.

The killers who coldly executed innocent people acted on orders from handlers. The handlers themselves had handlers. And they in turn took orders from individuals occupying high positions of power. It is these individuals who must be identified and exposed; their war agenda resisted and stopped. For the sake of what is left of humanity.

Are the Paris terrorist attacks being used as a pretext and justification by France to intervene militarily in Syria in violation of international law.

According to French President François Hollande, the Paris terrorist attack was “prepared, organized and planned from outside the country by the Islamic State”, which has it’s command centres in Syria and Iraq. 

On Sunday, twelve French warplanes were dispatched on orders of President Hollande. Their target was Al-Raqqa, the so-called de facto capital of the Islamic State inside Northern Syria.

France is acting allegedly in “self defense”.

In liaison with the US -which has provided France with intelligence regarding ISIS targets– the French Air Force has initiated a series of bombing raids against ISIS terrorist positions in retribution for the alleged role of the Islamic State in the Paris terror attacks.

President Hollande is “Beating the Drums of War”. There is no evidence that the Paris terror attacks were coordinated out of Syria. Nor is there evidence that the Paris terrorist attacks constitute an “act of war” directed from abroad against France.

The airstrikes were carried out on Sunday, two days after the Paris attacks, some 20 bombs were reported to have been dropped on alleged terrorist positions.

Obama’s air campaign against ISIS is fake. This is not a war against the Islamic State, it is a war against Syria. The “war on terrorism” is a smokescreen.

According to the Independent (November 15): “Sunday’s bombing was the biggest French air raid that has taken place in Syria so far.” According to the French defence ministry, “the first target that the planes destroyed was a command post, which housed a recruitment centre and arms and munitions depot.”

What the reports fail to mention is that from the outset of Obama’s bombing campaign in August-September 2014, the US led coalition has  not bombed ISIS rebel positions.

Quite the opposite, the ISIS has been protected  by the Western Military alliance. The US led air raids have been used to channel weapons and ammunition to the terrorists.

Most of the press reports are based on information emanating from France’s Ministry of Defense. At the time of writing there is no firm independent confirmation that the French Air Force operating in liaison with the US has a meaningful way bombed ISIS positions in Raqqa.

The bombings are also for “domestic consumption”. They are used to harness social support for the State of Emergency, not to mention the suspension of civil liberties in the Paris metropolitan area.

Military Escalation in the Middle East

France’s Charles de Gaulle only aircraft carrier is slated to leave for the Mediterranean “to join the fight against the Islamic State in the region” on November 18.

Another terrorist attack in France, and another opportunity for moral signaling on social media and more self-righteous bloviating for the media operatives at CNN. But before everyone gets ahead of themselves and dives head first into the pre-fabricated media narratives and the trendy, therapeutic social media #hashtags and Facebook profile picture filters, now is a good time to stop for a few moments and take a serious look at some of the news items surrounding the the Paris terrorist attacks that probably won’t get prime time on Anderson Cooper 360.

By now many of us will have already heard that the passport of one of the alleged attackers has been magically recovered [1], but what other chestnuts are waiting to be discovered behind the shifting, incoherent mainstream narrative?

The appearance of a certain Dr. Patrick Pelloux on the scene certainly should peak our curiosity. Pelloux is now an old hat when it comes to terrorist attacks in France, having previously been a “survivor” of the Charlie Hebdo shootings earlier this year. This time around Dr. Pelloux, already dubbed a hero by the media, was on the scene of the attacks to supposedly acting in his medical capacity as a ‘first responder’.

Now, his appearance may not be all that interesting in and of itself, but the comments he gave to the French media certainly are. Though a self-described leftist, Pelloux gave some vague statements that seemed to indicate his desire to see the French national security state expanded, with presumably more powers being granted to the police and the intelligence services to surveil and detain suspects.

The fact that these ever more expansive state powers never seem to stop the threats they’re supposed to seems lost on Mr. Pelloux. But even more interesting are comments Pelloux made on France Info radio, admitting that a “multi-site attack exercise” (i.e. a drill) was already ongoing prior to the attacks.

[correction; the multi-site terrorist drill was undertaken under the auspices of the Ile de France emergency services (SAMU) involving medical personnel, first responders, fireman, police. it was not a military exercise, GR editor]

This is the same scenario on display during the London 7/7 bombings which transpired on the same day and hit the exact same targets as those being ‘practiced’ in that government-sanctioned terrorism drill. Who knew?

Listen to Patrick Pelloux’s incredible slip here:

Sadly, we cannot expect the crack journalists at CNN, MSNBC, BBC, The Guardian, or France 24 to follow up on the claim made by Mr. Pelloux.

The continuous presence of drills along side terrorist attacks and mass shootings is as interesting to the mainstream media as the tuna sandwich you ate for lunch yesterday.

But moving on from that, the details surrounding the alleged suspects is something that can also shed some light on the nature of this event. If you guessed that those fingered for the attack (all now conveniently dead) were known to French and other European domestic intelligence agencies then you would be right.

According to news reports, one of the identified suspects was a 30-year-old French national that was “known to police” for his links to radical Islamic circles. What exactly did police know and what steps did they take, or fail to take, based on their knowledge of the suspects’ radical activities? Answers are not likely to be forthcoming. But it’s important to note, that in all too many previous attacks or attempted attacks involving radical Muslims – from the staged spectacle at Garland, Texas last spring, to the Charlie Hebdo shootings last January, the suspects were well known to domestic intelligence agencies and police, a telltale sign of a false flag operation according to writer Jay Dyer.

Finally, it should be noted that approximately two weeks before last Friday’s terrorist attacks in Paris, CIA director John Brennan met with France’s security chief Bernard Bajolet, alongside former ranking spooks from Britain and Israel, for a forum discussing cyber and “homeland” security. It may very well be a coincidence in timing, but it would certainly be interesting to know what conversation went on between the two men in private.

Now the significance of any one of the items mentioned here is certainly up for debate, and certainly as new details come out over the few days and weeks we may be able to get a better idea of what transpired last Friday. But a critical debate is exactly what we won’t get, at least not from the mainstream media and political establishment, which will be more interested in peddling cynical narratives that serve their particular agendas relating to domestic surveillance and theirforeign policy shenanigans toward Syria.

[1] Greek authorities are reporting that the Syrian passport allegedly found at one of the attack sites was used by a Syrian refugee who passed through Greece on his way into Western Europe. If one of the Paris suspects is identified as having come with the recent and highly politicized ‘Migrant Crisis’ wave of Middle Eastern refugees and migrants into Europe this will have a serious political impact on countries like Germany and Sweden where leaders have enacted increasingly unpopular policies of resettling large numbers of migrants in their countries. Poland’s incoming president as already cited the Paris attacks as justification to refuse EU-quotas for refugee resettlement.

In recent months, U.S. and South Korean military officials have signed agreements that heighten the risk of conflict on the Korean Peninsula. In June, the two sides established a new operations plan named OPLAN 5015. For the most part, details of the plan remain under wraps, but the little information that has been revealed is sufficient to raise concern.

OPLAN 5015 is said to lay out the approach the U.S. and South Korea will take in limited war scenarios, and calls for a preemptive strike on North Korea, taking out its strategic targets and launching “decapitation” raids to kill North Korean leaders. There is an apparent contradiction in the use of the term ‘preemptive’ as a response to conflict, and implies that the aim is to carry out attacks that are out of proportion to the triggering event.

Just how much or how little it would take to put OPLAN 5015 into effect is not publicly known. Would an exchange of fire between North Korean and South Korean vessels be enough to set events into motion? Or what about an incident such as took place in 2010 when artillery shells hit Yeonpyeong Island?

Regardless, OPLAN 5015 is a disturbing recipe for an escalation of conflict. Indeed, it is impossible to imagine North Korea submitting to the assassination of its leaders and the destruction of military sites without responding in kind, with full-scale war ensuing.

Asahi Shimbun reports that sources indicated the plan “deals with surprise military provocations by Pyongyang through the use of its special forces.” That seems rather a narrow focus to develop a major operations plan around, and an unnamed source told Hankyoreh that Oplan 5015 “outlines how U.S. and South Korean forces would operate during the outbreak of war or some other crisis.” That wording, particularly the last three words, would appear to indicate that the plan has much broader coverage than reported by Asahi Shimbun.

The 47^th annual Security Consultative Meeting was held on November 2 in Seoul, where U.S. and South Korean military leaders ratified their plans. The two sides warned that “any North Korean aggression or provocation is not to be tolerated,” and agreed to implement the 4D Operational Concept, which stands for detect, disrupt, destroy, and detect.

The 4D Operational Concept relies upon South Korea’s Kill Chain, which is an integrated system for tracking and carrying out preemptive strikes on North Korean missile sites, based on the perception of a possible North Korean missile launch. The Kill Chain is slated for completion about a decade from now, after which the plan will be fully capable in operational terms.

OPLAN 5015 is said to adopt a far more aggressive approach than OPLAN 5027, which it replaces. According to one source, “As far as I know, the new plan seeks for a victory in the early stage to keep war damage in the South to a minimum.” That objective is based on the questionable presupposition that assassinating North Korea’s leaders would lead to a quick surrender. That is a thin premise on which to gamble hundreds of thousands of lives.

In the context of hostile U.S. policy, in which any engagement with North Korea is ruled out, and the only language Washington can speak is that of sanctions and threats, the adoption of OPLAN 5015 and the 4D Operational Concept risks regional stability in Northeast Asia. It should also be recalled that in 1993-1994 and again in 2006, before he became U.S. Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter advocated attacking North Korea. Given the proclivity of U.S. leaders to condemn nearly every North Korean action as a “provocation,” the unanswered question is what level of ‘provocation’ would trigger a preemptive attack on North Korea and plunge the Korean Peninsula into war?

Gregory Elich is on the Board of Directors of the Jasenovac Research Institute and the Advisory Board of the Korea Policy Institute. He is a columnist for Voice of the People, and one of the co-authors of Killing Democracy: CIA and Pentagon Operations in the Post-Soviet Period, published in the Russian language.

On Saturday morning, the Syrian Arab Army’s 105th Brigade of the Republican Guard – in coordination with the National Defense Forces (NDF) of Damascus City and the Palestine Liberation Army (PLA) – continued their large-scale offensive in the East Ghouta region of rural Damascus, targeting this Jaysh Al-Islam stronghold at the Marj Al-Sultan Military Airbase.

The Republican Guard and their allies began their assault at the southern perimeter of the Helicopter Airfield inside the Marj Al-Sultan Military Airbase, striking the Islamist rebels from Jaysh Al-Islam (Army of Islam) with a powerful ground and aerial assault.

Accordng to a military source with the Republican Guard, the Syrian Armed Forces imposed full control over the strategic helicopter airfield that is situated to the south of the Marj Al-Sultan village, following an intense series of firefights with the Islamist rebels from Jaysh Al-Islam.

The military source added that Jaysh Al-Islam was fighting alongside the Syrian Al-Qaeda group “Jabhat Al-Nusra” and a number of small Islamist rebel groups that are operating in the East Ghouta region of the Rif Dimashq Governorate.

With helicopter airfield under their control, the Syrian Armed Forces are on the brink of capturing the entire military airbase; this would mark the first time since the summer of 2012 that the pro-government forces have advanced this deep in the Marj Al-Sultan Military Airbase.

If the Marj Al-Sultan Military Airbase is captured the Syrian Armed Forces, they will be in position to attack several untouched villages in the East Ghouta.

France is at war! – Exclaimed President Hollande several times in each of his three what appeared like scripted speeches he gave within 12 hours after the attack. He knew the names of the attackers and where they were from, while police was still struggling to put the puzzles together, and news reporting was sketchy, confusing and chaotic. He accused Daesch (the Islamic State) as the perpetrator before anyone claimed responsibility for the attack. That supposed ‘claim’ from ISIS came much later in the course of Saturday morning, the morning after.

France is at war – words reminiscent of George Bush and his clan after 9/11. President Hollande declared a state of emergency not unlike Bush’s state of emergency after 9/11 – and the new Homeland Security / Patriot Act, waiting in the drawers to be quickly ratified after 9/11. Hollande also decreed three days of national mourning.

Similar rules are in place in France since this blood-soaked Saturday morning – a swat of civil rights suspensions, including searches without warrants, curfew, government control of media, increased surveillance, strict border controls, road blocks and traffic control, suppression of protests and manifestations – and more.

Early Saturday afternoon, the media reported that a Syrian passport was found at one of the shooting places. This was a false flag give-away. As people started making the connection with the ‘lost ID’ of one of the ‘terrorists’ in the Charlie Hebdo get-away car, and the intact Saudi passport in the rubbles of the 9/11 twin-towers, and in an attempt to save some of the credibility of these made-up stories, the Syrian passport trove was downgraded as having been found on the body of a Syrian refugee.

Later in the evening, the police also suitably traced three of the 7 killed terrorists to cells in Belgium. Similarly, Charlie Hebdo ‘terrorists’ also had apparently connections to Belgian Jihadists; later the links even stretched further north to Denmark, another right wing, neoliberally managed country. The European Union with the non-transparent, secretive European Commission is headquartered in Brussels, where a clamp-down of liberties and people’s demonstrations, especially anti-TTIP protests, will soon be needed. Let’s see where the next links to Saturday’s attacks will suddenly appear.

Hollande called for revenge. France is strong. France may be hurt, but never conquered. France will fight back even stronger than before. Hollande at his best, blood revenge.

The western world is living in a blood cult. Killing is the order of the day. Blood must flow.

Is the French President seriously hoping that blood revenge will bring peace? That it will increase security in France, or throughout the world for that matter? –

Revenge is but business for the war industry – never mind innocent human lives lost, and human misery caused by the seeded wars and conflicts, all for greed and power – and paradoxically under the pretext of seeking peace. How brainwashed must people be to believe it and go along with it.

Back to France and Paris. France is at war, is not an insignificant statement by the President. It implies that France can retaliate. What that means is that France, or any other NATO member for that matter, can call on NATO for its defence (http://thesaker.is/a-warning-about-the-paris-terror-attacks/).

This act of terror of 13 November could be a precursor to NATO intervening in Syria and the Middle-East at large, leading to a confrontation with Russia.

It might be the beginning of WWIII – being played out primarily in the Middle-East, to spare Europe from a third devastation in the span of 100 years, though that is an illusion in the age of nuclear arms.

Europe is needed by the Washington-Wall Street led financial and industrial empire as a trading partner – TTIP – and as a stooge for promoting the master’s agenda around the world. The suddenly ‘found’ Syrian passport clearly indicates the target for a possible NATO intervention.

Incidentally, as reported by RT on 13 November, France’s only aircraft carrier and Europe’s largest, the Charles de Gaulle, is scheduled to leave Toulon on November 18 for the Persian Gulf.

“The aircraft carrier will enable us to be more efficient in coordination with our allies”, said François Hollande, and it will “bolster Paris’ firepower in the region amid international efforts to launch Syrian peace talks.”

(https://www.rt.com/news/321873-france-aircraft-carrier-Syris/).

Just the right approach for peace: ‘bolstering fire power’ – in a lead-up to ‘peace talks’.

No wonder, with so much demonstrated aggression by France towards Syria, and now also Iraq – and certainly everywhere the Washington masters point their blood-finger – that people in the Middle-East are getting angry – and, according to Washington, Jihadists take it a step further, namely to retaliate on innocent French people. Innocent are also the bombarded populations in the Middle-East – in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine – and the list is almost endless, who are mercilessly slaughtered and their livelihoods destroyed by the criminal alliance within which French Rafale and Mirage fighters combat.

Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad in a brief interview after the Paris attacks, after expressing his condolences to the French people, he appropriately said that such terror is what Syria is living day-by day.

http://thesaker.is/president-bashar-al-assad-on-paris-attacks-interview-english-subtitles/

Nevertheless, when such well organized and superbly coordinated terror attacks occur, one should first ask, whom do they serve and why. Cui Bono?

Of course, it could be a blowback by Jihadist warriors for France’s continuous aggression in the Middle East. France was first along with the UK in allying with Washington in fighting the Assad regime in Syria – and shortly after the Charlie Hebdo attack in January 2015, the French air force was joining the US and the Brits in Iraq. Earlier France had sent troops to Mali and Central Africa – responsible for killing hundreds if not thousands of innocent people.

In the meantime, it has become known that at least since mid-August there were warnings that a public place, like a music hall, might be singled out for a terrorist attack. Early October this year, Paris Match repeatedly warned from a 9/11 French-style

(http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-paris-terrorist-attacks-911-french-style-le-11-septembre-a-la-francaise/).

This leads to conclude that the French authorities were at least warned. Now, the police say some of the dead terrorists were known to them, had a police record – but not necessarily linked to jihadism. The father and brother of one of the dead had been arrested. What for? – How phony does this sound? – People wake up! – Please!

They are brainwashing us into fear – ‘if we don’t protect you by increased control over your movements, you’ll risk more attacks, more bloodshed.’ – That’s what they are saying. And People go along – worse, they are even grateful for more ‘protection’. It’s the typical ‘Shock Doctrine’ moment, when authorities can do whatever they want, taking people’s civil rights away, even their human rights – and when finally we discover that there are almost none left – it’s too late. Such shocks are often provoked (false flags) so that civil rights infringing measures can be easily implemented without popular resistance. The Patriot Act and its various updates since 9/11 have erased some 90% of citizen’s civil rights in the United States.

And why is that necessary in Europe? – Because much worse may be coming. People may wake up, take to the streets, making implementation of dictatorial measures more complicated, like the secretly negotiated TTIP (Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Pact) – which would turn Europe into a wasteland of educated serfs for the corporate and financial elite, directed by Zionist-Washington, surveyed and enforced by its army and NATO. A European Patriot Act might prevent such troubles.
—

A peace-hungry (versus blood-thirsty) President Hollande could come forward turning the knife around – seeking reflection on France’s aggressive actions, on France’s vassalage vis-à-vis Washington. During the three days of morning such reflection could be promoted with the French people. Surely, France has plenty of intellectuals who could organize and lead groups of people to foster dialogue and discussions about France’s – and Europe’s for that matter – political stance in the world, about her interference in other countries’ sovereignty.

Instead of seeking more blood, Hollande could take the lead in setting up a European panel for discussion and reflection with common people participating – a step towards the old concept of Democracy.

If Mr. Hollande were serious about peace and security, he could use this attack on Paris and play a pivotal role in Europe in helping to bring these senseless and criminal wars and Jihadist terror to an end – marking a European difference against the will of Washington and NATO. He could help give back Europe its lost dignity, autonomy and national sovereignties – which the unelected Brussels clan gave away – or sold out – to the Anglo-Saxon masters that manage the One World Order on behalf of corporate finance and industrial conglomerates. – It’s never too late. Peace is patient – to a point.

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

The only aircraft carrier in the French Navy’s fleet, the Charles de Gaulle, will leave for the Persian Gulf on November 18, to join the fight against Islamic State in the region, Paris has confirmed.

We are bringing to the attention of our readers four important events which preceded the Paris attacks.

1. The French media had already predicted a terrorist attack more than a month before the actual occurrence.

2. The head of France’s external intelligence was in Washington for consultations with CIA Chief John Brennan two weeks before the attacks.

3. On November 5 (one week before the Paris terrorist attacks), the Council of Ministers announced its decision to send France’s aircraft carrier group Charles de Gaulle to the Middle East, with a mandate to “fight against the Islamic state”.

4. On the morning of November 13, an emergency scenario of a multi-site terrorist attack is conducted in Paris, involving first responders, medical personnel, police and firemen. 

At this early stage, it is impossible to confirm whether these events bear a relationship to the dramatic events of November 13th.  What they do convey, however, is that France was on a “war footing” against the Islamic State prior to the events of November 13th.

War preparations allegedly against the Islamic State were ongoing prior to the official announcement by president Hollande that the Paris terrorist attacks of November 13 constituted “an act of war” against the French Republic.  

The decision to dispatch the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier together with its GAN carrier group to the Middle East is of utmost significance. It constitutes a formidable force which will be joining its US and coalition partners. 

This deployment of France’s naval and air power points to a strategy of military escalation directed against Syria and its allies. It is not intended to go after the Islamic State, which is protected by the US led coalition.  

France claim’s the right to defend itself, intimating that the French Republic has been attacked from outside the country.

Are the Paris terrorist attacks being used as a pretext and justification to intervene militarily in Syria in violation of international law. According to French President François Hollande, the terrorist attack was “prepared, organized and planned from outside the country by the Islamic State, but with help from inside.” 

1. October 2: Paris Media Predicts a French Style 9/11, “un 11 septembre à la française”.

The threat is real, according to Judge Trévédic in an interview with Paris Match.

 ”The attacks in France will be on  a scale comparable to 9/11″

“Intelligence services fear a 9/11 French Style”

”impossible a dejouer”, suggesting that French intelligence is inept and unable to prevent a forthcoming terrorist attack, if and when it occurs

2. October 27:  CIA Director John Brennan receives French External Intelligence (DGSE) Director Bernard Bajolet in Washington

On their Agenda: How to Fight the Islamic State, including Threats to National Security emanating from the Islamic State

News reports confirm that two weeks before the November 13 attacks, Bajolet arrived in Washington “for urgent meetings with his counterparts at the CIA and other agencies”. The meetings pertained to the war in Syria and the “threat from outside” emanating from the Islamic State.

CIA director, John O. Brennan and DGSE director Bernard Bajolet also participated in a panel (October 27) at George Washington University. The Panel was part of a Conference sponsored by the CIA and George Washington University.

In his presentation at George Washington University, Bajolet pointed to the “inside threat” of young radicalized Frenchmen, while intimating there was also:

“a threat from outside…  either through terrorist actions which are planned [and] ordered from outside or only through fighters coming back to our countries.”

In the wake of the Paris attacks, President Hollande –who had been briefed by Bajolet– went on record: “This is an Act of War” -i.e. the Islamic State is waging war on France. Hollande’s words were very similar to those of Bajolet. According to president François Hollande, the Paris terrorist attack was “prepared, organized and planned from outside the country by the Islamic State, but with help from inside.”

3.  November 5: Council of Ministers decides to Dispatch Charles de Gaulle Aircraft Carrier Group to the Middle East to Fight the Islamic State

Announced on November 5 (one week before the Paris attacks), the Council of Ministers confirmed that France had dispatched the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier to the Middle East to “Fight Daesch (aka the Islamic State).  France’s Charles de Gaulle only aircraft carrier is slated to leave for the Mediterranean “to join the fight against the Islamic State in the region” on November 18.

Patrick Pelloux revealed on national radio on Saturday that SAMU conducted a “multi-site” counterterrorism emergency exercise in Paris on the same day as the Paris attacks.

It should be emphasized that this was not a military style exercise, it involved first responders, medical personnel and police. 

He said that the Paris emergency services were so well prepared, because “by chance” they had been planning for a similar scenario to what actually ocurred.

TV Broadcast

I have received a report from European security that there was a massive cyber attack on French systems 48 hours prior to and during the Paris attacks.

Amongst other things, the attack took down the French mobile data network and blinded police surveillance. The attack was not a straightforward DDOS attack but a sophisticated attack that targeted a weakness in infrastructure hardware.

Such an attack is beyond the capability of most organizations and requires capability that is unlikely to be in ISIL’s arsenal. An attack on this scale is difficult to pull off without authorities getting wind of it. The coordination required suggests state involvement.

It is common for people with no experience in government to believe that false flag attacks are not possible, because they think the entire government would have to be involved and not everyone would go along with it. Someone would talk. However, if the report I have received is correct, hardly anyone has to be involved, and security forces are simply disabled.

Remember the reports that during 9/11, a simulation of the actual events that were occuring was being conducted, thus confusing responsible parties about the reality.

I am unable to reveal any further information.

If security experts find the information credible, they should direct their inquiries to the French authorities.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books areThe Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West and How America Was Lost.

Patrick Pelloux revealed on national radio on Saturday that a  “multi-site” emergency exercise was held in Paris on the same day as the Paris attacks on November 13.

[This exercise pertains to an emergency scenario of a terrorist attack. It involves first responders, police, emergency services and medical personnel. Organized by SAMU. It is not a military exercise, GR ed.] 

He said that the Paris emergency services were so well prepared, because “by chance” they had been planning for a similar scenario.

Transcript:

“By chance”, (le hasard a fait”) in the morning at the Paris SAMU (EMT), a multi-site attack exercise had been planned.”

“So we were prepared. What needs to be known is there was a mobilisation of police forces, firemen, EMTs, associations who came [to participate] and we tried to save as many people as possible.”

TV Broadcast

A Spanish court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other senior Israeli officials for their role in the 2010 attack on the Freedom Flotilla heading to Gaza, local media reported on Friday.

Euro-Mid Observer for Human Rights said that the Supreme Court in Madrid ordered the arrest of ex-foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman, ex-defence minister Ehud Barak, the then-deputy prime ministers Moshe Ya’alon and Eli Yishai, and former state minister Benny Begin, as well as Netanyahu. It also ordered the arrest of Israeli Navy Commander Eliezer Marom, who is among the co-defendants found guilty by the Spanish judge.

According to YaniSafak website, the investigation into this case was launched after Spanish activists on board the main vessel in the flotilla, the Turkish-registered Mavi Marmara, filed a criminal complaint against Israeli officials involved in the raid. YaniSafak said that in June a Spanish court dropped a five-year-old investigation into the raid, but it left open the possibility that the case could be reopened if the specified Israeli officials visited Spain.

Although the case was sent to the Supreme Court, continuous Israeli pressure slowed down the investigations. Nevertheless, said the news website, the judge has sent the list of defendants to the Spanish police, demanding the start of the legal process to issue a red notice for their arrest.

Israeli naval commandos killed nine Turkish peace activists, including one with dual American citizenship, and injured dozens more on board the Gaza-bound Mavi Marmara. Spanish activists also took part in the flotilla, which was attempting to break Israel’s illegal blockade of the territory.

Finally, events have converged to mobilize our new leaders—young Americans. Who are students but the very women and men who will lead this country spiritually, economically, politically? We press them into college to imbibe progressive ideals, to hone their communication skills, to learn about justice (and injustice), to build enduring personal networks—i.e. to prepare for active participation in society. Hopefully while bettering themselves they enhance our culture, our government, and our values?

Yet look what this generation is faced with:–years of student debt, weary-part-time-underpaid adjunct lecturers, increasing dormitory fees, skyrocketing book prices, administrations that protect campus rapists, brutish fraternity practices, and racial bias overseen my presidents with million dollar salaries.

Some say the current uprisings on campuses beginning at University of Missouri were aroused in part by the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, and the Black Lives Matter movement in cities across the nation. Thankfully.

Who better to have led this revolt than Black football heroes who for too long have been compromised by glory and monetary rewards for athletic achievements? (“Our star basketball team is multi-racial; that should be sufficient.”) Whatever the inspiration, voices of students in the forefront of political demands for change are overdue. When can we remember the last campus-based revolt? (It was another generation when it probably focused on overseas wars that overshadow daily injustices at home.)

$1.2 trillion is said to be the total accumulated student debt in the USA today. Without this staggering statistic, we live personal stories and conditions in our own family, our students and classmates, our co-workers and their children. On the one hand we learn about abuse on campus and wild student behavior on spring-break; on the other side, there’s the single mother holding down a job while she pursues her degree. This is American university culture! So is the common practice of underpaid college workers–adjunct teachers and other employees. Many professors who enjoy abundant privileges ignore staff inequalities around them just as they overlook racist practices that today’s students are bringing to public attention due to their raised intolerance of innuendo which, like as gender and religious insults, is simply unacceptable. Thus their multiple demands.

The The case of Steven Salaita who was denied his appointment at U. Illinois ended in success with a substantial financial settlement. It’s a new victory in an American community of scholars who stood by as many more colleagues saw contracts cancelled because their political beliefs were seen as a threat to university vested interests and the status quo.

The current campus uprisings are significant because these youths are exercising nascent leadership, also because the university had perhaps lost its place in American society as the arena where ideals of equality and free speech are held most sacred. Where else do we expect vigorous debate if not here; where else do we expect parity if not here; where can we challenge the status quo if not here? Where else should social media be an effective political tool? Where can we expect hopes to be planted and nourished if not here?

Finally, although it’s not been cited as factoring into these revolts, there’s the current national election campaign underway. Surely that ‘circus’ disturbs many would-be first time voters anticipating next November. Either they are watching in disgust or cynicism and thinking: “None of these guys is going to stop police violence, cancel our debts or assure us jobs. Let’s move it ourselves”. The November 12 nationwide march is well timed.

The White House correspondent for French television network Canal+, Laura Haim, reported an interesting tidbit during a live report with MSNBC’s Brian Williams Friday evening.

Haim stated that Central Intelligence Agency director, John O. Brennan, recently met with his counterpart, French intelligence (DGSE) director Bernard Bajolet.

The French equivalent of MI6 and CIA is the Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure. See: CIA-GW Intelligence Conference: Panel on The Shared 21st Century International Mission –GW Center for Cyber and Homeland Security 29 Oct 2015 Panel on “The Shared 21st Century International Mission” featuring CIA Director John Brennan, former UK MI6 Chief John Sawers, Director of the French Directorate for External Security Bernard Bajolet, and former Israeli National Security Advisor Yaacov Amidror.

Held as part of the 2nd Annual Ethos and Profession of Intelligence Conference, co-hosted by the Central Intelligence Agency and the George Washington University. Held on October 27, 2015.

Also, see: “Le Moyen-Orient d’avant ne reviendra pas” 28 octobre 2015

Le chef du renseignement extérieur français, Bernard Bajolet, a laissé entendre que des pays comme l’Irak ou la Syrie ne retrouveraient jamais leur ancienne physionomie. “Le Moyen-Orient que nous avons connu est fini et je doute qu’il revienne”, a déclaré, en anglais, le directeur de la DGSE (Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure), dans une conférence mardi sur le renseignement à laquelle participait également le directeur de la CIA John Brennan.

“This is not my victory, this is your victory.” This sentence uttered by the elated Trudeau on the election night is not a compliment to the millions of Canadians who voted strategically to bring about change but a call for continuing engagement. Civil society’s engagement must not end in the wake of the Liberals’ victory and the swearing in of a truly rainbow cabinet. It must remain consistent throughout the new government’s mandate. Trudeau articulated the simple truth that the government needs civil society to pursue change in the face of powerful opposition.

Canadians have different, sometimes divergent and at times opposing interests. For example, the top 1% of our compatriots, who appropriate over one third of the country’s cumulative income, promote policies that are likely to clash with the aspirations of our middle class, let alone of our poor (the word rarely uttered by our politicians, including Trudeau). All these groups provide their input and lobby the government in order to advance their interests.

Yet, the playing field is not level. Those with greater resources maintain professional lobbyists. Their work does not begin, nor stop on election night. Civil society cannot compete with their financial and personnel resources. But it can exercise pressure on the government through a range of other peaceful means, such as mobilization of citizens and an established capacity to ensure transparency of government actions. After all, the top 1% and the rest of us want to preserve social peace and forestall endemic violence plaguing more unequal societies.

It is in this context that citizens must redefine our country’s governance. The Liberal mandate promises to meet their deepest needs. But even with the best of sincere intentions, the government must be helped to make its mandate come true. François Hollande, Barak Obama, Alexis Tsipras – were all elected thanks to a widespread yearning for change. All three could not overcome the redoubtable forces of corporate community and transnational financial capital. Whatever their progressive credentials and discourse, their policies have come to resemble those of their right-wing predecessors.

One of us was in Greece on the eve of the September polls. Tsipras, elected earlier in the year to protect the country from foreign financial interests, had by then given in to the immense pressure from the creditors who imposed drastic austerity measures on his compatriots and severe limitations on his government’s independence. “What sense does it make to vote again if promises cannot be kept anyway?” we asked a Greek colleague. “Oh, we just love voting. It is like routing for the favourite soccer team: one is so happy when it wins even though it has no effect on our lives”.

Trudeau’s victory will not breed this kind of cynicism if civil society promptly uses the opportunity of the change of government to engage with it constructively and on a regular basis. The Liberal cabinet wants to put an end to the previous government’s practice of excessive control and opacity. This opens doors in the halls of power. The question is who is going to enter those doors: only corporate lobbyists or activists of civil society as well. These doors may not remain open for long, and it is essential for the middle and poor classes, the majority of our country’s citizenry, to make their voice heard insistently and clearly, to formulate and table constructive proposals and to follow through to their implementation.

If, in four years from now, the control of the social and economic agenda is, once again, in the hands of the corporate community, then our collective electoral efforts will have been in vain. If that happens, we cannot chastise our government; we will have only ourselves to blame.

The authors are, respectively, former CEO of the Canadian Council for International Cooperation and Oxfam Quebec and Professor of History at the Université de Montréal

Israel murders, brutalizes, mass imprisons and tortures Palestinians daily – ignored by Western and Israeli media, blaming victims for state-sponsored high crimes. 

Parisians justifiably mourn their dead. Worldwide sympathy supports their family members and an aggrieved nation.

Palestinians suffer isolated on their own. The world community ignores their horrific ordeal. Jewish rights alone matter.

Since October 1, Israel killed 86 Palestinians, the vast majority extrajudicially executed in cold blood. Clear evidence exposed the myth of knife-wielding terrorists. Over 8,000 Palestinians were injured, scores arrested daily, children treated as brutally as adults, women the same as men.

Israel is guilty of premeditated state-sponsored terrorism. Soldiers and police use live fire against defenseless people, wanting long denied freedom, resisting largely with their bare hands against one of the world’s most ruthless regimes, generously supported by Washington, both nations partnering in each other’s high crimes.

Multiple independent daily reports indict Israel for state-sponsored terrorism. Unaccountability denies Palestinians justice they deserve.

The world community stands in solidarity with Parisians, mourning for their loss – at the same time, letting Israel continue murdering and brutalizing Palestinians with impunity. Longstanding torment of millions of defenseless people goes largely ignored.

Palestinian suffering is longstanding – since losing 78% of their nation in 1948, the rest in June 1967, suffering horrifically under Israel’s repressive boot, obligated the way Jefferson explained to resist for freedom.

Parisians deserve world support in the aftermath of Friday attacks. Palestinians deserve it far more after nearly 70 years of tyrannical Israeli oppression.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at[email protected].

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

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

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

The UAF is continuing its rotation and heavy weapons withdrawal from the front line in anticipation of the winter. Thus the UAF “lost” a T-64B tank after the truck towing the tank-bearing flatbed trailer broke down. The tank sat in the middle of Kharkov entirely unattended for several hours before another truck showed up and towed it away.

We reported last week that the Ukrainian military had, by the most optimistic estimate, 19 operational Su-25 attack aircraft. Now that number has been reduced to 18 following the crash of an Su-25 near Dnepropetrovsk.

Ukrainian authorities are still trying to come to grips with the causes of ammunition storage explosion in Svatovo reported last week. The military prosecutor general Anatoliy Matios believes the cause was carelessness of the officers responsible for the facility …while the occupied Lugansk Region governor Georgiy Tuka believes it was a terrorist attack.

Well, why not both? A terrorist attack by the careless officers responsible for the facility?

There are also news concerning the Ukrainian naval forces.

The country has received the first new-construction naval vessel since it became “independent” a quarter of a century ago. The ship, to be sure, is not overly impressive–it is the Gyurza-M 51-ton coastal/riverine gunboat apparently armed with two weapon modules sporting a 30mm automatic cannon and anti-tank guided missile launchers. The vessel’s construction actually began during the rule of President Yanukovych.

Meanwhile, the Malyshev plant in Kharkov is officially hoping to win the Pakistani contract for some 300 MBTs, the slow pace of deliveries of Oplot-M tanks to Thailand (average of 6 per year!) could well become a major problem for Malyshev’s further export prospects. Furthermore, there are credible reports that, following the scandal with the sub-standard armor plating on armored vehicles supplied by Ukraine to Iraq, Thailand requested that its Oplots be made with Russian armored steel.

The number of UAF soldiers who have defected to Novorossia is continuing to grow, and the defectors are now engaging in media operations to try to convince soldiers still in UAF’s ranks to follow in their footsteps.

This report would not be complete without providing some idea as to the propaganda to which the Ukrainian public is being exposed to. In a recent UNIAN report, a Ukrainian soldier was reported heavily wounded while…fighting in the vicinity of the Donetsk Airport. Evidently the fact the airport and all the adjacent territory were liberated by Novorossia’s armed forces some 9 months ago still has not fully sunk in…

The news from the “western front” are also fairly dismal. Even though the joint US-Ukrainian training mission that began back in April of 2015 has just concluded, it received practically no coverage within the Ukrainian media. Likewise the US has not trumpeted this huge “breakthrough” in bilateral relations.

The reasons for this interesting development are open to speculation. In all likelihood, the US side was not overly impressed with the quality of Ukrainian participants and has decided not to continue the practice which is very costly to the US and is yielding no practical results.

Instead, US “aid” programs to Ukraine seem to be mainly oriented to benefit US defense contractors, not the UAF. Since the Humvees supplied to Ukraine by the US now turned out to be over 20 years old, the US is now offering Ukraine a modernization program whose cost would be comparable to the value of the vehicles when they were brand new! Naturally, the modernization program would come out of the US aid budget for Ukraine and would be spent entirely on US defense firms qualified to repair these elderly vehicles.

Visit us: http://southfront.org/

Follow us on Social Media:
http://google.com/+SouthfrontOrgNews
https://www.facebook.com/SouthFrontENTwo
https://twitter.com/southfronteng

Our Infopartners:
http://www.sott.net/
http://thesaker.is
http://fortruss.blogspot.com
http://in4s.net
http://www.globalresearch.ca/

Imagine that you despised your brother-in-law and wanted to kill him. But you didn’t have the guts to do it yourself so you hired a hit-man to do the job for you.

Would you still be guilty of murder?

You’re darn right, you would be. So let’s apply this same rule to US foreign policy: Would it be just as wrong to invade a country, kill its people and topple its government with militants that you funded, armed and trained as it would be with your own US troops?

Yep, it sure would be. So while some people might think that it was smarter for Obama to use a proxy-army in Syria instead of US soldiers, morally or legally speaking, there’s really no difference between what he did and what Bush did in Iraq. A US invasion is a US invasion. Period. It doesn’t matter if you use for-hire killers or your own guys. It’s all the same. Obama is just as guilty as Bush.

Why does it matter?

It matters because Obama’s Syrian policy has resulted in the deaths of 250,000 people and created 11 million refugees. That’s more refugees than Iraq. And the funny thing is, the media doesn’t even talk about it, in fact, there’s not one major media outlet in the entire country that has stated what everyone knows to be the obvious truth; that the United States is 100 percent responsible for the refugee crisis. 100 percent! Assad had nothing to do with it. US policy and our buck-passing president are entirely to blame.

The point is, the Democrats pursue the same policies as the GOP with some minor-tweaking at the edges. So if the hard-charging, but dimwitted Republicans decide to drag the country to war on a pack of lies, then the shifty Dems will try to be smarter about it; they’ll try to micromanage the public relations, preempt antiwar marches in US cities and avoid US casualties at all cost. Obama has succeeded in all of these things. There’s nobody in the streets protesting, the media has convinced most people that Syria is in the throes of a civil war, and there have been no flag-draped coffins returning to Andover Airbase because their are no US boots on the ground.  For all practical purposes, the Democrats have created our first completely invisible war. That’s quite an accomplishment, don’t you think?

The only glitch is that, after 4 years, Obama’s plan for toppling Bashar al Assad has failed. True, he’s destroyed the world’s oldest civilization and condemned its people to a hardscrabble existence for the next 20 years or so, but he’s failed in his primary objectives; to remove Assad, partition the country, and secure the territory he needs for vital pipeline corridors. So, you see, all the sneaky, underhanded methods the Democrats have used to secretly prosecute their war on Syria have backfired because the US is going to lose the war anyway.

Why is the US going to lose the war?

Because the Russian-led coalition has stopped Washington dead-in-its-tracks and sent the terrorist vermin fleeing for cover, that’s why.

On Tuesday, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and fighters from the feared Lebanese national militia, Hezbollah,  recaptured  the strategic Kuweires military airbase in North Syria killing hundreds of ISIS terrorists and liberating 250 Syrian soldiers who had been holding out at the base for more than two and a half years. The battle was downplayed in the western media mainly because it represents a critical turning point in the conflict. The Russian-led coalition is now the drivers seat while the “US-backed” jihadis are on the run.   The war’s momentum has totally shifted in Putin’s favor which means that Putin’s going to win and Obama’s going to lose.

Kuweires is Syria’s Stalingrad, the famous WW 2 siege which lasted from August 1942 to February 1943 when the German Wehrmacht was repelled by the ferocious Red Army in the largest and bloodiest battle in the history of warfare. While the scale of Kuweires is smaller by many orders of magnitude, it’s importance can’t be overstated. It wasn’t ISIS that was defeated at Kuweires; it was US foreign policy, a policy which has reduced a large swathe of the planet, extending from North Africa, across the Middle East and into Central Asia, into smoldering rubble. Kuweires was a key node in Washington’s plan to topple Assad and plunge Syria in failed-state anarchy. That strategy has now been rolled back, not by people waving signs in the streets or politicians appealing for peace and sanity, or diplomats at the UN “talking shop” who have become the de facto rubber stamp for US aggression. No. US policy was rolled back by Russian warplanes, heavy artillery, armored vehicles and highly-motivated, stiff-neck fighting grunts who put their country before their own personal safety. Get the picture?

For the last 15 years, the US has ruled the world through force of arms. Well, guess what; other people have weapons too, and they’re ready to use them. That’s the meaning of Kuweires. Other nations are refusing to accept a model of global world disorder where one country unilaterally arms, trains and deploys homicidal jihadi psychopaths to achieve its own narrow geopolitical goals. That’s a model that is seriously broken and needs to be replaced ASAP.  This is the task to which Putin and his fellow terror-liquidators have applied themselves, and they’re doing a pretty fair job of it too.

In the last week, the Russian-led coalition has made great strides in ending this madness and turning the tide on the imperial project.   As a result, Washington has been forced to rethink its approach and adapt to the rapidly-changing conditions on the ground. The evidence of this is everywhere, like this goofy article which ran at Huffington Post on Thursday. Check it out:

Supported by U.S.-led airstrikes, Kurdish Iraqi troops on Thursday seized part of a highway that is used as a vital supply line by the Islamic State group, a key initial step in a major offensive to retake the strategic town of Sinjar from the militants….

Hours into Thursday’s operation, the Kurdish Regional Security Council said its forces controlled a section of Highway 47, which passes by Sinjar and indirectly links the militants’ two biggest strongholds — Raqqa in Syria and Mosul in northern Iraq — as a route for goods, weapons and fighters….

“By controlling Highway 47, which is used by Daesh to transport weapons, fighters, illicit oil and other commodities that fund their operations, the coalition intends to increase pressure … and isolate their components from each other,” a coalition statement said.

(“U.S.-Backed Kurds Launch Offensive To Retake ISIS-Held Iraqi Town Sinjar”, Huffington Post)

So they launched a major ground offensive and cut off ISIS vital supply lines?

What a novel idea? Too bad no one in Washington thought about that before wasting the last 18 months blowing up camels in the dessert or whatever the hell they were doing.   And why has the Pentagon been playing circlejerk for the last year and a half while these freaks raped women, lopped off heads and wreaked havoc across the countryside when they could have pulled the plug on them long ago?

“Why”? Let me explain “why”?

It’s because ISIS is Washington’s favorite windup toy. They just let these hooligans “Do their thing” as long as they advance US geopolitical goals and, when they’ve served their purpose,  they stomp them out like a stag beetle. That’s the basic program. That’s how it works. Only now that Putin has been mowing down these gobshite takfiris like a combine-harvester slashing thorough the corn patch, the Obama crew has had to move on to Plan B: Liquidate ISIS and hold-on to those areas that were under ISIS control. That will give Uncle Sam the territory he’s going to need to set up his “safe zones” that’ll be protected by US aircover and serve as sanctuaries for  more troublemaking sociopaths who can be deployed back into Syria to perpetuate the conflict deep into the future. That’s the US strategy in a nutshell.

Washington knows now that the war is lost, so it’s looking for a way to keep a foothold in Syria for future mischief. The same is true on the Turkish-Syrian border where Sultan Recep Tayyip Erdogan is conspiring with Obama to set up a buffer zone on Syrian territory. Check this out in Today’s Zaman:

In the run-up to the Nov. 1 election, signals were given that if the Justice and Development Party (AKP) won, Turkey might well start up a land military operation in Syria….

Looking at statements from top Ankara officials in the days prior to the upcoming G-20 summit in Antalya, it does appear that we’ll have action in Syria sometime soon. No matter how often government officials signal Ankara’s desire to cooperate in air operations over Syria, the real fact of the matter is, Ankara would like to see Turkish troops enter Syria by land in warfare situation….

Signals are now coming in fast and furious that Turkey will enter into this war. What’s more, the signals are not limited to AKP statements; the assumption is spreading in the West, too, that this will be Ankara’s course. (“Is war on the horizon?“, Today’s Zaman)

Erdogan is a megalomaniac and a menace which is why Putin  had better keep an eye on him. And the same goes for Obama too. Obama may be down, but he’s not out just yet. He still has a few more tricks up his sleeve and he’s sure to use them before this thing is over.  Even so,  the advantage definitely goes to Putin at this point. He took on the entire Washington braintrust and beat them at their own game.

Like him or not, you got to tip your hat to a guy like that.

President Obama has the constitutional power to shut down the prison there and return Guantanamo to Cuba.

Obama has yet to fulfill the promise he made in his January 22, 2009 executive order to shutter Guantanamo “no later than one year from the date of this order.” Any individuals remaining there at the time of closure, Obama wrote, “shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.”

After threatening to veto the final draft of the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) partly because it forbids the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States and tightens barriers to sending them to other countries, Obama caved. A White House spokesperson said Obama would sign the legislation, which passed overwhelmingly in the House and Senate. Bernie Sanders was one of three senators to vote against the bill.

Nearly seven years after Obama’s promise, 112 men remain at Guantanamo, half of whom have been cleared for release. Obama has released 54 prisoners and is reviewing the cases of others still being held.

In March 2011, Obama designated 46 men to remain in indefinite detention without trial, but promised periodic review of their cases. Arbitrary detention violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty the United States has ratified, making it part of U.S. law under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. constitution.

The periodic reviews didn’t start until November 2013, spurred by hunger strikes at the prison. The reviews continue to be conducted. As a result of those reviews, 14 additional men were cleared for release and five of them have been released.

In April 2013, Obama said, “I think it is critical for us to understand that Guantanamo is not necessary to keep America safe . . . It hurts us in terms of our international standing . . . It is a recruitment tool for extremists. It needs to be closed.” Yet it remains open.

One of the transfer restrictions required the secretary of defense to notify Congress 30 days before transfer that it would be good for national security. But to avoid being personally responsible if a detainee were to become a terrorist, former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel hesitated to allow transfers. Actually only seven percent of the detainees released during Obama’s tenure returned to terrorist activity as compared with 19 percent during Bush’s presidency.

Obama is reportedly preparing a plan to speed up transfers of half the remaining Guantanamo prisoners to their home countries or other willing nations. The plan will also set forth new security protocols to prevent detainees from returning to terrorist activities once released.

Military experts are conducting surveys of prisons in the United States for possible transfer of detainees. They include the military prison at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas; the Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, South Carolina; and the US supermax prison in Florence, Colorado.

In spite of the NDAA, Obama has the power to close Guantanamo. Former White House counsel Gregory Craig and Cliff Sloan, former special envoy for Guantanamo closure, maintain, “the president does not need Congress’s authorization to act.” They wrote in the Washington Post, “Under Article II of the Constitution, the president has exclusive authority to determine the facilities in which military detainees are held . . . The determination on where to hold detainees is a tactical judgment at the very core of the president’s role as commander in chief.”

According to Craig and Sloan, “Congress’s purported ban on funding any movement of detainees from Guantanamo Bay to the United States restricts where ‘law-of-war’ detainees can be held and prevents the president from discharging his constitutionally assigned function of making tactical military decisions. Accordingly, it violates the separation of powers.”

Lt. Col. David Frakt, who has represented Guantanamo detainees before the military commissions and in federal habeas corpus proceedings, concurs. “When the Obama administration really wants to transfer a detainee, they are quite capable of doing so,” Frakt wrote in JURIST. He said Obama should direct his attorney general to inform the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that the Department of Justice no longer considers the cleared detainees to be detainable.

Col. Morris Davis, former Chief Prosecutor for the Terrorism Trials at Guantanamo, personally charged Osama bin Laden’s driver Salim Hamdan, Australian David Hicks, and Canadian teen Omar Khadr. All three were convicted and have been released from Guantanamo. “There is something fundamentally wrong with a system where not being charged with a war crime keeps you locked away indefinitely and a war crime conviction is your ticket home,” Davis wrote to Obama.

Of the 780 men held at Guantanamo since 2002, only eight were tried and convicted of war crimes. Of those, just three remain at Guantanamo.

Many of the detainees reported being assaulted, prolonged shackling, sexual abuse, and threats with dogs. Australian lawyer Richard Bourke, who has represented several Guantanamo detainees, charged they have been subjected to “good old-fashioned torture.” Detainees who engage in hunger strikes are subjected to force-feeding, a practice the UN Human Rights Council has called torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. At least seven men have died at the prison camp.

The United States has illegally occupied Guantánamo since 1903, after Cuba’s war of independence against Spain. Cuba was forced to include the Platt Amendment in the Cuban constitution. The amendment granted the United States the right to intervene in Cuba as a prerequisite for the withdrawal of US troops from the rest of Cuba. That provision provided the basis for the 1903 Agreement on Coaling and Naval Stations, which gave the United States the right to use Guantánamo Bay “exclusively as coaling or naval stations, and for no other purpose.”

President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a new treaty with Cuba in 1934 that allows the United States to remain in Guantánamo Bay until the US abandons it or until both Cuba and the United States agree to modify their arrangement. According to that treaty, “the stipulations of [the 1903] agreement with regard to the naval station of Guantánamo shall continue in effect.” That means Guantánamo Bay can be used for nothing but coaling or naval stations. Article III of the 1934 treaty also says that Cuba leases Guantánamo Bay to the United States “for coaling and naval stations.” Nowhere in either treaty did Cuba give the US the right to utilize Guantánamo Bay as a prison camp.

Former Cuban president Fidel Castro has long maintained that Guantanamo is part of Cuba and that the US illegally occupies it. One of Cuban President Raul Castro’s requirements for normalization of relations with the United States is the return of Guantanamo to Cuba.

If there is probable cause to believe a detainee committed a crime, he should be sent to the United States for trial in federal court. The remaining detainees should be returned to their countries of origin or third countries if that is not feasible. After shuttering the prison camp, Obama should return Guantanamo Bay to Cuba, its rightful owner.

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Her most recent book is “Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues.” See www.marjoriecohn.com.

We, the West, overthrew Saddam by violence. We overthrew Gadafy by violence. We are trying to overthrow Assad by violence. Harsh regimes all — but far less draconian than our Saudi allies, and other tyrannies around the world. What has been the result of these interventions? A hell on earth, one that grows wider and more virulent year after year.

Without the American crime of aggressive war against Iraq — which, by the measurements used by Western governments themselves, left more than a million innocent people dead — there would be no ISIS, no “Al Qaeda in Iraq.” Without the Saudi and Western funding and arming of an amalgam of extremist Sunni groups across the Middle East, used as proxies to strike at Iran and its allies, there would be no ISIS. Let’s go back further. Without the direct, extensive and deliberate creation by the United States and its Saudi ally of a world-wide movement of armed Sunni extremists during the Carter and Reagan administrations (in order to draw the Soviets into a quagmire in Afghanistan), there would have been no “War on Terror” — and no terrorist attacks in Paris tonight.

Again, let’s be as clear as possible: the hellish world we live in today is the result of deliberate policies and actions undertaken by the United States and its allies over the past decades. It was Washington that led and/or supported the quashing of secular political resistance across the Middle East, in order to bring recalcitrant leaders like Nasser to heel and to back corrupt and brutal dictators who would advance the US agenda of political domination and resource exploitation.

The open history of the last half-century is very clear in this regard. Going all the way back to the overthrow of the democratic government of Iran in 1953, the United States has deliberately and consciously pushed the most extreme sectarian groups in order to undermine a broader-based secular resistance to its domination agenda.

Why bring up this “ancient history” when fresh blood is running in the streets of Paris? Because that blood would not be running if not for this ancient history; and because the reaction to this latest reverberation of Washington’s decades-long, bipartisan cultivation of religious extremism will certainly be more bloodshed, more repression and more violent intervention. Which will, in turn, inevitably, produce yet more atrocities and upheaval as we are seeing in Paris tonight.

I write in despair. Despair of course at the depravity displayed by the murderers of innocents in Paris tonight; but an even deeper despair at the depravity of the egregious murderers who have brought us to this ghastly place in human history: those gilded figures who have strode the halls of power for decades in the high chambers of the West, killing innocent people by the hundreds of thousands, crushing secular opposition to their favored dictators — and again, again and again — supporting, funding and arming some of the most virulent sectarians on earth.

And one further cause of despair: that although this historical record is there in the open, readily available from the most mainstream sources, it is and will continue to be completely ignored, both by the power-gamers and by the public. The latter will continue to support the former as they replicate and regurgitate the same old policies of intervention, the same old agendas of domination and greed, over and over and over again — creating ever-more fresh hells for us all to live in, and poisoning the lives of our children, and of all those who come after us.

An article in the Australian publication New Matilda gets to the real point about last night’s attacks in Paris – one that no one wants to talk about. What westerners feel right now is a powerful and very selective outrage that identifies with the suffering of people “like us”. We mourn the deaths in Paris while not even noticing those killed in Lebanon a day earlier and almost certainly by the same fanatics that launched the attacks in France.

Lots of westerners like to dismiss such observations as “whataboutery”. It is natural, they say, to care more about people we know and who are similar to us. That knee-jerk reaction may be comforting, but it is precisely the problem.

After all, what drives our selective outrage if not selective compassion? But our selective compassion is what got us into this mess in the first place. As Europeans we have always viewed ourselves as fully human, but seen those in the Middle East and much of the rest of the world as slightly less than human, and not quite as deserving of our sympathy. It is such feelings that allowed Europe to colonise, abuse and exploit brown people.

The historic racism that we Europeans are all too ready now to acknowledge, and that we understand fed western colonialism, is not a thing of the past. It still thrives deep in our souls. Where once we felt the white man’s burden, we now feel his outrage. Both depend on the same arrogance, and the same ascription of lesser human qualities to those we see as different from us.

We are still trying to civilise brown people. We still think we have the right to change them, bend them to our will, improve them by force. We still want to lecture them, condemn them, threaten them, overturn their elections, arm their oppressive leaders, plunder their resources.

And after we have destroyed their societies, we expect to be able to shut our borders to them as they make desperate journeys to find some peace, some safety away from the war zones in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and elsewhere we either created directly or supported with our money and arms.

Our racism has not changed. It is alive and creating new justifications for our selective compassion every day.

What has changed is that technological advances have made weapons of death and destruction ever easier and cheaper to acquire. Those we once oppressed with impunity and far from our homes, out of sight, can now find us and give us a taste of our own medicine.

If we want to stop the attacks, and avoid turning our own societies into the oppressive dictatorships we have supported across much of the rest of the globe, then we need to stop interfering, pillaging, manipulating and abusing. And we have to start by refusing to allow ourselves to identify more with the victims in Paris than those in Beirut. If we were really as civilised as we believe, we would understand that both are equally deserving of our compassion.

Note

https://newmatilda.com/2015/11/14/paris-attacks-highlight-western-vulnerability-and-our-selective-grief-and-outrage/

Yesterday night things changed in an instant in Paris. The available evidence suggest that the assaults were carried out by a professional killer group who used live bombs among other weapons. Today’s post by Pepe Escobar on his Facebook page sheds some light on symbolism and timimg of the massacre:

Scouring a ton of reports, I found a Danish citizen describing one of the attackers to a Paris café; ultra-pro, black-clad head to toe, AK-47, very well trained. These are not your usual al-Zawahiri underwear bombers; these are precision killers. This one left the scene undisturbed, and contrary to French police, may not have been captured. He wore no suicide vest.

French intel swears they are monitoring at least 200 nationals who came back from “Syraq”. Talk about a lousy job. Paris is hyper-policed. The mind boggles thinking of at least 8 jihadis promenading at will on a Friday night dressed as pro killers.

They picked a mix of heavily symbolic venues. You have a France-German match witnessed by the President in a stadium where all barriers – ethnic, religious – dissolve, a true symbol of multiculturalism. You have a gig by an American band in a concert hall filled with young people. You have your average, cool, neighborhood cafés in the 10eme and 11eme, young, hip, secular, bobo Paris hoods.

This points to a calibrated conceptual spectrum – carefully mapped out by French insiders; perhaps those “Syraq” returnees. This also points to a monumental fail by French intel and the Ministry of Interior.

Timing: crucial. Just as the US/Brits announce they “may” have evaporated with Jihad John. And a few hours before the Vienna talks are supposed to come up with an official Top Ten terrorist list in Syria.

As always, the honest response to the question cui bono might be the last (and perhaps major) victim of the 13/11 tragedy in Paris.

Several strong voices in favor of internal false flag version have already appeared, while the weak French government and secret services totally relying on ‘American partners’ are hardly possessing enough resources to orchestrate the drama of such scale.

The underline reading of the hot-caked Stratfor report on the Paris attacks (certainly presuming undoubtful and entire Islamic State involment) suggests that the American neocons want to see a bigger French boot on the ground in Syraq. (More elaboration on NATO’s mobilization as a result of 13/11 is done by Patrick Henningsen from 21st Century Wire .)  They were also not satisfied by the French resilence to fully tumble into the pan-European refugee turmoil and general public indifference to anti-Islamic provocateurs from Charlie Hebdo. The only side effect bothering Stratfor analysts is the apparent rise of Marine Le Pen which, according to them, should be nipped by setting Nikolas Sarkozy at the same electoral field.

As a matter of fact, the bloody night in Paris was launched to definitely bury the European project as it was originally seen in Paris and Berlin – economically powerful and politically sovereign concert of nations. The symbolism of attacks’ initiation near Stad du France during the France-Germany friendly match is obvious. We will not be surprised if the French investigation of the attack would discover a clear German trace of the perpetrators. The rules of the genre demand such storyline.

Very few in Europe are still taking seriously the immutable fact that the European Union allied with the Eurasian resourse base is even a bigger nightmare for the Wall Street owners than the established Russia-China alliance (please read more on the issue in our yesterday’s update Grandmaster Putin’s Trap-2). The incumbent Wall Street-controlled EU bureaucracy is rapidly loosing not only public support in the European countries (it is mauvais ton in Brussels to raise this question for long already), but of the local business elites and other power groups. Replacement of the old EU bureacracy by new representatives who would take the way of sovereignization of Europe was at the public request in the continent and seriously challenged the transatlantic partnership (didn’t you forget French trade minister Matthias Fekl threat to quit TTP talks last month?). Reinforcing the latter was the urgent task of the Wall Street political stooges on both sides of the ocean. Once the Ukrainian project factually failed and due to the notable shift in French approach towards the European Eastern policy, a foundation of the new transatlantic concensus was desperately needed. Black banner nearby Eiffel was virtually hoisted  on the screens to disguide people from much more acute issues: what is the real agenda behind destabilization of the Middle East and where do the European interests rest in this regard?

So cui bono from this attack? Pour quel profit, France?

The propaganda cartoon, distributed on Saturday by the USA Today confirms the conclusions of this commentary.

Within one hour of the Paris attacks and without any evidence, the story was set in stone that the perpetrator was ISIL. This is the way propagada works.

When the West does it, it always succeeds, because the world is accustomed to following the lead of the West. I was amazed to see, for example, Russian news services helping to spread the official story of the Paris attacks despite Russia herself having suffered so often from planted false stories.

Has the Russian media forgotten MH-17? The minute the story was reported that the Malaysian airliner was hit by a Russian missile over eastern Ukraine in the hands of separatists, the blame was ascribed to Russia. And that is where the blame remains despite the absence of evidence.

Has the Russian media also forgotten the “Russian invasion of Ukraine”? This preposterous story is accepted everywhere in the West as gospel.

Has the Russian media forgot about the book by the German newspaper editor who wrote that every European journalist of consequence was an asset of the CIA?

One would have thought that experience would have taught Russian media sources to be
careful about explanations that originate in the West.

So now we have what is likely to be another false story set in stone. Just as a few Saudis with box cutters outwitted the entire US national security state, ISIL managed to acquire unacquirable weapons and outwit French intelligence while organizing a series of attacks in Paris.

Why did ISIL do this? Blowback for France’s small role in Washington’s Middle East violence?
Why not the US instead?

Or was ISIL’s purpose to have the flow of refugees into Europe blocked by closed borders? Does ISIL really want to keep all of its opponents in Syria and Iraq when instead it can drive them out to Europe? Why have to kill or control millions of people by preventing their flight?

Don’t expect any explanations or questions from the media about the story that is set in stone.

The threat to the European political establishment is not ISIL. The threats are the rising anti-EU, anti-immigrant political parties: Pegida in Germany, the UK Independence Party, and the National Front in France. The latest poll shows the National Front’s Marine Le Pen leading as the likely French president.

Something had to be done about the hords of refugees from Washington’s wars, or the establishment political parties faced defeat at the hands of political parties that are also unfriendly to Europe’s subservience to Washington.

EU rules about refugees and immigrants and Germany’s acceptance of one million of the refugees, together with heavy criticism of those governments in Eastern Europe that wanted to put up fences to keep out the refugees, made closing borders impossible.

With the Paris terror attacks, what was impossible became possible, and the President of France immediately announced the closing of France’s borders. The border closings will spread. The main issue of the rising dissident political parties will be defused. The EU will be safe, and so will Washington’s sovereignty over Europe.

Whether or not the Paris attacks were a false flag operation for the purpose of obtaining these results, these results are the consequences of the attacks. These results serve the interests of the European political establishment and Washington.

Is ISIL so unsophisticated not to have realized that? If ISIL is that unsophisticated, how did ISIL so easily deceive French intelligence? Indeed, can French intelligence be intelligent?

Can Western peoples be intelligent to fall for a story set in stone prior to any evidence? In the West, facts are created by self-serving statements from governments. Investigation is not part of the process. When 90 percent of the US media is owned by six mega-corporations, it cannot be any different.

As The Matrix grows in the absurdity of its claims, it nevertheless manages to become even more invulnerable.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books areThe Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West and How America Was Lost.

We’ve heard this one before, but this time they are doubling down on this all-too familiar set piece.

Details are emerging after last night’s horrific events in Paris, and one particular item of investigation is all too familiar.

AFP, RT, Reuters, ITV, Sky News, AP, Fox News and Sputnik, are all reporting that a Syrian passport was found either on, or near, the body of one of the suicide bombers in Paris.

For those of you unaware, this story is a mirror image of another that surfaced on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.

Watch a video of this report here:

Apparently, according to CBS, “a passerby found the passport of one of the hijackers” on the street just hours after the 9/11 attacks.

Interestingly, in the same breath, a FOX News reporter speaking about the story says that the building it supposedly came from was completely engulfed in fire.

How would a passport survive the ordeal of being crashed into a building while inside a plane loaded with jet fuel?

This story was eventually buried and given very little coverage at all by media outlets.

This theme was repeated last January in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo Attack, when one of the alleged gunman’s ID card was magically left on the seat of their ‘get-away’ car. This convenient placement was used to establishment the ‘terrorists link’ to Yemen and the illusive “al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula”.

However, with events in Paris, mainstream media seems to be doubling down on this latest ‘magic passport’ story.

Chaos on the streets last night.

With ISIS already allegedly claiming responsibility, and Hollande saying this is an act of war, this supposed Syrian passport will probably be used as the physical evidence required to condone an attack on Syria.

Instead of blindingly accepting this story from French authorities, mainstream media would do themselves far better by asking the following questions:

Was the passport found on, or nearby, the suicide bomber? If it was not physically on their person, it is possible that is did not belong to them.

Speaking of not belonging to them, just because someone is in possession of an object does not necessarily make them the owner of it.

Who exactly found this passport? Is the passport real? If it is real, is it valid?

When was the passport last used to make entry into France?

What condition is the passport in?

Is it possible that the passport was planted by a third party?

Could the passport have ever survived in the conditions under which it was supposedly exposed to?

These are all questions that any real investigator should, and hopefully will, be asking. The consequences of this alleged Syrian passport being used as evidence can only be dire.

With Russian operations intensifying in Syria, any Western escalation could have serious ramifications and heightens the potential for wider, if not global, conflict.

A huge fire has broken out at the vast ‘Jungle’ refugee camp near the French port of Calais, just hours after a string of bloody attacks struck Paris, leaving over 100 dead. The Calais deputy mayor told RT that the authorities are trying to tackle the blaze.

 As predicted and previously reported, terrorists who took part in an unprecedented attack in the center of Paris killing over a 100 and injuring hundreds more, were well-known to French security agencies before the attack took place.

The UK Daily Mail reported in its article, “Hunt for the Isis killers: One terrorist identified as ‘young Frenchman known to authorities’ – another two found with Syrian and Egyptian passports,” that:

One of the terrorists involved in last night’s attacks in Paris has been officially identified as a Parisian, according to local media reports.

The man, who was killed at the Bataclan, was identified using his fingerprints and was from the southern Parisian neighbourhood of Courcouronnes.

French reports say that the man, who was around 30 years old, was already known to French anti-terrorist authorities prior to last night’s attacks. (emphasis added)

Similarly in January 2015 in the wake of the “Charlie Hebo attack” which left 12 dead, it was revealed that French security agencies tracked the perpetrators for nearly a decade beforehand, having arrested at least one terrorist a total of two times, incarcerating him at least once, tracked two of them overseas where they had trained with known terrorist organizations and possibly fought alongside them in Syria, before tracking them back to French territory.Astoundingly, French security agencies never moved in on the terrorists, claiming that after a decade of tracking them, they had finally decided to close their case for precisely the amount of time needed for them to plan and execute their grand finale.

More Wars and More Surveillance Can’t Help  

With a similar scenario now emerging, particularly in the wake of the “Charlie Hebo attack,” where French security agencies knew about extremists but failed to stop them before carrying out yet another high-profile attack, even with enhanced surveillance powers granted to them by recent legislation, it appears that no amount of intrusive surveillance or foreign wars will stem a terrorist problem the French government itself seems intent on doing nothing to stop.The problem is not France’s immigration laws. Dangerous people are in France, but they are being tracked by French security agencies. The problem is not Syria. Terrorists have left to fight there, acquired deadly skills and affiliations before returning to France, but have likewise been tracked by French security agencies. Instead, the problem is that French security agencies are doing nothing about these dangerous individuals knowingly living, working, and apparently plotting in the midst of French society.In the coming hours and days, the French government and its various co-conspirators in their proxy war against Syria will propose a plan of action they claim will stem the terrorist threat France and the rest of Europe faces. But the reality is, the problem is not something the French government can solve, because the problem is clearly the French government itself.

ISIS is Behind the Paris Attacks, But Who is Behind ISIS? 

With the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS) emerging as being behind the attack, the question that remains is, who is behind ISIS itself? While the West has attempted to maintain the terrorist organization possesses almost mythological abilities, capable of sustaining combat operations against Syria, Iraq, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, support from Iran, and now the Russian military – all while carrying out large-scale, high-profile terrorist attacks across the globe – it is clear that ISIS is the recipient of immense multinational state-sponsorship.

The rise of ISIS was revealed as early as 2007 in interviews conducted by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his 9-page report “The Redirection.” The interviews revealed a plan to destabilize and overthrow the government of Syria through the use of sectarian extremists – more specifically, Al Qaeda – with arms and funds laundered through America’s oldest and stanchest regional ally, Saudi Arabia.

A more recent Department of Intelligence Agency (DIA) report drafted in 2012 (.pdf) admitted:

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).

The DIA report enumerates precisely who these “supporting powers” are:

The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.

And to this day, by simply looking at any number of maps detailing territory held by various factions amid the Syrian conflict, it is clear that ISIS is not a “state” of any kind, but an ongoing invasion emanating from NATO-member Turkey’s territory, with its primary supply corridor crossing the Turkish-Syrian borderbetween the Syrian town of Ad Dana and the western bank of the Euphrates River, a supply corridor now increasingly shrinking.

Image: ISIS-held territory seen in dark grey forms a corridor directly up to the Syrian-Turkish border – or more accurately, begins at the Turkish-Syrian border. In recent days, this corridor has faced being completely cut off by joint Syrian-Russian gains in and around Aleppo and toward the western bank of the Euphrates River. East of the Euphrates is already held by Kurds and Syrian forces. NATO is clearly providing ISIS’ primary support, and yet ISIS is alleged to have been behind an attack on a NATO member.

 

In fact, the desperation exhibited by the West and its efforts to oust the Syrian government and salvage its proxy force now being decimated by joint Syrian-Russian military operations, is directly proportional to the diminishing size and stability of this corridor.

Just last week, Syrian forces reestablished firm control over the Kweyris military airport, which was under siege for years. The airport is just 20 miles from the Euphrates, and, as Syrian forces backed by Russian airpower work their way up toward the Turkish border along the Syrian coast, constitutes a unified front that will essentially cut off ISIS deeper inside Syria for good.

Should ISIS’ supply lines be cut in the north, the organization’s otherwise inexplicable fighting capacity will atrophy. The window for the West’s “regime change” opportunity is quickly closing, and perhaps in a last ditch effort, France has jammed the spilled blood and broken bodies of its own citizens beneath the window to prevent it from closing for good.

The reality is that France knew the “Charlie Hebo” attackers, they knew beforehand those involved in the most recent Paris attack, and they likely know of more waiting for their own opportunity to strike. With this knowledge, they stood by and did nothing. What’s more, it appears that instead of keeping France safe, the French government has chosen to use this knowledge as a weapon in and of itself against the perception of its own people, to advance its geopolitical agenda abroad.

If the people of France want to strike hard at those responsible for repeated terrorist attacks within their borders, they can start with those who knew of the attacks and did nothing to stop them, who are also, coincidentally, the same people who helped give rise to ISIS and help perpetuate it to this very day.

This article first published in May 2015 is of significance in relation to the Paris terror attacks.

Did France’s new surveillance laws adopted in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo terror attacks set the stage for the enactment by President Hollande of a State of Emergency suspending fundamental civil rights on November 13th, 2015. 

Can a new surveillance law help stop terrorists the government is already tracking and simply choosing not to stop? 

France has announced that in the wake of the so-called “Charlie Hebdo Shooting,” it will be passing a controversial new bill granting security agencies unprecedented powers to tap the communications of France’s population without judicial overview.

Impossible to pass without having first provoked fear, hatred, division, and hysteria across the French population, and still facing stiff resistance from civil liberty activists, the bill’s passage raises further suspicions regarding the fatal January 2015 shooting in regards to who organized the incident and who stood most to benefit.

The Guardian in its article, “France passes new surveillance law in wake of Charlie Hebdo attack,” would report:

The French parliament has overwhelmingly approved sweeping new surveillance powers in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris in January that killed 17 people at the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and a kosher grocery in Paris.

The new bill, which allows intelligence agencies to tap phones and emails without seeking permission from a judge, sparked protests from rights groups who claimed it would legalise highly intrusive surveillance methods without guarantees for individual freedom and privacy.

The Guardian would also claim that:

The French prime minister, Manuel Valls, defended the bill as “necessary and proportionate”, saying that to compare it to the mass surveillance Patriot Act introduced in the United States after the 9/11 attacks was a lie.

He said that the previous French law on wiretapping dated back to 1991, “when there were no mobile phones or internet,” and the new bill was crucial in the face of extremist threats.

Not a Lack of Surveillance 

As seen in nearly every recent terror attack both in Europe and North America including the “Charlie Hebdo shooting” and the more recent Garland, Texas attack, the alleged suspects behind the attacks all have one thread in common – they were all already under the watch of security agencies for years, some even imprisoned one or more times for terror-related and/or other violent offenses, some even having traveled overseas to fight alongside Western-backed terrorists in Syria, Iraq, and beyond.

The Guardian itself admits that the French government alone has over 1,400 people under watch, including hundreds of terrorists who have recently returned from fighting alongside Western-backed terrorists including Al Qaeda and its regional franchise, the “Islamic State” (ISIS) in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Among these monitored potential risks were in fact the suspects behind the “Charlie Hebdo shooting.”

Slate Magazine would report in their article, “The Details of Paris Suspect Cherif Kouachi’s 2008 Terrorism Conviction,” that:

Kouachi was arrested in January 2005, accused of planning to join jihadists in Iraq. He was said to have fallen under the sway of Farid Benyettou, a young “self-taught preacher” who advocated violence, but had not actually yet traveled to Iraq or committed any acts of terror. Lawyers at the time said he had not received weapons training and “had begun having second thoughts,” going so far as to express “relief” that he’d been apprehended.

Kourachi and his brother would be reported to have traveled to the Middle East to receive training from Al Qaeda, then to have fought in Syria in a war backed in part by France, before returning home and carrying out their grisly terror attack, all while being tracked by French intelligence.

As already explained in painstaking detail, had the French government been interested in actually stopping terrorism, including the flight of its own citizens to the Middle East to participate in a war the French government itself is backing, it could have done so easily. Existing laws and France’s current security agencies successfully identified the impending threat that led to the “Charlie Hebdo shooting,” but willfully failed to stop it – with certain factions of French intelligence having even played a potential role in executing it.Therefore, clearly the solution to stopping terrorism is in fact evicting the criminal special interests occupying power throughout the French government, and more broadly, from across the Western World. However, such an eviction will now become exponentially more difficult to execute, thanks to France’s new surveillance laws that give them virtually unhindered access to their citizenry’s data, granting them an unparalleled strategic advantage.

Indeed, France’s new surveillance laws will not stop terrorism at home nor quell the legions of terror they are backing, ravaging lands abroad – instead – they will ensure the uncontested expansion of terror used to coerce the French population at home while justifying and carrying out extraterritorial conquest abroad.

On November 13, a series of terror attacks in the heart of Paris left at least 153 dead and paralyzed the French capital with fear. 200 people were wounded. From 8 to 10 extremists dead following the attack.

The attacks were clearly coordinated, took place in multiple locations and involved different methods:

• Two suicide bombers detonated their explosives at locations near the Stade de France, where a soccer match between France and Germany was taking place. French President Francois Hollande was at the stadium at the time of the attack.
• Gunmen opened fire on a Cambodian restaurant in a drive-by shooting.
• Shots were also fired at the Bataclan concert hall, where terrorists held up to 100 hostages.
• Then, gunmen also opened fire on Rue de Charonne.
• About an hour after the initial attacks, attacks by other terrorist cells took place at the Louvre and Les Halles.

French President Francoise Hollande declared a national state of emergency and shut its borders. Special police units, including RAID, a police intervention unit, and French military have been rapidly mobilized and deployed in the Greater Paris area.

When the Paris police stormed the Bataclan concert hall, three of the attackers were killed after letting off their suicide belts, while the fourth was shot and killed by police. According to media reports, over 100 people died and at least a dozen suffered injuries as a result of the siege.

On Saturday, Paris closed down its public spaces in response to terror attacks.

Though shocking, the attacks are not completely surprising. Multiple individuals from France and other European countries have joined terrorist groups to Syria and Iraq. The attacks have demonstrated there is a constant risk of terrorist attacks within Europe.

The Friday’s carnage was likely well coordinated and planned. Thus, the attackers could receive instruction or assistance from groups such as ISIS or al Qaeda.

Furthermore, the recent migration crisis in Europe highlights the risk that jihadist groups could have placed some of their members among the large refugee flow to conduct attacks in Europe.

From a social perspective, the attacks could lead to rising domestic tensions between French nationals and migrants.  Just hours after the Friday attacks, a huge fire broke out at the ‘Jungle’ refugee camp near the French port of Calais.

The origin of the fire is unknown. No deaths were reported.

With the media largely focusing on the Paris attacks, this tragic event has not been the object of significant news coverage.

The human rights and Palestine solidarity organisation BDS South Africa is greatly shocked and saddened by the horrific attacks in Paris and Beirut. The attacks have shaken not just France and Lebanon, but the whole world.

BDS South Africa have begun to communicate and convey its condolences with counter parts in France and Lebanon. BDS South Africa has recent fond memories of the love, warmth and solidarity shown by the French when one of our BDS SA leaders recently visited, toured and addressed university students during the 2015 Israeli Apartheid Week campaign.

We have also communicated our solidarity and condolences to our French volunteers in South Africa who have added greatly to our local solidarity work for Palestine, especially in Cape Town.

It is a terrible day for the world and for humanity. BDS South Africa joins the peoples of the world in calling for peace and justice. We condemn extremism and barbarity, be it the extremism and barbarity of Netanyahu and Israel or that of ISIS and Boko Haram.

BDS South Africa sends its deepest condolences to the families and friends of those brutally murdered and to the people of France and Lebanon.

We mourn with you our dear friends and comrades in Lebanon and France.

ISSUED BY KWARA KEKANA ON BEHALF OF BDS SOUTH AFRICA

Far-right, former IDF colonel, racist MK Moti Yogev wants family members of Palestinians accused of attacking Jews (true or false) placed in internment camps.

Will death camp recommendations follow? He claims punishing families will deter their children from allegedly harming Jews.

“There are (various) means of deterrence, such as banishing families of murderers to the Judean Desert – something that’s possible by law – and the creation of a type of Holot (internment camp) run by the military police,” he blustered.

It would be understood by every son that he doesn’t want this to happen to his father, mother, sisters and brothers. I have no doubt that this could be a very big deterrent.

Yogev is one of many lunatic fringe Israeli politicians, racist Arab haters. During earlier Israeli instigated Al-Aqsa Mosque violence, he was filmed screaming at a Palestinian woman, telling her to “go to the grave. You will not pass here, only Jews!”

He vowed Israel will “deal with the terror (sic) with an iron fist.” He’s a vocal advocate of unlimited settlement construction.

Following Israel’s High Court ruling upholding the demolition of two illegally built settler West Bank buildings, he railed against the decision, saying “(w)e have to take the (oversized) blade of a (Caterpillar) D9 (bulldozer used for illegal Palestinian home demolitions) to the High Court of Justice” building.

We as a legislative system (must) rein in judicial rule (to show) the Knesset and government…rule(s) in Israel (and) the judiciary will know its place.

Numerous other Israeli officials match Yogev’s extremism. Ultranationalist education minister Naftali Bennett approves of settlers shooting Palestinians, saying “(a)gainst the cowardly Arab terrorism, a wave of Jewish courage is rising to defeat it.”

Bennett once notoriously bragged about “kill(ing) lots of Arabs in my life. There’s no problem with that,” he said. Justice minister Ayelet Shaked openly endorsed genocide in June 2014, calling “the entire Palestinian people (Israel’s) enemy.” She demanded Palestinian mothers be massacred to prevent them from giving birth to “little snakes.”

She encouraged settlers to “eliminate the enemy.” Deputy defense minister, settler rabbi Eli Ben-Dahan called Palestinians “beasts. They are not human,” he railed.

Deputy foreign minister Tzipi Hotovely says all parts of historic Palestine belong to Israel. “This land is ours” exclusively. “All of it is ours.”

MK Yinon Magal says it’s “important to make an effort so that terrorists (sic) who carry out (alleged) attacks are not left alive.” Netanyahu openly urges “a fight to the death against Palestinian terror” – defined as anyone openly resisting Israeli ruthlessness.

Israel’s Muslim hating culture of violence is capable of most anything. Defense Minister Ya’alon wants Gaza turned into an island, isolated, besieged and surrounded on all sides by water.

His scheme involves digging a deep trench along the Israeli/Gaza border, filling it with seawater, preventing nonexistent infiltration into Israel.

Around 150 heavy duty bulldozers are involved in the project, Israel’s “groove to be connected to the Egyptian” one when completed, encircling Gaza on all sides by water, destroying choice Palestinian farmland in the process.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at[email protected].

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

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

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

Multiple likely well-planned Friday night attacks in Paris had a disturbing aroma to them – including France’s knee-jerk police state reaction. Here’s what happened.

At least seven apparently well-coordinated attacks occurred, gunmen with automatic weapons and suicide belts killing over 150 victims. Many others were injured. Stade de France stadium was struck during a football (soccer) match between France and Germany.

So was the Bataclan theater during a concert, restaurants full of patrons, a cinema, and pedestrians on Bichat Street, the Avenue de la Republique and Boulevard Beaumarchais.

Reports indicated other Paris locations were attacked, including the Forum des Halles shopping area attracting an estimated 150,000 daily visitors.

The predictable aftermath so far includes French President Francois Hollande declaring a state of emergency – effectively suspending constitutional rights under martial law.

“Two decisions will be taken,” Hollande announced. “The state of emergency will be decreed, which means several places will be closed off, and traffic will be limited in certain areas.”

The state of emergency will apply across the country. The second decision I have taken is to close the borders, so that the people who have committed these crimes can be apprehended.

We know where this attack came from. We must show compassion and solidarity, but we must also show we are united. There is much to fear, but we must face these fears as a nation that knows how to muster its forces and will confront the terrorists.

Heavily armed French soldiers were deployed around key Parisian locations. Five metro lines were shut. Orly airport flights were suspended. All city schools and universities were closed.

De facto martial law legitimizes repressive police state powers. Constitutional protections are suspended. Following the April 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, a no-fly zone was ordered over a 3.5 mile radius of the incident.

Swat teams conducted pre-dawn raids throughout the greater area. Residents were terrorized. Helicopters patrolled overhead. Police and FBI operatives were everywhere. Managed news misinformation substituted for accurate reporting.

Post-9/11, Bush claimed unconstitutional “unitary executive” authority to govern extrajudicially in the name of national security.

He declared (phony) war on terror and hot war on Afghanistan. Iraq, Libya, Syria, Donbass and Yemen followed. Police state laws were enacted – still in force. Repressive National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directives were announced.

Hollande cancelled his G-20 summit participation, scheduled for November 15 and 16 in Turkey. It’s unclear if Obama will attend. The world’s leading perpetrator of state terrorism offered France “full support,” duplicitously saying America shares the bonds of “liberte, egalite and fraternite.”

US post-9/11 knee-jerk reaction blamed bin Laden and Al Qaeda for the attack – the mother of all Big Lies, we now know.

ISIS was automatically blamed for the Paris attacks – despite no evidence so far establishing responsibility. Official statements, actions and media hype created an atmosphere of fear, a likely public willingness to sacrifice freedom for so-called security, a rationale for harsh measures to try stemming the human refugee flood caused by US-led imperial wars, and a desire for revenge.

Perhaps the stage is set for escalated Western wars OF terror instead of unity to battle the scourge of ISIS and likeminded groups. Were Friday attacks state-sponsored terrorism – a carefully staged false flag for whatever may follow?

Herman Goering once explained how easy it is to get people to go along with “the bidding of the leaders…All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country,” he said.

Friday Paris attacks were either blowback for Western wars on Islam or a state-sponsored false flag. Odds strongly favor the latter. Western history of false flags for subsequent planned events suggests it.

On September 20, 2001, George Bush lied to Congress and the public, claiming America was attacked because we are “a beacon of freedom.” The attackers were “evil. This is civilization’s fight.” He suppressed Washington’s direct responsibility for what happened, perhaps complicit with Israel’s Mossad.

The aftermath of 9/11 is clear – endless US-led imperial wars, a phony Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), an assault on fundamental human and civil rights, police state harshness replacing them, an America unfit to live in.

Will France and other European countries become more belligerent and repressive than already in response to Friday’s incident?

Were Washington and perhaps Israel’s dirty hands involved in what happened?

Daesh (ISIS/ISIL/IS) is such an easy target to blame. It’s simple getting most people to believe it unquestionably.

The Big Lie repeated often enough works the same way every time. ISIS is the new “Enemy Number One.” Its creation by Washington and use as proxy foot soldiers is suppressed.

Was Friday’s Paris incident prelude to something similar planned for New York, Washington, and/or other US cities?

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

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

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

Netanyahu sounds out Obama on recognising annexation of Syrian territory as test drill promises energy independence

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took advantage of a private meeting this week with Barack Obama – their first in 13 months – to raise the possibility of dismembering Syria.

According to Israeli officials, Netanyahu indicated that Washington should give its belated blessing to Israel’s illegal annexation of the Golan Heights, captured from Syria during the 1967 war.

Sources close to the talks told the Haaretz daily that Netanyahu claimed Syria was no longer a functioning state, allowing “for different thinking”. Since 2011 the government of Bashar al-Assad has faced off against rebel factions that include al-Qaeda-affiliated groups and the Islamic State (IS).

On Wednesday an unnamed White House official confirmed that Netanyahu had raised the matter. The official said: “I think the president didn’t think it warranted an answer. It wasn’t clear how serious he [Netanyahu] was about it.”

However, it appears Netanyahu’s comments to Obama are part of a coordinated effort by Israeli officials over several months to shift thinking in Washington.

The day before Netanyahu’s meeting at the White House, Michael Oren, Israel’s former ambassador to the US, published a commentary on CNN’s website urging Obama to consider Israeli sovereignty over the Golan.

Had Israel handed back the area to Syria in earlier peace talks, he wrote, it “would today have placed [the Lebanese militia] Hezbollah directly above Israeli cities and villages in northern Galilee” and Islamic State (ISIS) “would be dug in on the Sea of Galilee’s eastern shore”.

Neither Oren nor presumably Netanyahu highlighted another reason why Israel might be anxious to gain US approval of its annexation of the Golan, which it imposed in violation of international law in 1981.

‘Billions of barrels’

Last month Afek, an Israeli subsidiary of Genie Energy, a US oil company, announced that it had found considerable reserves of oil under the Golan. Genie’s chief geologist in Israel, Yuval Bartov, said the company believed the reservoir had the “potential of billions of barrels”.

International law experts say any proceeds from such a find in the Golan should revert to Syria, but Israel has so far indicated it will ignore its legal obligations.

The Israeli energy and water ministry has licensed Afek to drill 10 experimental wells over three years in a 400-square kilometre area, about a third of the Golan’s total territory.

Afek claims that the discoveries it has identified in its first year could make Israel energy independent, satisfying Israel’s consumption of 100 million barrels a year for the foreseeable future.

That would be on top of Israel’s recent finds of huge quantities of natural gas off its Mediterranean coast, offering it the chance to become a gas exporter.

Were the US to recognise Israel’s illegal annexation of the Golan, it would likely clear the way for Israel to plunder any economically viable reserves located there.

Netanyahu appears to have long harboured an interest in tapping the Golan’s potential for oil.

In 1996, in his first term as prime minister, he granted approval for drilling in the Golan by the Israeli National Oil Company. International pressure meant the permit had to be withdrawn soon afterwards.

Resources plundered

Today, 22,000 Syrian Druze live in five villages, alongside a similar number of Jews in 30 illegal settlements.

A 2010 investigation by the Haaretz newspaper revealed that Israel had carried out systematic expulsions of some 130,000 Syrians in 1967 and destroyed 200 villages. The Druze alone were allowed to stay so as not to upset Israel’s own Druze citizens.

Nizar Ayoub, director of Marsad, a Druze human rights centre based in the Golan, said Israel had long taken resources from the Golan.

“Israel has always treated the Golan as a territory to be exploited and plundered, from its water to farming and tourism,” he told Middle East Eye. “Israel has simply ignored its obligations under international law.”

Rainwater from the Golan feeds into the Jordan River, supplying a third of Israel’s needs. The fertile volcanic soil allows Israel to cultivate vineyards and orchards, and graze cattle. And the mountain terrain has also made it a magnet for holidaying, including skiing on Mount Hermon.

In recent years Israel has approved the construction of a series of large wind farms.

Ayoub said Israel had taken advantage of the conflict in Syria to advance oil exploration in the Golan, but such a move was rejected by the local Druze population.

“Even if Netanyahu could persuade the Americans to agree [about recognition], it is not their decision to make. The only people who can decide to change the sovereignty of the Golan are the Syrian people,” he said.

Quadrupling Jewish settlers

Officials close to Netanyahu have been promoting a change of status in the Golan’s since the early summer.

In June Naftali Bennett, leader of the pro-settler party Jewish Home and the education minster in Netanyahu’s current coalition, raised the question of the Golan’s future at the Herzliya conference, an annual meeting of Israel’s political, academic and security elites. The conference is also attended by senior US officials.

Bennett urged the international community “to demonstrate their ethics” by recognising Israeli sovereignty in the Golan.

He added: “To this day, no state in the world has recognised the Golan as part of Israel, including our friend, the United States of America. It is time the world stand by the right side – Israel’s side.”

Israel would try to quadruple the Golan’s settler population to 100,000 using financial incentives, he said.

A month later Zvi Hauser, Netanyahu’s former cabinet secretary, wrote a commentary in Haaretz arguing that Israel should seize its first chance since 1967 “to conduct a constructive dialogue with the international community over a change in Middle Eastern borders”.

Recognition of Israeli sovereignty in the Heights could, he said, be presented as serving a “global interest in stabilising the region”.

Hauser added that Israel should demand the Golan as “compensation” for Obama’s recent nuclear agreement with Iran. Such a claim could be based, he said, on a 1975 “pledge” from US President Gerald Ford recognising Israel’s “need to remain on the Golan Heights, even in peacetime”.

In his CNN piece last Sunday, Oren, a widely respected figure in Washington, asserted that, without Israeli sovereignty over Golan, Iran and Hezbollah would become a base from which to launch armed attacks on Israel.

“For the first time in more than 40 years, the Golan could again become a catalyst for war,” he wrote.

He added that Israel had “transformed this once-barren war zone into a hub of high-tech agriculture, world-class wineries and pristine nature reserves”. He did not mention the recent oil find.

Israel’s ‘solidified grip’

Before fighting took hold in Syria, polls showed between 60 and 70 percent of Israelis rejected returning the Golan to Syria, even if doing so would secure peace with Damascus. The percentages are likely to be higher now.

The White House official told Haaretz that recognition of Israel’s annexation would disrupt US policy by suggesting that Syrian opposition forces supported by the US were “allies with people who want to give up the Golan”.

However, a recent commentary by Frederic Hof, a Syria expert in the State Department under Hillary Clinton, hinted that US officials might yet change their view.

He said US efforts before 2011 and the outbreak of fighting to pressure Israel to give up the Golan, as part of talks over a peace treaty with Assad, had been proven “so wrong”. Instead, the war in Syria had “solidified Israel’s grip” on the Golan.

On its website, Genie’s subsidiary Afek claims that its drilling in the occupied Golan Heights will extract “Israeli oil”.

The two companies include figures who have close personal ties to Netanyahu and high-level influence in Washington.

Genie’s founder, Howard Jonas, an American Jewish millionaire, made political contributions to Netanyahu’s recent campaign for the Likud party’s primaries.

Its “strategic advisory board” includes Dick Cheney, the US vice-president under George Bush and widely regarded as the architect of the American invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Media tycoon Rupert Murdoch is also an adviser. He controls large sections of the rightwing English-language media, including his most influential outlet, the US TV news station Fox News.

In September, Genie added Larry Summers, a senior official under Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Obama, and James Woolsey, a former CIA director who became a neo-conservative cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq.

The chairman of Afek, Genie’s Israeli subsidiary, is Effi Eitam, a far-right former general and cabinet minister who lives in an illegal settlement in the Golan.

His far-right views include demands to expel both Palestinians from the occupied territories and the large minority of Palestinian citizens from Israel.

After Eitam exited the Israeli parliament in 2009, Netanyahu sent him as a “special emissary” to US campuses as part of a “caravan for democracy”.

International law violated

Hala Khoury Bisharat, an international law professor at Carmel Academic College, near Haifa, said it would be hard to persuade the US to recognise Israel’s illegal annexation of the Golan.

“International law is clear that it is never admissable to acquire territory through war,” she told MEE. “It would be very problematic for the US to do this.”

She added that Israel, as an occupier, was obliged by the 1907 Hague regulations to “safeguard the capital” of the occupied party’s natural resources and was not entitled to exploit any oil in the Golan for its own benefit.

The prime minister’s office was unavailable to comment about Netanyahu’s discussions with Obama, or respond to accusations that the operations in the Golan were violating international law.

Since its establishment, Israel has drilled some 530 exploratory wells, but none has produced commercially viable quantities of oil.

Israel briefly had access to significant quantities of oil after the 1967 war, when fields it occupied in the Sinai supplied two-thirds of domestic needs. Israel was eventually forced to hand the wells back to Egypt.

Meanwhile, Israel has discovered large natural gas deposits in the Mediterranean, stoking tensions with neighbouring countries, especially Lebanon, which has claimed that Israel is drilling in areas where maritime borders are disputed.

The Israeli courts are unlikely to place any obstacles in the way of drilling operations in the Golan.

In a ruling in late 2011, Israel’s supreme court created a new principle of “prolonged occupation” to justify the theft of Palestinian resources, such as quarried stone, in the West Bank. The precedent could be extended to the Golan.

The only opposition so far has come from Israeli environmental groups. They have expressed concern that extraction of the oil, especially if fracking is used, could pollute aquifers or trigger earthquakes in a seismically unstable region.

Yuval Arbel, a ground water expert with Friends of the Earth Israel, said the Golan’s deposits were likely to be in the form of “tight oil,” making it difficult to extract. Israel would probably have to set up a grid of drills every half kilometre.

He told MEE that would increase the chances of oil spillages that could leak into the nearby Sea of Galilee, threatening Israel’s main source of drinking water.